Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)

[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).

____________________