[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6949-S6959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

           By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2737. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consolidate and 
improve the trade adjustment assistance programs, to provide community-
based economic development assistance for trade-affected communities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2002.
  You may ask why I am introducing this new bill now. After all, only 
about a month ago the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002, a bill which 
prominently features a landmark expansion and improvement of the 
current Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
  We all know that work on that trade bill is not yet complete. And I 
continue working diligently to get that bill through the conference 
process and on to the President's desk just as soon as possible.
  Indeed, I am frustrated that so much time has been lost on this bill. 
Five weeks in the House as they worked through a very unusual process 
of appointing conferees. More time in the Senate while Republicans 
blocked efforts to get the bill to conference.
  The TAA provisions in the trade bill that passed the Senate back in 
May are solid and important. They represent a huge improvement over 
current law. It is critical to remember, however, that they are the 
product of compromise, a compromise that was reached between Democrats 
and Republicans in the Senate and with the Administration.
  In my view, the Senate-passed TAA reforms represent a good first step 
toward making TAA work for American workers. But we could do better. 
And we should do better.
  That is why I am here introducing new TAA legislation today. I think 
American workers should know that my commitment to improve TAA will not 
end after we pass the current trade bill.
  This new bill includes a number of provisions not included in H.R. 
3009, the bill that passed the Senate. I would like to summarize a few 
of the most important new provisions now.
  First, this bill makes training a full entitlement under TAA.
  Under current law, TAA income support is an individual entitlement, 
but the training entitlement is subject to a funding cap. When funds 
run out, as they frequently do, workers cannot get the training to 
which they are entitled. In some cases, this results in denial of 
income support as well.
  While H.R. 3009 raises the funding cap in an attempt to eliminate 
funding shortfalls for TAA training, I think this bill takes an even 
better approach. After all, TAA is fundamentally a retraining program. 
It just makes sense to make the same commitment to fully fund training 
that we already do to income support.
  Second , this bill broadens the scope of eligibility to additional 
groups of trade-impacted workers who were dropped from TAA in the 
compromise language passed by the Senate. This includes, most 
importantly, a much broader definition of secondary workers.
  In particular, this bill includes full TAA eligibility for downstream 
secondary workers, rather than limiting that eligibility to workers 
impacted by NAFTA.
  It also includes coverage for workers who provide services under 
contract to trade-impacted firms and to truckers who may be adversely 
affected by the opening of the border to Mexican trucking services. In 
sum, this bill aims to make sure that every worker who loses his job as 
a result of trade gets fair and equitable access to services under TAA.
  Third, this bill creates an easy and efficient process for providing 
TAA benefits on an industry-wide rather than firm-by-firm basis. We all 
know that there are industries in this country, like softwood lumber, 
steel, and textiles, just to name a few, that are experiencing 
declining employment on a national basis as a direct consequence of 
trade.
  The bill addresses the problem two ways. In cases where an industry 
has already demonstrated adverse trade effects in a section 201 or 
``safeguard'' investigation, the President must provide industry-wide 
TAA certification as part of the remedy.
  It also requires the Secretary of Labor to use an industry-wide 
approach to certification in other industries when there is evidence 
that trade-related worker displacements are national in scope.
  Finally, we restore the 75 percent health care tax credit for TAA 
participants that was reduced to 70 percent in the compromise trade 
bill. We also give workers additional choices for obtaining health care 
coverage.
  Without strong and meaningful improvements in the TAA program, I 
think we would not have seen the wide, bipartisan support for the 
overall trade bill that allowed it to pass the Senate by a vote of 66-
30.
  For that reason, I view the Senate-passed TAA bill as a floor for 
what can reasonably be agreed to in conference. I don't think that 
something weaker is going to get us to a majority when the Senate 
considers the conference report.
  As I mentioned before, many of the provisions included in this new 
bill were dropped from the trade bill that recently passed the Senate 
as part of a bipartisan compromise. Many, if not all, of them fall 
easily within the scope of the upcoming conference.
  While I plan to vigorously defend the Senate bill in conference, I 
want to remind my colleagues in the House that the Senate bill already 
represents a bipartisan compromise, one worked out with the 
Administration.
  In passing the rule to go to conference, my colleagues in the House 
have passed a bill that would completely gut the Senate-passed 
provisions. For example: the restrictions on coverage for secondary 
workers are so strict as to effectively eliminate coverage; the bill 
would not cover shifts in production to non-NAFTA countries; and the 
health care benefits have been significantly weakened. They would cover 
many fewer workers, for a shorter period of time, with reduced benefits 
that may be of little use.
  I would suggest to my colleagues in the House that efforts to weaken 
the Senate bill will be met with equally strong efforts to strengthen 
it. It should come as no surprise that, if my House colleagues persist 
in trying to weaken TAA, I will feel obligated to raise some of the 
provisions that were dropped in the Senate negotiations.
  As I have said many times, I believe an improved TAA program is 
critical to regaining public confidence in a liberal trade policy for 
our country. In future, I intend to keep working toward the goal of 
improving TAA in every way available. I think this new bill points us 
in the right direction and I am pleased to be introducing it today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2738. A bill to provide for the reimbursement under the Medicaid 
program under title XIX of the Social Security Act of nursing 
facilities that are located on an Indian reservation in the State of 
South Dakota and owned or operated by an Indian tribe or tribal 
organization, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, South Dakota tribes are prevented from 
developing elder care on their reservations due to a State imposed 
moratorium on the construction or acquisition of additional nursing 
home beds. This impasse has gone on for nearly a decade, much too long.
  Today I am introducing legislation along with my good friend and 
colleague Senator Daschle, that will facilitate the development and 
operation of nursing facilities that are owned or operated by an Indian 
tribe or tribal organization on Indian reservations that are located in 
the State of South Dakota. Additionally, the legislation will protect 
the right of members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations to

[[Page S6950]]

access health care provided by nursing facilities in the exercise of 
those members' entitlement to medical assistance under the Medicaid 
program.
  The facts and information discussed during the Senate Indian Affairs 
July 10, 2002, Hearing on Elder Health Issues, confirms the need for 
this legislation. The National Resource Center on Native American Aging 
at the University of North Dakota, NRCNAA, reports that there is a 
``greater level of need for personal assistance among the Native 
American elders than in the general population''. Only 6.5 percent of 
the Native American elders over 55 receive such services. This fact is 
especially alarming in light of the fact that Indian elders are 
affected disproportionately by disability and poor health. For example, 
the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among American Indians and Alaska 
Natives age 65 and over, is 21.5 percent. This is nearly double the 
rate of 11 percent for the non-Hispanic white population, age 65 and 
over. Additionally, because of their rural isolation, poverty, and 
other barriers, reservation elders have little access to existing long 
term care delivery mechanisms that may serve mainstream or urban 
elderly populations.
  This legislation will reduce existing barriers and give South Dakota 
tribes, their tribal elders, and their families long-term care 
alternatives. This legislation will assist tribes in their goal of 
providing their elders with care that preserves the individuals' 
dignity and health. I will continue to work closely with tribal leaders 
in South Dakota and Senator Daschle to address this critical problem 
facing the Native American community. I urge my colleagues to support 
passage of the South Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join the Senator from South 
Dakota, Mr. Johnson, in introducing the South Dakota Tribal Nursing 
Facilities Act of 2002. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, which will address the growing need for tribally-operated 
nursing homes on South Dakota's Indian reservations.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on the 
growing health concerns facing Native American elders throughout Indian 
Country. Elderly Native Americans suffer from diabetes and other 
debilitating illnesses at rates hundreds of times higher than the 
general population. As more and more people live longer, it is 
necessary to find new ways to provide them with the health care, 
support, and services they need to lead productive, dignified lives.
  American Indian elders are well respected and play a strong, central 
role in their communities. They are the storytellers, the historians, 
the teachers, and the link between the younger generation and the past. 
Unfortunately, Native American elderly in need of nursing home or other 
long-term care are forced to enter off-reservation facilities, or pay 
for private care, which many cannot afford. In rural States like South 
Dakota, many off-reservation facilities are hundreds of miles from the 
reservation, which places an increased burden on family members and 
ioslated the elders who are housed there. Many families cannot afford 
to visit their parents or grandparents in these distant nursing homes, 
and the elders often die forgotten and alone. While these nursing homes 
provide for the physical well-being, their spiritual health suffers.
  There are only eleven tribally operated nursing home nationwide, and 
only one in South Dakota, operated by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The 
National Indian Council on Aging estimates that there are approximately 
165,000 American Indians elderly nationwide, with less than 700 tribal 
nursing home beds available. Tribal nursing homes will allow tribal 
elders to remain in their communities, surrounded by friends and loved 
ones in their later years. In recent years, several South Dakota tribes 
have expressed an interest in establishing nursing homes on their 
reservations to provide for their tribal elderly. However, the South 
Dakota Legislature, in response to a surplus of nursing home beds and 
dwindling Medicaid funding, enacted a moratorium prohibiting the 
construction and licensing of new nursing homes.
  While the moratorium does not apply to construction on Indian 
reservations in the State, the prohibition on licensing has the 
unfortunate effect of blocking access to a key and critical source of 
funding for any tribally-operated nursing home, Medicaid. Federal law 
requires that nursing homes be licensed by the State in which they are 
located to be eligible for reimbursement under Medicaid. The South 
Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002 will overcome this 
obstacle by authorizing Indian tribes to construct, operate and license 
their own nursing homes. This will level the playing field to afford an 
opportunity to tribal governments that is afforded already to States. 
It is my hope this proposal will serve as a starting point so we can 
begin to address the long-term health care needs of American Indians 
across the country. I hope you will support our joint efforts
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lott, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mr. Bunning, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
        Sessions, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. 
        Helms):
  S. 2739. A bill to provide for post-conviction DNA testing, to 
improve competence and performance of prosecutors, defense counsel, and 
trial judges handling State capital criminal cases, to ensure the 
quality of defense counsel in Federal capital cases, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the issue of the death penalty in our 
country continues to spark significant debate. The recent Supreme Court 
decisions addressing capital punishment underscore the importance of 
this issue to the American people. It is an issue that engenders great 
passion, both among its supporters and among its opponents. The 
American people believe in the death penalty, especially for terrorists 
who have killed thousands of Americans. And all of us agree that the 
death penalty must be imposed fairly and accurately.
  I have stated on numerous occasions my views on the death penalty. It 
is the ultimate punishment and it should be reserved only for those 
defendants who commit the most heinous of crimes. I am firmly convinced 
that we must be vigilant in ensuring that capital punishment is meted 
out fairly against those truly guilty criminals. We cannot and should 
not tolerate defects in the capital punishment system. No one can 
disagree with this ultimate and solemn responsibility.
  In the last decade, DNA testing has evolved as the most reliable 
forensic technique for identifying criminals when biological evidence 
is recovered. While DNA testing is now standard in pre-trial 
investigations today, the issue of post-conviction DNA testing has 
emerged in recent years as the technology for such testing has 
improved. The integrity of our criminal justice system and in 
particular, our death penalty system, can be enhanced with the 
appropriate use of DNA testing. No one disagrees with the fact that 
post-conviction DNA testing should be made available to defendants when 
it serves the ends of justice.
  In addition to post-conviction DNA testing, every defendant in our 
criminal justice system is afforded the guarantee by the 6th Amendment 
of our Constitution of competent and effective counsel. The Supreme 
Court has enforced this right in numerous decisions in order to ensure 
that all defendants are afforded the constitutional protections 
guaranteed to them.
  Death penalty opponents argue that the system is broken and blame 
ineffective assistance of counsel. Their own evidence, however, 
indicates that the system is not broken. To the contrary, a recent 
Justice Department study concluded that ``[i]n both Federal and large 
State courts, conviction rates were the same for defendants represented 
by publicly financed and private attorneys.'' (Caroline Wolf Harlow, 
Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
November 2000). Further, 34 out of 38 States with capital punishment 
have adopted standards or have existing practices to ensure assignment 
of competent counsel. In my view, the appellate system and our habeas 
system, which was reformed in 1996, remain robust and entirely capable 
of identifying and rectifying instances of deficient representation or 
substantial error at the trial level.
  We have all heard the horror stories of the attorney who fell asleep 
during

[[Page S6951]]

his client's trial and the attorney who showed up for trial 
intoxicated. Some opponents of the death penalty seek to portray these 
stories as ``par for the course.'' This view ignores the hundreds of 
capital cases in which no flaw was found in the quality of legal 
representation. It also ignores the hundreds of capital cases in which 
defendants were either acquitted, or sentenced to a penalty less than 
death, many times the result of outstanding representation by defense 
counsel. The truth is that in many cases prosecutors handling a capital 
case are out-manned and outgunned by defense teams funded by a 
combination of public and private sources.
  The legislation I introduce today will ensure the integrity of our 
death penalty system. The Act addresses post-conviction DNA testing for 
defendants, provides grants to States to fund state post-conviction DNA 
testing programs, and creates new grant programs to train State 
prosecutors, defense counsel and judges to ensure that defendants 
receive a fair capital trial.
  First, the Act authorizes post-conviction DNA testing where a federal 
defendant can show that the DNA test will establish his or her ``actual 
innocence.'' There has been considerable debate about when a convicted 
defendant should be entitled to post-conviction DNA testing. Under my 
proposal, when a defendant demonstrates that a favorable result would 
show that he or she is actually innocent of the crime, the defendant 
will be given access to DNA testing. Thus, DNA testing will not be 
permitted where such a test would only muddy the waters and be used by 
the defendant to fuel a new and frivolous series of appeals. When a DNA 
test shows that the defendant is actually innocent, then the Act 
authorizes the defendant to file a motion for a new trial. Under the 
Act, DNA testing in capital cases will be prioritized and conducted on 
a ``fast track,'' so that these important cases are handled quickly.
  Second, in order to discourage a flood of baseless claims, the Act 
authorizes the prosecution of defendants who make false claims of 
innocence in support of a DNA testing request. Each defendant will be 
required to assert under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, 
innocent of the crime. When DNA testing reveals that the defendant's 
claim of innocence was actually false, the defendant can then be 
prosecuted for perjury, contempt or false statements. Further, the Act 
allows DNA test results to be entered into the CODIS database and 
compared against unsolved crimes. If the test result shows that the 
defendant committed another crime, the defendant may then be prosecuted 
for the other crime.
  Third, with respect to State defendants, the Act encourages States to 
create similar DNA testing procedures, and provides funding assistance 
to those States that implement DNA testing programs. Twenty-five of 38 
States which have capital punishment already have enacted post-
conviction DNA testing programs, and 6 States have pending legislation 
to create such a program. With the new source of funding, more States 
will enact DNA testing programs, and will provide such testing on an 
expedited basis.
  Fourth, in order to improve the fairness and accuracy of state 
capital trials, the Act creates grant programs to train defense 
counsel, prosecutors and trial judges to ensure fair capital trials. 
While I do not believe that the system is broken, I do believe that our 
justice system can always be improved. The grants proposed under the 
Act will enable States to send prosecutors, defense counsel and trial 
judges to training programs to ensure that capital cases are handled 
more efficiently and effectively, and that every capital defendant will 
receive a fair trial under our justice system.
  Starting in 2001 and continuing through this year, the Judiciary 
Committee, has conducted a number of hearings to examine these 
difficult issues relating to the death penalty system in our country. A 
competing proposal, S. 486, is now pending before the Committee. The 
alternative proposal would open the floodgates to frivolous litigation 
by allowing convicted Federal and State defendants to obtain post-
conviction DNA testing even when they have never previously claimed 
they were innocent of the crime. Second, the alternative proposal 
tramples on the concept of federalism by stretching the 14th Amendment 
to mandate DNA testing and evidence preservation requirements on the 
States. Third, the alternative proposal would strip state courts of 
their traditional power to appoint counsel to represent indigent 
defendants; require states to comply with federally-mandated 
requirements for assignment of competent counsel; and fund new private 
capital resource litigation centers. Fourth, the alternative bill 
threatens to reduce valuable Byrne grants to State law enforcement 
agencies which are needed to fight crime in our local communities. 
Finally, the alternative bill would authorize a flood of private suits 
to enforce a set of new federal mandates on each of the states.
  My bill will further our nation's commitment to justice, ensure that 
our country has a fair death penalty system, and protect the 
sovereignty of states from burdensome and unnecessary federal 
assertions of power.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in promptly passing 
this important 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
  [Data not available at time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 2741. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 
procedures for the determination of the inability of veterans to defray 
expenses of necessary medical care, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
address a problem in the way the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, 
determines a veteran's eligibility category for health care, which 
results in an unfair misclassification of many veterans who are 
farmers. Veterans who do not have a service-connected disability but 
who are unable to defray the cost of necessary health care are placed 
in priority group 5 and are able to receive health care services from 
the VA at no cost to the veteran. In order to determine whether a 
veteran falls below the means test threshold and is thus eligible to 
enroll in priority group 5, the VA looks at the net worth of a 
veteran's estate, including any real property owned by the veteran or 
the veteran's spouse. When you add in the value of farm land, the net 
worth of many farmer-veterans can appear high on paper even though they 
may in fact have little or no income.
  The current means test threshold for net worth is set at $80,000. 
Given the current average value of farm land in Iowa of $1,857, a farm 
in Iowa worth $80,000 would average a barely viable 44 acres. A more 
viable 80 acre farm would be worth $148,560 on average. In other words, 
almost any Iowa farm large enough to be viable would exceed the current 
means test threshold.
  Under the current law, when the value of a veteran's estate exceeds 
the means test threshold, the veteran becomes ineligible to enroll in 
priority group 5 if the VA determines that ``it is reasonable that some 
part of the corpus of such estates be consumed for the veteran's 
maintenance.'' I don't think it is ever ``reasonable'' that a veteran, 
who has little or no income or other assets, be asked to sell a portion 
of his family farm in order to pay his medical bills. Nevertheless, 
because of the way the law currently reads, these land-rich but cash-
poor veterans are often placed in priority group 7, meaning they may 
only enroll in VA health care if they agree to pay co-payments to the 
VA and then only on a space-available and funds-available basis.
  This problem was first brought to my attention by one of my 
constituents, Larry Sundall, who is a county veterans service officer 
in Emmet County, IA. In response, I convened a meeting in Des Moines in 
April of 2000, which was attended by county veterans service officers 
and State veterans affairs officers from Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and 
South Dakota as well as VA staff. I heard many similar stories about 
low-income veterans who were in the same boat. In September of that 
year, I introduced legislation to fix this problem by excluding the 
value of real property from the calculation of

[[Page S6952]]

the net worth of a veteran's estate in determining a veteran's 
eligibility category for health care.
  Unfortunately, my bill was not acted on before the end of the 106th 
Congress. In the first session of the 107th Congress, an unsuccessful 
attempt was made to address this issue in the context of legislation to 
make improvements to various veterans' programs. I am now reintroducing 
my legislation in hopes of fixing this problem once and for all.
  In addition, my bill makes some adjustments to the way the VA 
determines the attributable income of a veteran that will make the 
process easier for both the VA and the veteran. The VA currently has 
the authority to verify a veteran's income using a quick and efficient 
computer process that matches VA records with data from the IRS and 
other Federal agencies. However, the data for the prior year is often 
unavailable making it impossible for the VA to perform this income 
verification for the majority of veterans at the time when the data is 
needed. My bill would allow the VA to use the data available for the 
year preceding the previous year to determine the attributable income 
of a veteran. This would not only help the VA to more easily and more 
accurately determine a veteran's income, it would also allow a veteran 
to check a box to let the VA use this procedure to gather the veteran's 
income data without the veteran having to dig through his financial 
records and fill out the information on a form. It can be frustrating 
for a veteran to have to fill out the paperwork necessary to apply for 
benefits and this change would make the application process easier for 
both the veteran and the VA.
  My bill would correct a fundamental unfairness that adversely affects 
veterans who are farmers while making the application process for 
health benefits simpler for veterans and more efficient for the VA. In 
fact, taken together, these important reforms would actually save 
taxpayer dollars. According to data provided to me by the VA, over $8.7 
million would be saved in fiscal year 2003 alone. This legislation is a 
win-win proposition and I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the swift passage of this measure.
  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. 2741

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

     SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF 
                   INABILITY TO DEFRAY EXPENSES OF NECESSARY 
                   MEDICAL CARE.

       (a) Exclusion of Certain Assets From Attributable Income 
     and Corpus of Estates.--Subsection (f) of section 1722 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, except that such income shall not 
     include the value of any real property of the veteran or the 
     veteran's spouse or dependent children, if any, or any income 
     of the veteran's dependent children, if any''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the estates'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``the estate of the veteran's 
     spouse, if any, but does not include any real property of the 
     veteran, the veteran's spouse, or any dependent children of 
     the veteran, nor any income of dependent children of the 
     veteran.''.
       (b) Alternative Year for Determination of Attributable 
     Income.--That section is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(h) For purposes of determining the attributable income 
     of a veteran under this section, the Secretary may determine 
     the attributable income of the veteran for the year preceding 
     the previous year, rather than for the previous year, if the 
     Secretary finds that available data do not permit a timely 
     determination of the attributable income of the veteran for 
     the previous year for such purposes.''.
       (c) Use of Income Information From Certain Other Federal 
     Agencies.--Section 5317 of that title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) In addition to any other activities under this 
     section, the Secretary may utilize income information 
     obtained under this section from the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services or the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
     purpose of determining the attributable income of a veteran 
     under section 1722 of this title, in lieu of obtaining income 
     information directly from the veteran for that purpose.''.
       (d) Permanent Authority To Obtain Information.--(1) Section 
     5317 of that title, as amended by subsection (c), is further 
     amended by striking subsection (h).
       (2) Section 6103(l)(7)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)) is amended in the flush matter 
     at the end by striking the second sentence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Domenici, Mr. Murkowski and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 2742. A bill to establish new nonimmigrant classes for border 
commuter students; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Hutchison, in introducing legislation to make part-time 
commuter students who are nationals of either Canada or Mexico and 
attend school in the United States eligible for student visas.
  Thousands of Canadian nationals commute to attend schools part time 
in the United States and hundreds of these part-time students commute 
to schools in Michigan. Between 35 and 40 part-time Canadian students 
attend Baker College, in Port Huron, MI, each semester. And more than 
400 Canadian students plan to attend Wayne State University in Detroit 
part time this fall alone. Other schools in Michigan, including Lake 
Superior State University in Sault Saint Marie, also have a number of 
part-time Canadian students. Unfortunately, current law does not 
establish an appropriate visa for these part-time commuter students.
  Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, aliens who reside in a 
foreign country and are pursuing a full course of study from a 
recognized vocational institution or an established college, 
university, or other academic institution in the United States are 
eligible for student visas. For purposes of granting student visas, the 
INS defines ``full course of study'' as 12 credits or more. Part-time 
commuter students, those who might be only taking a class or two, are 
not currently eligible for student visas.
  However, some INS district offices have permitted part-time commuter 
students to enter the United States as visitors to pursue their 
studies. However, the INS recently announced its intention to eliminate 
this practice and enforce the full time, 12 credit hour requirement.
  I agree with the INS that we need to tighten up enforcement of our 
immigration laws. However, achieving this goal does not mean that we 
have to prohibit all part-time commuter students from attending classes 
at schools in the United States. But absent a legislative remedy, that 
is exactly what will happen. Fortunately, the agency recently postponed 
enforcement of the policy until August 15, 2002, while administrative 
and legislative remedies are considered. The legislation we are 
introducing today appropriately addresses the problem facing part-time 
commuter students without opening new avenues for illegal immigration.
  Our bill would amend 18 U.S.C. 1101 to make certain part-time 
commuter students eligible for student visas. The bill would allow 
nationals of Canada or Mexico who both maintain a residence and a place 
of abode in their country or nationality and who commute to school to 
enroll part time in schools in the United States. Part-time commuter 
student visas are restricted to nationals of Canada or Mexico. Our bill 
would not make political asylees, residents, or others who are 
nationals of third countries but simply live in Canada or Mexico 
eligible for the visas.
  The legislation also enhances national security by ensuring that 
part-time commuter students are tracked through SEVIS, the Student and 
Exchange Visitor Information System. SEVIS was set up to make the 
Federal Government aware of changes in a foreign student's status that 
could affect their eligibility to remain in the United States. The 
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act passed by the Senate 
in April and signed into law by the President on May 14, 2002, paved 
the way for full implementation of SEVIS. Certain schools began 
participating in a SEVIS this month and participation is mandatory by 
January 30, 2003. However, SEVIS only tracks nonimmigrant students and 
exchange visitors. Aliens admitted with visitor visas are not tracked 
through the system. Our bill will, for the first time, ensure that 
part-time commuter students from

[[Page S6953]]

Canada and Mexico are tracked through SEVIS.
  Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is not only 
an improvement on current INS policy with regards to part-time commuter 
students but it closes an important loophole in INS's student tracking 
system. I am pleased to join Senator Hutchinson in introducing the bill 
and I look forward to seeing it pass the 107th Congress.


                  Border Commuter Student Act of 2002

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am joining today with Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison to introduce the Border Commuter Student Act of 2002.
  In my State and many other States along our borders, Canadian and 
Mexican students take advantage of our excellent community colleges and 
vocational schools. For many years, this system has worked well, 
providing economic benefits to the schools and to the surrounding 
communities while also helping Mexican and Canadian students to benefit 
from educational opportunities in this country.
  Unfortunately, despite the fact that this is a system that has worked 
well for both Canadian students and the local communities the 
Immigration and Naturalization, INS, recently decided to begin 
enforcing a 50-year-old law that prohibits those students from 
attending U.S. schools on a part-time basis. As of August 15, students 
will no longer be allowed to cross the Canadian border to attend 
classes at Bellingham Technical College. This will result in a 
significant loss of funds for Bellingham Technical College and the 
surrounding community in Whatcom County which is already suffering from 
severely reduced border traffic in the wake of September 11 and the 
economic downturn in the State as a whole.
  They will not be allowed to cross the border to attend El Paso 
Community College, D'Youville College in Buffalo, or Wayne State 
University in Detroit.
  In my home State of Washington, Bellingham Technical College 
currently has many part-time students who commute from Canada, the vast 
majority of whom are enrolled in nursing, surgical technology, and 
dental assistant training programs. This action is being taken at the 
same time we are facing a devastating shortage of nurses and other 
health care professionals both in the United States and in Canada.
  This bill will address this issue by creating a new category for 
students who do not intend to immigrate to this country. It will be 
limited to Canadian and Mexican commuter students residing in their 
home country and attending school on a full- or part-time basis at 
schools in many of our border States. In order to qualify for this 
visa, students will have to prove that they are who they say they are, 
and will be subjected to more strict requirements than Canadian 
visitors entering the U.S. for pleasure.
  Our educational system is the best in the world, and the INS decision 
to terminate a system that has been extending that educational 
opportunity to those who live adjacent to our borders and that has been 
providing economic benefit to my State and many other States, is the 
wrong policy. With the introduction of this legislation today, we will 
address this problem and allow a system that has been working to 
continue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Border Commuter Student 
Act of 2002.
  I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the 
bill and look forward to working with her and my other colleagues to 
pass this important legislation
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCAIN):
  S. 2743. A bill to approve the settlement of the water rights claims 
of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself I am 
introducing legislation today that would codify the settlement of the 
Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights for its religious lands in 
northeastern Arizona. Congress first recognized the importance of these 
lands in 1984 when it created the Zuni Heaven Reservation, Pub. L. No. 
98-498, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-486, 1990. The small communities 
upstream from this Reservation have been fully-appropriated, they have 
had more would-be water users than water, for nearly a century. The 
prospect of dividing this limited water with yet another user created 
great uncertainty. To resolve that uncertainty and to avoid expensive 
and protracted litigation, the Zuni Tribe, the United States on behalf 
of the Zuni Tribe, the State of Arizona, including the Arizona Game and 
Fish Commission, the Arizona State Land Department, and the Arizona 
State Parks Board, and the major water users in this area of Arizona 
negotiated for many years to produce a settlement that is acceptable to 
all parties.
  This bill would provide the Zuni Tribe with the resources and 
protections necessary to acquire water rights from willing sellers and 
to restore and protect the wetland environment that previously existed 
on the Reservation. In return, the Zuni Tribe would waive its claims in 
the Little Colorado River Adjudication. In addition, the Zuni Tribe 
would, among other things, grandfather existing water uses and waive 
claims against many future water uses in the Little Colorado River 
basin. In summary, with this bill, the Zuni Tribe can achieve its needs 
for the Zuni Heaven Reservation while avoiding a disruption to local 
water users and industry. Furthermore, the United States can avoid 
litigating water rights and damage claims and satisfy its trust 
responsibilities to the Tribe regarding water for the Reservation. The 
parties have worked many years to reach consensus and I believe this 
bill would produce a fair result to all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 2744. A bill to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and fellow 
Ohioan, Senator Voinovich, to introduce a bill that would establish a 
National Aviation Heritage Area within our home state of Ohio.
  The year 2003 represents the 100th anniversary of manned flight. On 
December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright, who are native Ohioans, 
invented controlled, heavier-than-air flight. This was the first step 
in the century-long progression of flight. The Wright Brothers' 
successful design and the science behind it were the forerunners to our 
modern airplanes and space vehicles.
  There is obvious historical and cultural significance to the birth of 
aviation, and one of the unique educational aspects of aviation is the 
opportunity we can give children to interact with the subject outside 
of the classroom. This is why I am proud today to be introducing the 
National Aviation Heritage Area Act.
  Our bill seeks to foster strong public and private investments in 
aviation landmarks. Some of these landmarks include the Wright 
Brother's Wright Cycle Company, located in Dayton, OH; the National 
Aviation Hall of Fame; the Wright-Dunbar Interpretive Center, where 
students of all ages can learn about the painstaking measures the 
Wright Brothers and many of their predecessors took to fly; and the 
Huffman Prairie Flying Field, where the Brothers perfected the design 
of the world's first airplane. Listed in the bill are several other 
important aviation sites that may be added into the Heritage Area at a 
later date, such as the NASA-Glenn Research Facility and the Captain 
Edward V. Rickenbacher House.
  Mr. President, flight has become another important square in the 
patchwork of our nation's history. We are reminded of this every time 
we look skyward and see the crisscross of jet contrails. We are 
reminded of this every time we walk through the Rotunda of our very own 
U.S. Capitol and see the last frieze square that depicts the invention 
of flight by the Wright Brothers. And, we are reminded of this by one 
of the symbols of America, the eagle, a flying bird that represents the 
freedom of a people.
  It is vital that we protect the sites that have played such an 
important role in aviation. Doing so, we can enhance the education and 
enrichment of our children and our grandchildren for many years to 
come.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S6954]]

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

                                S. 2744

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

                TITLE I--NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE AREA

     SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Aviation Heritage 
     Area Act''.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Few technological advances have transformed the world 
     or our Nation's economy, society, culture, and national 
     character as the development of powered flight.
       (2) The industrial, cultural, and natural heritage legacies 
     of the aviation and aerospace industry in the State of Ohio 
     are nationally significant.
       (3) Dayton, Ohio, and other defined areas where the 
     development of the airplane and aerospace technology 
     established our Nation's leadership in both civil and 
     military aeronautics and astronautics set the foundation for 
     the 20th Century to be an American Century.
       (4) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is the 
     birthplace, the home, and an integral part of the future of 
     aerospace.
       (5) The economic strength of our Nation is connected 
     integrally to the vitality of the aviation and aerospace 
     industry, which is responsible for an estimated 11,200,000 
     American jobs.
       (6) The industrial and cultural heritage of the aviation 
     and aerospace industry in the State of Ohio includes the 
     social history and living cultural traditions of several 
     generations.
       (7) The Department of the Interior is responsible for 
     protecting and interpreting the Nation's cultural and 
     historic resources, and there are significant examples of 
     these resources within Ohio to merit the involvement of the 
     Federal Government to develop programs and projects in 
     cooperation with the Aviation Heritage Foundation, 
     Incorporated, the State of Ohio, and other local and 
     governmental entities to adequately conserve, protect, and 
     interpret this heritage for the educational and recreational 
     benefit of this and future generations of Americans, while 
     providing opportunities for education and revitalization.
       (8) Since the enactment of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 
     Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-419), partnerships 
     among the Federal, State, and local governments and the 
     private sector have greatly assisted the development and 
     preservation of the historic aviation resources in the Miami 
     Valley.
       (9) An aviation heritage area centered in Southwest Ohio is 
     a suitable and feasible management option to increase 
     collaboration, promote heritage tourism, and build on the 
     established partnerships among Ohio's historic aviation 
     resources and related sites.
       (10) A critical level of collaboration among the historic 
     aviation resources in Southwest Ohio cannot be achieved 
     without a congressionally established national heritage area 
     and the support of the National Park Service and other 
     Federal agencies which own significant historic aviation-
     related sites in Ohio.
       (11) The Aviation Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, would 
     be an appropriate management entity to oversee the 
     development of the National Aviation Heritage Area.
       (12) Five National Park Service and Dayton Aviation 
     Heritage Commission studies and planning documents ``Study of 
     Alternatives: Dayton's Aviation Heritage'', ``Dayton Aviation 
     Heritage National Historical Park Suitability/Feasibility 
     Study'', ``Dayton Aviation Heritage General Management 
     Plan'', ``Dayton Historic Resources Preservation and 
     Development Plan'', and Heritage Area Concept Study (in 
     progress) demonstrated that sufficient historical resources 
     exist to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area.
       (13) With the advent of the 100th anniversary of the first 
     powered flight in 2003, it is recognized that the 
     preservation of properties nationally significant in the 
     history of aviation is an important goal for the future 
     education of Americans.
       (14) Local governments, the State of Ohio, and private 
     sector interests have embraced the heritage area concept and 
     desire to enter into a partnership with the Federal 
     Government to preserve, protect, and develop the Heritage 
     Area for public benefit.
       (15) The National Aviation Heritage Area would complement 
     and enhance the aviation-related resources within the 
     National Park Service, especially the Dayton Aviation 
     Heritage National Historical Park, Ohio, and the Wright 
     Brothers National Memorial, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish the 
     Heritage Area to--
       (1) encourage and facilitate collaboration among the 
     facilities, sites, organizations, governmental entities, and 
     educational institutions within the Heritage Area to promote 
     heritage tourism and to develop educational and cultural 
     programs for the public;
       (2) preserve and interpret for the educational and 
     inspirational benefit of present and future generations the 
     unique and significant contributions to our national heritage 
     of certain historic and cultural lands, structures, 
     facilities, and sites within the National Aviation Heritage 
     Area;
       (3) encourage within the National Aviation Heritage Area a 
     broad range of economic opportunities enhancing the quality 
     of life for present and future generations;
       (4) provide a management framework to assist the State of 
     Ohio, its political subdivisions, other areas, and private 
     organizations, or combinations thereof, in preparing and 
     implementing an integrated Management Plan to conserve their 
     aviation heritage and in developing policies and programs 
     that will preserve, enhance, and interpret the cultural, 
     historical, natural, recreation, and scenic resources of the 
     Heritage Area; and
       (5) authorize the Secretary to provide financial and 
     technical assistance to the State of Ohio, its political 
     subdivisions, and private organizations, or combinations 
     thereof, in preparing and implementing the private Management 
     Plan.

     SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors 
     of the Foundation.
       (2) Financial assistance.--The term ``financial 
     assistance'' means funds appropriated by Congress and made 
     available to the management entity for the purpose of 
     preparing and implementing the Management Plan.
       (3) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     National Aviation Heritage Area established by section 4 to 
     receive, distribute, and account for Federal funds 
     appropriated for the purpose of this title.
       (4) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under 
     section 106.
       (5) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the Aviation Heritage Foundation, Incorporated (a 
     nonprofit corporation established under the laws of the State 
     of Ohio).
       (6) Partner.--The term ``partner'' means a Federal, State, 
     or local governmental entity, organization, private industry, 
     educational institution, or individual involved in promoting 
     the conservation and preservation of the cultural and natural 
     resources of the Heritage Area.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) Technical assistance.--The term ``technical 
     assistance'' means any guidance, advice, help, or aid, other 
     than financial assistance, provided by the Secretary.

     SEC. 104. NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State of 
     Ohio, and other areas as appropriate, the National Aviation 
     Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A core area consisting of resources in Montgomery, 
     Greene, Warren, Miami, Clark, and Champaign Counties in Ohio.
       (2) The Neil Armstrong Air & Space Museum, Wapakoneta, 
     Ohio, and the Wilbur Wright Birthplace and Museum, Millville, 
     Indiana.
       (3) Sites, buildings, and districts recommended by the 
     Management Plan.
       (c) Map.--A map of the Heritage Area shall be included in 
     the Management Plan. The map shall be on file in the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service, Department 
     of the Interior.
       (d) Management entity.--The management entity for the 
     Heritage Area shall be the Aviation Heritage Foundation.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Authorities.--For purposes of implementing the 
     Management Plan, the management entity may use Federal funds 
     made available through this Act to--
       (1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, the State of Ohio and political subdivisions of that 
     State, private organizations, or any person;
       (2) hire and compensate staff; and
       (3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
       (b) Duties.-- The management entity shall--
       (1) develop and submit to the Secretary for approval the 
     proposed Management Plan in accordance with section 106;
       (2) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the 
     Management Plan, including taking steps to assist units of 
     government and nonprofit organizations in preserving 
     resources within the Heritage Area and encouraging local 
     governments to adopt land use policies consistent with the 
     management of the Heritage Area and the goals of the 
     Management Plan;
       (3) consider the interests of diverse governmental, 
     business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area in 
     developing and implementing the Management Plan;
       (4) maintain a collaboration among the partners to promote 
     heritage tourism and to assist partners to develop 
     educational and cultural programs for the public;
       (5) encourage economic viability in the Heritage Area 
     consistent with the goals of the Management Plan;
       (6) assist units of government and nonprofit organizations 
     in--
       (A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in 
     the Heritage Area;
       (B) developing recreational resources in the Heritage Area;
       (C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the 
     historical, natural, and architectural resources and sites in 
     the Heritage Area; and

[[Page S6955]]

       (D) restoring historic buildings that relate to the 
     purposes of the Heritage Area;
       (7) assist units of government and nonprofit organizations 
     to ensure that clear, consistent, and environmentally 
     appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of 
     interest are placed throughout the Heritage Area;
       (8) conduct public meetings at least quarterly regarding 
     the implementation of the Management Plan;
       (9) submit substantial amendments to the Management Plan to 
     the Secretary for the approval of the Secretary; and
       (10) for any year in which Federal funds have been received 
     under this Act--
       (A) submit an annual report to the Secretary that sets 
     forth the accomplishments of the management entity and its 
     expenses and income;
       (B) make available to the Secretary for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of such funds and any matching 
     funds; and
       (C) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     receiving organizations make available to the Secretary for 
     audit all records concerning the expenditure of such funds.
       (c) Use of Federal Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall not use 
     Federal funds received under this Act to acquire real 
     property or an interest in real property.
       (2) Other sources.--Nothing in this Act precludes the 
     management entity from using Federal funds from other sources 
     for authorized purposes.

     SEC. 106. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) Preparation of Plan.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the management entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary for approval a proposed Management 
     Plan that shall take into consideration State and local plans 
     and involve residents, public agencies, and private 
     organizations in the Heritage Area.
       (b) Contents.--The Management Plan shall incorporate an 
     integrated and cooperative approach for the protection, 
     enhancement, and interpretation of the natural, cultural, 
     historic, scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage 
     Area and shall include the following:
       (1) An inventory of the resources contained in the core 
     area of the Heritage Area, including the Dayton Aviation 
     Heritage Historical Park, the sites, buildings, and districts 
     listed in section 202 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 
     Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-419), and any other 
     property in the Heritage Area that is related to the themes 
     of the Heritage Area and that should be preserved, restored, 
     managed, or maintained because of its significance.
       (2) Recommendations for inclusion within the Heritage Area 
     of suitable and feasible sites, buildings, and districts 
     outside the core area of the Heritage Area. Such 
     recommendations shall be included in the inventory required 
     under paragraph (1) and may include the following:
       (A) The Wright Brothers National Memorial, Kitty Hawk, 
     North Carolina.
       (B) The Captain Edward V. Rickenbacker House National 
     Historic Landmark, Columbus, Ohio.
       (C) The NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, 
     Cleveland, Ohio.
       (D) The Rocket Engine Test Facility National Historic 
     Landmark, Sandusky, Ohio.
       (E) The Zero Gravity Research Facility National Historic 
     Landmark, Cleveland, Ohio.
       (F) The International Women's Air & Space Museum, Inc., 
     Cleveland, Ohio.
       (G) The John and Annie Glenn Museum and Exploration Center, 
     New Concord, Ohio.
       (3) An assessment of cultural landscapes within the 
     Heritage Area.
       (4) Provisions for the protection, interpretation, and 
     enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act.
       (5) An interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
       (6) A program for implementation of the Management Plan by 
     the management entity, including the following:
       (A) Facilitating ongoing collaboration among the partners 
     to promote heritage tourism and to develop educational and 
     cultural programs for the public.
       (B) Assisting partners planning for restoration and 
     construction.
       (C) Specific commitments of the partners for the first 5 
     years of operation.
       (7) The identification of sources of funding for 
     implementing the plan.
       (8) A description and evaluation of the management entity, 
     including its membership and organizational structure.
       (c) Disqualification From Funding.--If a proposed 
     Management Plan is not submitted to the Secretary within 3 
     years of the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     management entity shall be ineligible to receive additional 
     funding under this Act until the date on which the Secretary 
     receives the proposed Management Plan.
       (d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the State of Ohio, shall 
     approve or disapprove the proposed Management Plan submitted 
     under this Act not later than 90 days after receiving such 
     proposed Management Plan.
       (e) Action Following Disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves a proposed Management Plan, the Secretary shall 
     advise the management entity in writing of the reasons for 
     the disapproval and shall make recommendations for revisions 
     to the proposed Management Plan. The Secretary shall approve 
     or disapprove a proposed revision within 90 days after the 
     date it is submitted.
       (f) Approval of Amendments.--The Secretary shall review and 
     approve substantial amendments to the Management Plan. Funds 
     appropriated under this Act may not be expended to implement 
     any changes made by such amendment until the Secretary 
     approves the amendment.

     SEC. 107. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; OTHER FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the request of the management entity, 
     the Secretary may provide technical assistance, on a 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, and financial 
     assistance to the Heritage Area to develop and implement the 
     Management Plan. The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the management entity and other 
     public or private entities for this purpose. In assisting the 
     Heritage Area, the Secretary shall give priority to actions 
     that in general assist in--
       (A) conserving the significant natural, historic, cultural, 
     and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage 
     Area.
       (2) Other assistance.--Upon request, the Superintendent of 
     Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park may provide 
     to public and private organizations within the Heritage Area, 
     including the management entity, such technical and financial 
     assistance as appropriate to support the implementation of 
     the Management Plan, subject to the availability of 
     appropriated funds. The Secretary is authorized to make 
     grants and enter into cooperative agreements with public and 
     private organizations for the purpose of implementing this 
     subsection.
       (b) Duties of Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal agency 
     conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the 
     Heritage Area shall--
       (1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity 
     with respect to such activities;
       (2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity 
     in carrying out their duties under this Act;
       (3) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate such 
     activities with the carrying out of such duties; and
       (4) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support 
     such activities in a manner which the management entity 
     determines will not have an adverse effect on the Heritage 
     Area.

     SEC. 108. COORDINATION BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND THE 
                   SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF 
                   NASA.

       The decisions concerning the execution of this title as it 
     applies to properties under the control of the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration shall be made by such Secretary or such 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--To carry out this title there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000, except that not 
     more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated to carry out this 
     title for any fiscal year.
       (b) 50 Percent Match.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out using any assistance or grant under 
     this title shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (c) Other Federal Funds.--Other Federal funding received by 
     the management entity for the implementation of this Act 
     shall not be counted toward the authorized appropriation.

      SEC. 110. SUNSET PROVISION.

       The Secretary shall not provide any grant or other 
     assistance under this title after September 30, 2017.

                 TITLE II--WRIGHT COMPANY FACTORY STUDY

     SEC. 201. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a special 
     resource study updating the study required under section 104 
     of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 
     (Public Law 102-419) and detailing alternatives for 
     incorporating the Wright Company factory as a unit of Dayton 
     Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of 
     alternatives for including the Wright Company factory as a 
     unit of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park 
     that detail management and development options and costs.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall consult with the Delphi Corporation, the Dayton 
     Aviation Heritage Commission, the Aviation Heritage 
     Foundation, State and local agencies, and other interested 
     parties in the area.

     SEC. 202. REPORT.

       Not later than 2 years after funds are first made available 
     for this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
     report describing the results of the study conducted under 
     section 201.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2745. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain lands in Utah; 
to the

[[Page S6956]]

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to 
introduce for the Senate's consideration legislation that will benefit 
the school children of Utah and improve the management of the public 
lands within Utah. This legislation closely follows two previous 
legislated land exchanges, the ``Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 
1998'' and the ``Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000''. Each of 
these past exchanges has enabled the Federal Government to consolidate 
lands in Utah with significant resource value while the State of Utah 
has accumulated lands of lesser environmental significance, but with 
higher revenue generating potential. The Federal-Utah State Trust Lands 
Consolidation Act will only add to the successes earned through the 
last two land exchanges.
  The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 granted to the State four sections, 
each section approximately 640 acres in size, in each 36 square-mile 
township. These lands were granted for the support of the public 
schools, and thus are referred to a school trust lands. Accordingly, 
the School and Institutional trust Lands Administration, SITLA, is 
required by law to generate revenue in accordance with its mission from 
approximately 3.5 million acres of widely dispersed land. The location 
of these lands, as they are not contiguous to each other, has made 
management by the State difficult. In addition, as school trust lands 
are interspersed with Federal lands, Federal land designations, such as 
wilderness study areas, national monuments, and national parks, have 
further complicated the state's ability to fully carry out its trust 
responsibility to its public schools.
  The legislation I propose today will ratify an agreement signed by 
the State of Utah, the Department of the Interior, and the Department 
of Agriculture. Under the agreement the Federal Government will receive 
108, 284 acres from SITLA while the Federal government will transfer to 
SITLA approximately 133,000 acres of federal lands. SITLA will exchange 
property with significant resource values including inholdings in the 
Manti-La Sal National Forest, the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, and most 
importantly 102,000 acres in the San Rafael Swell. The San Rafael Swell 
is one of the most remarkable areas in the county. It is 900 square 
miles of rugged terrain sprinkled with amazing mesas, buttes, and 
canyons. The San Rafael Swell also contains significant natural, 
historical, and cultural resources and it is home to an important 
population of desert bighorn sheep. Furthermore, over the yeas the San 
Rafael Swell has been proposed to be designated as wilderness, a 
national conservation area, a heritage area, and a national monument. 
It is widely agreed that this area deserves special recognition. 
Because of the proposed designations and the overall importance of the 
San Rafael Swell, sizable school trust inholdings are not advisable; 
both the State and Federal Government would be better served by 
consolidated ownership.
  The majority of the lands acquired by the SITLA are in the Uinta 
Basin, which will compliment current SITLA holdings. These lands are 
less environmentally sensitive but have good potential for development 
in the future, thereby allowing the State to maintain its trust 
responsibilities. Additional properties will be acquired in Emery, 
Washington, Sevier, and Utah counties.
  During negotiations between the State of Utah and the Federal 
Government great care was taken to exclude from exchange Federal lands 
designated as wilderness study areas, areas proposed for wilderness 
designations in pending Federal legislation, significant endangered 
species habitat, significant archaeological resources, areas of 
critical environmental concern, or other lands known to raise 
significant environmental concerns of any kind. Additionally, the 
parties to this agreement expended substantial effort to ensure the 
value of the exchange was equal. To ensure the exchange was of 
comparable value the parties obtained the services of a nationally 
recognized real estate consultant who reviewed the methodologies and 
assumptions used to determine value. After completing a thorough 
review, the consultant supported the parties' conclusion that the 
exchange was of equal value.
  This legislation has the strong support of Utah's delegation, the 
Utah State Office of Education, and the Utah Parent Teacher 
Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2746. A bill to establish a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security 
in each State, to provide coordination between the Department of 
Homeland Security and State and local first responders, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine to introduce legislation to improve and streamline Federal 
support for first responders. Our proposal will also provide an avenue 
for our first responders, our fire fighters, law enforcement, rescue, 
and emergency medical service, EMS, providers, to help Federal agencies 
and the new Department of Homeland Security improve and coordinate 
existing programs and future initiatives.
  The President has proposed a massive shift in the Federal Government 
by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. While Washington 
will surely be shaken up by this restructuring, nobody will feel the 
impact of this shift more than those on the front lines, our law 
enforcement, firefighters, rescue workers, EMS providers, and other 
first responders.
  I am concerned that as the proposed Department of Homeland Security 
moves forward, one of the most important functions has not received 
enough consideration, supporting first responders.
  A recent editorial by Amy Smithson, the Director of the Chemical and 
Biological Nonproliferation Project at the Henry L. Stimson Center, 
which was published in the New York Times, illustrates that even 
without this massive re-organization, Washington must do a more 
effective job in targeting the resources to the training and equipment 
programs that our communities need.
  Ms. Smithson details how Washington has already shifted key training 
and equipment programs for firefighters, police, paramedics, and others 
from the Defense Department to the Justice Department and now on to the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  While these first responders are the most important people in any 
emergency, they received just $311 million of the more than $9.7 
billion in counter-terrorism spending in 2001.
  While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated 
to first responders for 2003 fiscal year to $5 billion, I share Ms. 
Smithson's concern that with the new layers of bureaucracy and 
reorganization, that number could shrink significantly.
  Providing resources is not the only answer. These resources need to 
be dedicated to those programs that meet the needs of the first 
responders serving our communities.
  The Federal agencies in the Department of Homeland Security must 
listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of 
first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and 
urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from 
training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to 
name a few.

  We must listen to our law enforcement officials to identify which 
programs most effectively help them protect our communities. We must 
listen to our firefighters and fire chiefs to identify which programs 
most effectively prevent and respond to disasters.
  Once we have identified these programs and perceived needs, the 
Federal agencies under the New Department of Homeland Security must 
coordinate their activities in an effective manner.
  In the case of EMS providers, more than five Federal agencies 
currently support EMS services, but they lack coordination and the 
necessary input from our local EMS providers. Earlier this year, 
Congress approved legislation, sponsored by the Senator from Maine and 
myself, that would improve coordination between these services.
  We must ensure that the agencies within the Department of Homeland 
Security promote this same kind of coordination and not fall into the 
trap of five separate initiatives to address the same problem.

[[Page S6957]]

  Our legislation, the First Responder Support Act will promote 
effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of 
Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders, our 
firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers, can help 
Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve 
existing programs and future initiatives.
  Our proposal establishes a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in 
each State, to provide coordination between the Department of Homeland 
Security and State and local first responders. This office will serve 
not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to 
ensure that the funding and programs are effective. For example, they 
can help ensure that State and local priorities are matching up with 
those set out at the new Department. They can also identify areas of 
Homeland Security in which the Federal and State or local role is 
duplicative and recommend ways to decrease or eliminate unneeded 
resources.
  It would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland 
Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support 
first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of 
taxpayer dollars.
  As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act 
establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder 
community to identify and streamline effective programs.
  I am submitting this proposal in the hope that the Committee charged 
with creating the new agency will consider it during their mark up of 
any legislation. I recognize, however, that this consideration does not 
prejudge which committee will be charged with oversight of this new 
department.
  We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, 
and helping them to attain the resources that they need to provide 
effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our 
support. In almost any disaster, the local first providers and health 
care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of 
Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the 
resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and 
coordinated manner. I urge my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
this proposal and support our first responders.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2748. A bill to authorize the formulation of State and regional 
emergency telehealth network testbeds and within the Department of 
Defense, a telehealth task force; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Emergency Telemedical Communications Act of 2002 or NETCA. This bill 
would take important steps to strengthen our Nation's ability to 
respond to and manage biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorist 
attacks and other natural disasters.
  Today, we live in a world forever changed by the September 11 attacks 
on our country. These events exposed weaknesses in our homeland 
defense; the anthrax attacks further showed how important it is to have 
a strong public health system and what happens when such a system has 
been neglected.
  My bill would help address both of these issues. It would authorize 
two regional telehealth test beds, linking local and state health 
departments with the CDC, academic, VA, and DoD medical centers, 
Emergency Medical Services, and other health entities. Additionally, 
these efforts would be coordinated with local and State law 
enforcement, fire departments, and the National Guard. The system would 
then be tested for its ability to gather information in real-time, send 
timely alerts, and connect front-line responders with key support 
people to prevent or assist in managing a crisis. For instance, in a 
situation where there are mass casualties, an emergency room physician, 
while in the hospital, would be able to assist the emergency medical 
technician at the scene in triaging patients and directing where 
patients should be transported. They also would be able to participate 
directly in the treatment of patients in the field and not have to wait 
for them to arrive at the hospital. In these situations, minutes mean 
lives; enactment of this legislation would save lives.
  But this system would do more than allow for medical specialist-to-
patient consultations; it would permit disaster experts hundreds or 
even thousands of miles away to view the disaster area and communicate 
directly with front-line responders. For example, in a ``dirty'' bomb 
explosion, fire and rescue responders might not notice anything 
different than expected based upon their training for response to 
explosives. However, if their trucks and uniforms were equipped with 
devices that recognized this radiation, not only would they be alerted, 
but the information could be automatically relayed by the telehealth 
system to radiation experts who could then be ``brought'' to the scene 
to help direct the response and improve responder safety.
  For such a system to work, everyone must be on the same page. This 
means the information being sent must be understood by all. We cannot 
have one part of the system use medical terminology typical for one 
region of the country, such as ``reactive airway disease'', and another 
part of the system using a different name, such as ``asthma.'' Thus, a 
common agreed upon language must be determined. Furthermore, each 
statewide network must be connected in a seamless fashion so this 
information can pass through smoothly and without interruption. My bill 
would create a task force of relevant experts from private and 
government to solve both of these challenges and then use the test beds 
to evaluate their solutions.
  In the end, I envision an intelligent system, capable of gathering 
information real-time and proactively connecting front-line responders 
with key support people. It would provide timely alerts, crisis 
response, prevention, and prediction of medical and other dangers.
  Ultimately, it is my hope that this project will lead to the 
formation of a secure National Emergency Telemedical Network. I am 
happy to say that there is broad support for this legislation in the 
telemedicine and information management communities, as well as in 
various State and Federal agencies. In particular, I am pleased that my 
bill has been endorsed by the American Telemedicine Association, the 
Center for Telemedicine Law, the American Association of Medical 
Colleges, the North Dakota Hospital Association, the North Dakota 
Medical Association, the North Dakota State Department of Health, the 
University of Texas Health Sciences Center, the University of Tennessee 
Health Sciences Center, and the Telemedicine Center of East Carolina 
University. I am also pleased that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has 
joined me in this effort, and I urge my other colleagues to support 
this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2749. A bill to establish the Highlands Stewardshp area in the 
States of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senator Torricelli, 
Schumer, Clinton, Dodd and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands 
Stewardship Act of 2002. I am proud to be joining my colleagues from 
the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut delegations in the House of 
Representatives, who have introduced identical legislation in the 
House.
  This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space 
treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches 
from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in 
New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central 
Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than two million acres of 
forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic 
sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also 
includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and 
West Point.
  The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the 
Highlands cannot be overstated. 170 million gallons are drawn from the

[[Page S6958]]

Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 
million people. 247 threatened or endangered species live in the 
Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered 
hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are 
many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the 
Highlands that are used by many of the one in twelve Americans who live 
within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands.
  Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to a 
study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture we lost 
3,400 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland between 1995 and 2000 
to development.
  This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four 
States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It 
would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation 
projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that 
remains. $7 million a year for seven years would be provided for 
conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands states. This 
funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and 
cultural preservation projects. $25 million a year over ten years also 
would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four 
Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we to protect 
this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record

                                S. 2749

       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 ``Highlands Stewardship Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Highlands region is a geographic area that 
     encompasses more than 2,000,000 acres extending from eastern 
     Pennsylvania through the States of New Jersey and New York to 
     northwestern Connecticut;
       (2) the Highlands region is an environmentally unique and 
     economically important area that--
       (A) provides clean drinking water to over 11,000,000 people 
     in metropolitan areas in the States of Connecticut, New 
     Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania;
       (B) provides critical wildlife habitat, including habitat 
     for threatened and endangered species;
       (C) maintains an important historic connection to early 
     Native American culture, colonial settlement, the American 
     Revolution, and the Civil War;
       (D) contains--
       (i) recreational resources; and
       (ii) cultural and multicultural landscapes relating to the 
     development of commerce, transportation, the maritime 
     industry, agriculture, and industry in the Highlands region; 
     and
       (E) provides other significant ecological, natural, 
     tourism, recreational, educational, and economic benefits;
       (3) an estimated 1 in 12 citizens of the United States live 
     within a 2-hour drive of the Highlands region;
       (4) more than 1,000,000 residents live in the Highlands 
     region;
       (5) the Highlands region forms a greenbelt adjacent to the 
     Philadelphia-New York City-Hartford urban corridor that 
     offers the opportunity to preserve natural and agricultural 
     resources, open spaces, recreational areas, and historic 
     sites, while encouraging sustainable economic growth and 
     development in a fiscally and environmentally sound manner;
       (6) continued population growth and land use patterns in 
     the Highlands region--
       (A) reduce the availability and quality of water;
       (B) reduce air quality;
       (C) fragment the forests;
       (D) destroy critical migration corridors and forest 
     habitat; and
       (E) result in the loss of recreational opportunities and 
     scenic, historic, and cultural resources;
       (7) the natural, agricultural, and cultural resources of 
     the Highlands region, in combination with the proximity of 
     the Highlands region to the largest metropolitan areas in the 
     United States, make the Highlands region nationally 
     significant;
       (8) the national significance of the Highlands region has 
     been documented in--
       (A) the Highlands Regional Study conducted by the Forest 
     Service in 1990;
       (B) the New York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Assessment 
     Update conducted by the Forest Service in 2001;
       (C) the bi-State Skylands Greenway Task Force Report;
       (D) the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment 
     Plan;
       (E) the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan;
       (F) the Connecticut Green Plan: Open Space Acquisition FY 
     2001-2006
       (G) the open space plans of the State of Pennsylvania; and
       (H) other open space conservation plans for States in the 
     Highlands region;
       (9) the Highlands region includes or is adjacent to 
     numerous parcels of land owned by the Federal Government or 
     federally designated areas that protect, conserve, restore, 
     promote, or interpret resources of the Highlands region, 
     including--
       (A) the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge;
       (B) the Shawanagunk Grasslands Wildlife Refuge;
       (C) the Morristown National Historical Park;
       (D) the Delaware and Lehigh Canal Corridors;
       (E) the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area;
       (F) the Delaware River Basin;
       (G) the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area;
       (H) the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River;
       (I) the Appalachian National Scenic Trail; and
       (J) the United States Military Academy at West Point, New 
     York;
       (10) it is in the interest of the United States to protect, 
     conserve, restore, promote, and interpret the resources of 
     the Highlands region for the residents of, and visitors to, 
     the Highlands region;
       (11) the States of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and 
     Pennsylvania, regional entities, and units of local 
     government in the Highlands region have the primary 
     responsibility for protecting, conserving, preserving, and 
     promoting the resources of the Highlands region; and
       (12) because of the longstanding Federal practice of 
     assisting States in creating, protecting, conserving, 
     preserving, and interpreting areas of significant natural, 
     economic, and cultural importance, and the national 
     significance of the Highlands region, the Federal Government 
     should, in partnership with the Highlands States, regional 
     entities, and units of local government in the Highlands 
     region, protect, restore, promote, preserve, and interpret 
     the natural, agricultural, historical, cultural, and economic 
     resources of the Highlands region.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize the importance of the natural resources 
     and the heritage, history, economy, and national significance 
     of the Highlands region to the United States;
       (2) to assist the Highlands States, regional entities, and 
     units of local government, public and private entities, and 
     individuals in protecting, restoring, preserving, 
     interpreting, and promoting the natural, agricultural, 
     historical, cultural, recreational, and economic resources of 
     the Highlands Stewardship Area;
       (3) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior to provide financial and technical 
     assistance for the protection, conservation, preservation, 
     and sustainable management of forests, land, and water in the 
     Highlands region, including assistance for--
       (A) voluntary programs to promote and support private 
     landowners in carrying out forest land and open space 
     retention and sustainable management practices; and
       (B) forest-based economic development projects that support 
     sustainable management and retention of forest land in the 
     Highlands region;
       (4) to provide financial and technical assistance to the 
     Highlands States, regional entities, and units of local 
     government, and public and private entities for planning and 
     carrying out conservation, education, and recreational 
     programs and sustainable economic projects in the Highlands 
     region; and
       (5) to coordinate with and assist the management entities 
     of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, the 
     Wallkill National Refuge Area, the Morristown National 
     Historic Area, and other federally designated areas in the 
     region in carrying out any duties relating to the Highlands 
     region.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means 
     any agricultural producer, regional entity, unit of local 
     government, public entity, private entity, or other private 
     landowner in the Stewardship Area.
       (2) Highlands region.--The term ``Highlands region'' means 
     the region that encompasses nearly 2,000,000 acres extending 
     from eastern Pennsylvania through the States of New Jersey 
     and New York to northwestern Connecticut.
       (3) Highlands state.--The term ``Highlands State'' means--
       (A) the State of Connecticut;
       (B) the State of New Jersey;
       (C) the State of New York; and
       (D) the State of Pennsylvania.
       (4) Land conservation partnership project.--The term ``land 
     conservation partnership project'' means a project in which a 
     non-Federal entity acquires land or an interest in land from 
     a willing seller for the purpose of protecting, conserving, 
     or preserving the natural, forest, agricultural, 
     recreational, historical, or cultural resources of the 
     Stewardship Area.

[[Page S6959]]

       (5) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of 
     Highlands Stewardship established under section 6(a).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (7) Stewardship area.--The term ``Stewardship Area'' means 
     the Highlands Stewardship Area established under section 
     5(a).
       (8) Study.--The term ``study'' means the Highlands Regional 
     Study conducted by the Forest Service in 1990.
       (9) Update.--The term ``update'' means the New York-New 
     Jersey Highlands Regional Assessment Update conducted by the 
     Forest Service in 2001.
       (10) Work group.--The term ``Work Group'' means the 
     Highlands Stewardship Area Work Group established under 
     section 6(c).

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGHLANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, shall establish the Highlands Stewardship Area in 
     the Highlands region.
       (b) Consultation and Resource Analyses.--In establishing 
     the Stewardship Area, the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (1) consult with appropriate officials of the Federal 
     Government, Highlands States, regional entities, and units of 
     local government; and
       (2) utilize the study, the update, and relevant State 
     resource analyses.
       (c) Map.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall prepare a map depicting the Stewardship Area.
       (2) Availability.--The map shall be on file and available 
     for public inspection at the appropriate offices of the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

     SEC. 6. OFFICE OF HIGHLANDS STEWARDSHIP.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment, the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, the 
     Chief of the Forest Service, and the Under Secretary for 
     Rural Development, shall establish within the Department of 
     Agriculture the Office of Highlands Stewardship.
       (b) Duties.--The Office shall implement in the Stewardship 
     Area--
       (1) the strategies of the study and update; and
       (2) in consultation with the Highlands States, other 
     studies consistent with the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Highlands Stewardship Area Work Group.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory committee to be known as the ``Highlands Stewardship 
     Area Work Group'' to assist the Office in implementing the 
     strategies of the studies and update referred to in 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Membership.--The Work Group shall be comprised of 
     members that represent various public and private interests 
     throughout the Stewardship Area, including private landowners 
     and representatives of private conservation groups, academic 
     institutions, local governments, and economic interests, to 
     be appointed by the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Governors of the Highlands States.
       (3) Duties.--The Work Group shall advise the Office, the 
     Secretary, and the Secretary of the Interior on priorities 
     for--
       (A) projects carried out with financial or technical 
     assistance under this section;
       (B) land conservation partnership projects carried out 
     under section 7;
       (C) research relating to the Highlands region; and
       (D) policy and educational initiatives necessary to 
     implement the findings of the study and update.
       (d) Financial and Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Office may provide financial and 
     technical assistance to an eligible entity to carry out a 
     project to protect, restore, preserve, promote, or interpret 
     the natural, agricultural, historical, cultural, 
     recreational, or economic resources of the Stewardship Area.
       (2) Priority.--In determining the priority for financial 
     and technical assistance under paragraph (1), the Office 
     shall consider the recommendations of the study and update.
       (3) Conditions.--
       (A) In general.--The provision of financial assistance 
     under this subsection shall be subject to the condition that 
     the eligible entity enter into an agreement with the Office 
     that provides that if the eligible entity converts, uses, or 
     disposes of the project for a purpose inconsistent with the 
     purpose for which the financial assistance was provided, as 
     determined by the Office, the United States shall be entitled 
     to reimbursement from the eligible entity in an amount that 
     is, as determined at the time of conversion, use, or 
     disposal, the greater of--
       (i) the total amount of the financial assistance provided 
     for the project by the Federal Government under this section; 
     or
       (ii) the amount by which the financial assistance has 
     increased the value of the land on which the project is 
     carried out.
       (B) Cost-sharing requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     cost of carrying out a project under this subsection shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 7. LAND CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, the Office, and the 
     Governors of the Highlands States, shall annually designate 
     land conservation partnership projects that are eligible to 
     receive financial assistance under this section.
       (b) Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible for financial assistance 
     under subsection (a), a non-Federal entity shall enter into 
     an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior that--
       (A) identifies--
       (i) the non-Federal entity that will own or hold the land 
     or interest in land; and
       (ii) the source of funds to provide the non-Federal share 
     under paragraph (2);
       (B) provides that if the non-Federal entity converts, uses, 
     or disposes of the project for a purpose inconsistent with 
     the purpose for which the assistance was provided, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Interior, the United 
     States shall be entitled to reimbursement from the non-
     Federal entity in an amount that is, as determined at the 
     time of conversion, use, or disposal, the greater of--
       (i) the total amount of the financial assistance provided 
     for the project by the Federal Government under this section; 
     or
       (ii) the amount by which the financial assistance increased 
     the value of the land or interest in land; and
       (C) provides that use of the financial assistance will be 
     consistent with--
       (i) the open space plan or other plan of the Highlands 
     State in which the land conservation partnership project is 
     being carried out; and
       (ii) the findings and recommendations of the study and 
     update.
       (2) Cost-sharing requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     cost of carrying out a land conservation partnership project 
     under this subsection shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
     total cost of the land conservation partnership project.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of the Interior from the Treasury or the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund to carry out this section 
     $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2013, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (2) Use of land and water conservation fund.--
     Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     under paragraph (1) shall be considered to be for Federal 
     purposes under section 5 of the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-7).

                          ____________________