Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10041-S10051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3063. A bill to establish a Citizens Health Care Working Group to
facilitate public debate about how to improve the health care system
for Americans and to provide for a vote by Congress on the
recommendations that are derived from this debate; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Orrin Hatch, one
of the most caring and thoughtful public officials I have ever known,
in offering a bipartisan roadmap to creating a health care system that
works for all Americans. Our country has been trying to find such a
path since President Harry Truman's proposal to cover all Americans was
voted down in 1945. I believe the Wyden-Hatch proposal can succeed
after 57 years of failure because our bipartisan plan begins with the
public discussing and deciding their health care priorities, followed
by a guarantee Congress will actually vote on the recommendations that
result from this grassroots debate.
This approach has never been tried before. Now, when major health
laws are written, politicians sit down and prescribe what benefits will
be offered, and then try to come up with the money to pay for them.
After the politicians write their plans, the special interest lobbies
start attacking one feature or another through shrill television
commercials. Pretty soon, the public gets understandably confused, the
chance for building consensus is lost, and important health care needs
go unmet.
The 280 million Americans whose survival depends on quality,
affordable health care have never been given the chance to shape their
health care future before the special interest lobbyists weigh in. The
Wyden-Hatch bill changes that. Under our proposal, the public gets to
jump-start health reform by stating their priorities at the outset,
rather than being treated as an afterthought. We believe our
legislation can serve as an illuminated route to a health care system
where each American has the ability to obtain quality, affordable
health care coverage. We placed three signposts on our roadmap to
provide guidance to the American people and their elected officials as
they make the tough choices inherent in tackling health care reform.
At the first signpost, the public is given an extensive opportunity,
in their home communities and on line, to state their personal health
care priorities and how they should be paid for. In addition, the
public will be asked to look beyond their personal needs, to those of
the community at large, and how those needs should be paid for.
Our legislation forthrightly asks the questions that must be answered
to have meaningful health reform--questions such as: What kind of
health care do you want most? How much are you willing to pay? How
should costs be contained without sacrificing the quality of care?
Should the Government or private businesses be required to pay a
portion of your costs? How about those of your neighbors?
Our national Government has never directly asked the public these
questions. After asking these questions, the Government ought to keep
quiet for a bit and listen to the people because without some sense of
the public's view, it is always going to be virtually impossible to
create a health care system that works for everyone, with the consensus
that is needed to get it done.
To ask the key questions and follow up on the suggestions given by
the American people, the Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens'
Health Care Working Group. The Working Group is made up of a
representative cross-section of our people. It is not just another
Washington, DC commission of so-called policy experts.
The Working Group directs the public participation portion of this
proposal. For example, as a guide to help the public in formulating
their views on the tough choices that lie ahead, the Wyden-Hatch
legislation directs the Working Group to prepare and make widely
available a ``Health Report to the American People.''
The legislation we have authored requires that this report be written
in understandable language and describe the cost and availability of
the major public and private health choices now available--and also
contain enough information so the public can create alternatives. Here
are the kinds of issues we want to address: ``If covering liver
transplants under government health programs requires cutting other
services, what services are you willing to cut, or would you rather not
have liver transplants covered? If government coverage of long-term
care for the elderly would require workers to begin contributing to the
program at age 40, is it still worth it to you?''
These are moral choices about what health care the public has a right
to expect. These are economic choices that affect the finances of our
families. These are legal and social choices that will be difficult for
our people to make. The Wyden-Hatch proposal is built around the
proposition that these choices are too important to duck any longer.
After establishing a sense of how the public feels about these hard
choices, the legislation directs that the Working Group move to the
second signpost on our roadmap. There the Working Group is to take the
ideas offered by the American people, and translate these views into
recommendations for our elected officials to create a health care
system that works for all. With the Working Group's involvement in the
public participation requirement of this legislation, we believe they
are the right people to take this historic step: to synthesize the
opinions and information provided by the public and then present a
faithful picture to Congress.
At the third signpost, the Congress takes the recommendations from
the Working Group and utilizes the legislative process to develop one
or more plans for the recommendations, with a guarantee to the public
that the plans will be voted on in both Houses of Congress. We believe
that the assurance that Congress will vote after the public's will is
expressed provides an added measure of credibility for this
legislation. Simply put, people will be able to see their voices, their
participation, lead to actual votes on the floors of both Houses of
Congress to create a health care system that works for all. With these
steps I have described, our country can as never before discuss, decide
and deliver on health care reforms.
I know there will be many questions about this proposal, and I'll try
to answer them in the coming days. I'd like to briefly answer just one
question I've already been asked: ``Why now? This is the end of the
Congressional session; we are all concerned about the possibility of
war with Iraq. Why are you putting this before Congress today?''

My answer is that the lack of decent health care for so many
Americans,

[[Page S10042]]

and the skyrocketing costs of coverage for insured Americans, threaten
countless lives and our economic security just as tenaciously as any
foreign enemy our Nation has ever faced. Just as we are beginning a
debate about how best to address the Nation's security interests, it is
high time Congress resumed the debate about how to address the
inequities and failures of the American health care system.
On health care, our families can't afford to wait any longer.
Congress is completing another session without significant progress on
major health care issues. A demographic tsunami of baby boomer retirees
is coming soon. It is increasingly evident that piecemeal health
reform--considering prescription drugs one day, patients' rights
legislation the next, something else after that--isn't working.
I have no intention on giving up on any one of those important issues
when it's possible to get Congress to consider them separately. I still
believe the bipartisan prescription drug bill I authored with Olympia
Snowe could bring the Senate together and help seniors get and afford
prescription medicine now.
Yet is clear that because health care is like an ecosystem, with one
part affecting all others, it is extremely difficult to make real
progress on a single important issue without factoring in the way it
will ripple through our entire health care system.
So as the Congress pushes ahead on prescriptions and other urgent
needs, let us simultaneously reopen the debate about creating a health
care system that works for all. That debate stopped in 1994, and needs
to begin again. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides an opportunity to reopen
this debate, and by introducing our bill now we believe it will be
ready for full Congressional deliberation when the next Congress begins
in January.
One way or another, it is urgent that Congress find a way to do
better by the people's health care needs.
My constituents at home in Oregon make this case constantly. At town
meetings, Chamber of Commerce lunches, labor halls, non-profit board
meetings, after church coffee hours, and especially at my ``sidewalk
office hours'' where I just set up a card table to listen, they ask,
``Ron, when's Congress going to get going on health care and help us
out?''
One Oregon business after another has been telling me their health
premiums are going up by as much as 20 percent a year. The number of
uninsured is going up, with many of these individuals working at small
businesses whose owners desperately want to offer health coverage and
can't figure out how to do it and keep their doors open. Many
physicians have been leaving government health programs because of
inadequate reimbursements. Thousands and thousands of pages of health
care regulations now exist and the system is almost choking on all the
bureaucracy.
We know that America's health care system is scientifically
prodigious. Every day our dedicated and caring health care providers
are performing miracles. Last year more than $1.4 trillion was spent on
health care in America. Divide that sum by the number of Americans, and
there would be enough for every family of four to receive more than
$18,000 for health care. With all this money, and so much talent and
creativity in America, shouldn't it be possible to create a health
system that works for everyone?
Senator Hatch and I believe it is. We know it will be hard, but we
believe it can be done if our roadmap is used.
For example, to achieve real reform our elected officials are going
to have to reject the blame game. Republicans can no longer say the
problem in health care is primarily the trial lawyers. Democrats can no
longer say the problem in health care is primarily the insurance
companies. All--let me repeat, all--of the powerful lobbies are going
to have to accept some changes they have rejected in the past if
America is to have a health care system that works for everyone. I
believe that's what we'll hear from the public if they're given the
chance to discuss and decide their health care priorities as the Wyden-
Hatch legislation envisions.
Before I wrap up, I wish to offer a few thank yous.
The first thank you is to the people of Oregon. They have honored me
with a chance to serve, and I get up every morning feeling like the
luckiest guy around. It was not very long ago, as codirector of the
Oregonian Gray Panthers, I was driving to senior citizens meetings in a
beat-up station wagon, and I never thought I would have the privilege
of being able to serve in this capacity.
Oregonians can see I have modeled much of this legislation after the
debate that Oregon has had on health care. And we are proud that we are
the first of the initiatives to ask the tough questions.
Oregonians began asking those difficult questions more than a decade
ago in community meetings, for one reason: Gov. John Kitzhaber, an
emergency room physician, insisted that we do it. He deserves great
credit for his efforts, his courage, and his tenacity. When I told him
I was going to push Congress to build on Oregon's public process, the
Governor said: Go for it.
Senator Hatch--and I note that Senator Hatch is in the Chamber this
morning--could easily have said he wanted no part of this whole
discussion. Senator Hatch has written several vital health care laws,
from his S-CHIP legislation, to his community health centers bill, to
the Hatch-Waxman legislation, to make sure there are pharmaceuticals
available for the public, and that they are affordable. All of those
pieces of legislation have made a huge contribution.
Senator Hatch has about the fullest plate in the Senate, with his
Judiciary and Intelligence responsibilities, but he and Patricia Knight
and Patricia DeLoatche have been thoughtful and patient as we went
through draft after draft of this proposal in an effort to start the
discussion now. I want Senator Hatch to know how grateful I am to him.
Dr. Paul Ellwood, who founded the Jackson Hole Health Group, has been
working for more than three decades to create a health system that
works for everybody. Now, when he could be enjoying retirement, riding
horses in beautiful Wyoming, he is still bringing together health care
policymakers, at 7 o'clock on a Sunday morning, in an effort to try to
find a consensus on the kinds of common ground that Senator Hatch and I
are pursuing.
Dr. Ellwood has been so helpful in the development of this proposal
and his own new plan called Heroic Pathways, which encourages the use
of information technologies and evidence-based medicine, which is a
fancy way of saying health care that actually works. I am of the view
that Dr. Ellwood's ideas have great potential. To Paul and Barbara
Ellwood, I say this morning, we would not be here today without you.
In my office, Stephanie Kennan and Carole Grunberg kept us tethered
to reality, and Ms. Daphne Edwards, a young lawyer in the legislative
counsel's office, produced eight separate drafts of this legislation
alone.
Finally, I went into public life because I have always believed if
people could not get affordable, quality health care, they were not in
a position to be able to do much of anything else. Since those Gray
Panther days, I have believed that it is wrong for people in this
country to die because they could not get health care or because it
came too late.
America is now hemorrhaging dollars into a health care system that
simply does not work at all for too many people. The longer people go
on dying needlessly, and the longer prosperity and security allude our
families, the less America looks like the America of our dreams. No one
I know thinks it should be so easy to slip through the cracks in our
health care system. No one I know believes America is supposed to be a
place where people forfeit their well-being for doing honest work that
just does not pay enough for good medical care.
The Wyden-Hatch legislation is a chance to move toward America as it
is meant to be. People can voice their vision for health care in
America. Their voices can count. Their vision can come to pass.
So today I ask the Senate to give our people this opportunity. The
Wyden-Hatch bill provides a roadmap. The great people of this country,
working with their public servants, can use it as a guide to a health
care system that works for everyone.
Mr. President, I see that my colleague is on the floor this morning.
I

[[Page S10043]]

wrap up by again expressing my appreciation to Senator Hatch. I have
come to the conclusion that if you want to get anything important done,
particularly in health care, it has to be bipartisan. Senator Hatch and
I have been talking about this health care reform for an awfully long
time. He has been extraordinarily patient--he and his staff--in working
with me. I think we bring to the Senate today a chance, as we end this
session--a session where there has not been the progress the people
deserve on health care--a chance to move forward in a bipartisan way. I
am just especially grateful to my colleague from the State of Utah, who
is one of the most caring people I have known in public life, for all
his help.
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. 3063

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 ``Health Care That Works for
All Americans Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) In order to improve the health care system, the
American public must engage in an informed national public
debate to make choices about the services they want covered,
what health care coverage they want, and how they are willing
to pay for coverage.
(2) More than a trillion dollars annually is spent on the
health care system, yet--
(A) 41,000,000 Americans are uninsured;
(B) insured individuals do not always have access to
essential, effective services to improve and maintain their
health; and
(C) employers, who cover over 170,000,000 Americans, find
providing coverage increasingly difficult because of rising
costs and double digit premium increases.
(3) Despite increases in medical care spending that are
greater than the rate of inflation, population growth, and
Gross Domestic Product growth, there has not been a
commensurate improvement in our health status as a nation.
(4) Health care costs for even just 1 member of a family
can be catastrophic, resulting in medical bills potentially
harming the economic stability of the entire family.
(5) Common life occurrences can jeopardize the ability of a
family to retain private coverage or jeopardize access to
public coverage.
(6) Innovations in health care access, coverage, and
quality of care, including the use of technology, have often
come from States, local communities, and private sector
organizations, but more creative policies could tap this
potential.
(7) Despite our Nation's wealth, the health care system
does not provide coverage to all Americans who want it.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide for a nationwide public debate about
improving the health care system to provide every American
with the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care
coverage; and
(2) to provide for a vote by Congress on the
recommendations that result from the debate.

SEC. 4. CITIZENS' HEALTH CARE WORKING GROUP.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall establish
an entity to be known as the Citizens' Health Care Working
Group (referred to in this Act as the ``Working Group'').
(b) Appointment.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority
Leader of the Senate (in this section referred to as the
``leadership'') shall each appoint individuals to serve as
members of the Working Group in accordance with subsections
(c), (d), and (e).
(c) Membership Criteria.--
(1) Appointed members.--
(A) Separate appointments.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives jointly with the Minority Leader of the House
of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate
jointly with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall each
appoint 1 member of the Working Group described in
subparagraphs (A), (G), (J), (K), and (M) of paragraph (2).
(B) Joint appointments.--Members of the Working Group
described in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (N)
of paragraph (2) shall be appointed jointly by the
leadership.
(C) Combined appointments.--Members of the Working Group
described in subparagraphs (H) and (L) shall be appointed in
the following manner:
(i) One member of the Working Group in each of such
subparagraphs shall be appointed jointly by the leadership.
(ii) The remaining appointments of the members in each of
such subparagraphs shall be divided equally such that the
Speaker of the House of Representatives jointly with the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and the
Majority Leader of the Senate jointly with the Minority
Leader of the Senate each appoint an equal number of members.
(2) Categories of appointed members.--Members of the
Working Group shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 2 members shall be patients or family members of
patients who, at least 1 year prior to the date of enactment
of this Act, have had no health insurance.
(B) 1 member shall be a representative of children.
(C) 1 member shall be a representative of the mentally ill.
(D) 1 member shall be a representative of the disabled.
(E) 1 member shall be over the age of 65 and a beneficiary
under the medicare program established under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(F) 1 member shall be a recipient of benefits under the
medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(G) 2 members shall be State health officials.
(H) 3 members shall be employers, including--
(i) 1 large employer (an employer who employed 50 or more
employees on business days during the preceding calendar year
and who employed at least 50 employees on the first of the
year);
(ii) 1 small employer (an employer who employed an average
of at least 2 employees but less than 50 employees on
business days in the preceding calendar year and who employs
at least 2 employees on the first of the year); and
(iii) 1 multi-state employer.
(I) 1 member shall be a representative of labor.
(J) 2 members shall be health insurance issuers.
(K) 2 members shall be health care providers.
(L) 5 members shall be appointed as follows:
(i) 1 economist.
(ii) 1 academician.
(iii) 1 health policy researcher.
(iv) 1 individual with expertise in pharmacoeconomics.
(v) 1 health technology expert.
(M) 2 members shall be representatives of community leaders
who have developed State or local community solutions to the
problems addressed by the Working Group.
(N) 1 member shall be a representative of a medical school.
(3) Secretary.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
or the designee of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall be a member of the Working Group.
(d) Prohibited Appointments.--Members of the Working Group
shall not include members of Congress or other elected
government officials (Federal, State, or local) other than
those individuals specified in subsection (c). To the extent
possible, individuals appointed to the Working Group shall
have used the health care system within the previous 2 years
and shall not be paid employees or representatives of
associations or advocacy organizations involved in the health
care system.
(e) Appointment Criteria.--
(1) House of representatives.--The Speaker and Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives shall make the
appointments described in subsection (b) in consultation with
the chairperson and ranking member of the following
committees of the House of Representatives:
(A) The Committee on Ways and Means.
(B) The Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(C) The Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(2) Senate.--The Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the
Senate shall make the appointments described in subsection
(b) in consultation with the chairperson and ranking member
of the following committees of the Senate:
(A) The Committee on Finance.
(B) The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
(f) Period of Appointment.--Members of the Working Group
shall be appointed for a term of 2 years. Such term is
renewable and any vacancies shall not affect the power and
duties of the Working Group but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(g) Appointment of the Chairperson.--Not later than 15 days
after the date on which all members of the Working Group have
been appointed under subsection (b), the leadership shall
make a joint designation of the chairperson of the Working
Group. If the leadership fails to make such designation
within such time period, the Working Group Members shall, not
later than 10 days after the end of such time period,
designate a chairperson by majority vote.
(h) Subcommittees.--The Working Group may establish
subcommittees if doing so increases the efficiency of the
Working Group in completing its tasks.
(i) Duties.--
(1) Hearings.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
appointment of the chairperson under subsection (g), the
Working Group shall hold hearings to examine--
(A) the capacity of the public and private health care
systems to expand coverage options;

[[Page S10044]]

(B) the cost of health care and the effectiveness of care
provided at all stages of disease, but in particular the cost
of services at the end of life;
(C) innovative State strategies used to expand health care
coverage and lower health care costs;
(D) local community solutions to accessing health care
coverage;
(E) efforts to enroll individuals currently eligible for
public or private health care coverage;
(F) the role of evidence-based medical practices that can
be documented as restoring, maintaining, or improving a
patient's health, and the use of technology in supporting
providers in improving quality of care and lowering costs;
and
(G) strategies to assist purchasers of health care,
including consumers, to become more aware of the impact of
costs, and to lower the costs of health care.
(2) Additional hearings.--The Working Group may hold
additional hearings on subjects other than those listed in
paragraph (1) so long as such hearings are determined to be
necessary by the Working Group in carrying out the purposes
of this Act. Such additional hearings do not have to be
completed within the time period specified in paragraph (1)
but shall not delay the other activities of the Working Group
under this section.
(3) The health report to the american people.--Not later
than 90 days after the hearings described in paragraphs (1)
and (2) are completed, the Working Group shall prepare and
make available to health care consumers through the Internet
and other appropriate public channels, a report to be
entitled, ``The Health Report to the American People''. Such
report shall be understandable to the general public and
include--
(A) a summary of--
(i) health care and related services that may be used by
individuals throughout their life span;
(ii) the cost of health care services and their medical
effectiveness in providing better quality of care for
different age groups;
(iii) the source of coverage and payment, including
reimbursement, for health care services;
(iv) the reasons people are uninsured or underinsured and
the cost to taxpayers, purchasers of health services, and
communities when Americans are uninsured or underinsured;
(v) the impact on health care outcomes and costs when
individuals are treated in later stages of disease;
(vi) health care cost containment strategies; and
(vii) information on health care needs that need to be
addressed;
(B) examples of community strategies to provide health care
coverage or access;
(C) information on geographic-specific issues relating to
health care;
(D) information concerning the cost of care in different
settings, including institutional-based care and home and
community-based care;
(E) a summary of ways to finance health care coverage; and
(F) the role of technology in providing future health care
including ways to support the information needs of patients
and providers.
(4) Community meetings.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Working Group shall initiate
health care community meetings throughout the United States
(in this section referred to as ``community meetings''). Such
community meetings may be geographically or regionally based
and shall be completed within 180 days after the initiation
of the first meeting.
(B) Number of meetings.--The Working Group shall hold a
sufficient number of community meetings in order to receive
information that reflects--
(i) the geographic differences throughout the United
States;
(ii) diverse populations; and
(iii) a balance among urban and rural populations.
(C) Meeting requirements.--
(i) Facilitator.--A State health officer may be the
facilitator at the community meetings.
(ii) Attendance.--At least 1 member of the Working Group
shall attend and serve as chair of each community meeting.
Other members may participate through interactive technology.
(iii) Topics.--The community meetings shall, at a minimum,
address the following issues:

(I) The optimum way to balance costs and benefits so that
affordable health coverage is available to as many people as
possible.
(II) The identification of services that provide cost-
effective, essential health care services to maintain and
improve health and which should be included in health care
coverage.
(III) The cost of providing increased benefits.
(IV) The mechanisms to finance health care coverage,
including defining the appropriate financial role for
individuals, businesses, and government.

(iv) Interactive technology.--The Working Group may
encourage public participation in community meetings through
interactive technology and other means as determined
appropriate by the Working Group.
(D) Interim requirements.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of completion of the community meetings, the Working
Group shall prepare and make available to the public through
the Internet and other appropriate public channels, an
interim set of recommendations on health care coverage and
ways to improve and strengthen the health care system based
on the information and preferences expressed at the community
meetings. There shall be a 90-day public comment period on
such recommendations.
(j) Recommendations.--Not later than 120 days after the
expiration of the public comment period described in
subsection (h)(3)(D), the Working Group shall submit to
Congress and the President a final set of recommendations,
including any proposed legislative language to implement such
recommendations.
(k) Administration.--
(1) Executive director.--There shall be an Executive
Director of the Working Group who shall be appointed by the
chairperson of the Working Group in consultation with the
members of the Working Group.
(2) Compensation.--While serving on the business of the
Working Group (including travel time), a member of the
Working Group shall be entitled to compensation at the per
diem equivalent of the rate provided for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, and while so serving away from home and the
member's regular place of business, a member may be allowed
travel expenses, as authorized by the chairperson of the
Working Group. For purposes of pay and employment benefits,
rights, and privileges, all personnel of the Working Group
shall be treated as if they were employees of the Senate.
(3) Information from federal agencies.--The Working Group
may secure directly from any Federal department or agency
such information as the Working Group considers necessary to
carry out this Act. Upon request of the Working Group, the
head of such department or agency shall furnish such
information.
(4) Postal services.--The Working Group may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(l) Detail.--Not more than 10 Federal Government employees
employed by the Department of Labor and 10 Federal Government
employees employed by the Department of Health and Human
Services may be detailed to the Working Group under this
section without further reimbursement. Any detail of an
employee shall be without interruption or loss of civil
service status or privilege.
(m) Temporary and Intermittent Services.--The chairperson
of the Working Group may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(n) Annual Report.--Not later that 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter during the
existence of the Working Group, the Working Group shall
report to Congress and make public a detailed description of
the expenditures of the Working Group used to carry out its
duties under this section.
(o) Sunset of Working Group.--The Working Group shall
terminate when the report described in subsection (j) is
submitted to Congress.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.

(a) Drafting.--If the Working Group does not provide
legislative language in the report under section 4(j) then
the committees described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
4(e) may draft legislative language based on the
recommendations of the Working Group.
(b) Bill Introduction.--
(1) In general.--Any legislative language described in
subsection (a) may be introduced as a bill by request in the
following manner:
(A) House of representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, by the Majority Leader and the Minority
Leader not later than 10 days after receipt of the
legislative language.
(B) Senate.--In the Senate, by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader not later than 10 days after receipt of the
legislative language.
(2) Alternative by administration.--The President may
submit legislative language based on the recommendations of
the Working Group and such legislative language may be
introduced in the manner described in paragraph (1).
(c) Committee Consideration.--
(1) In general.--Any legislative language submitted
pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) (in this
section referred to as ``implementing legislation'') shall be
referred to the appropriate committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
(2) Reporting.--
(A) Committee action.--If, not later than 150 days after
the date on which the implementing legislation is referred to
a committee under paragraph (1), the committee has reported
the implementing legislation or has reported an original bill
whose subject is related to reforming the health care system,
or to providing access to affordable health care coverage for
Americans, the regular rules of the applicable House of
Congress shall apply to such legislation.
(B) Discharge from committees
(i) Senate.--

(I) In general.--If the implementing legislation or an
original bill described in subparagraph (A) has not been
reported by a

[[Page S10045]]

committee of the Senate within 180 days after the date on
which such legislation was referred to committee under
paragraph (1), it shall be in order for any Senator to move
to discharge the committee from further consideration of such
implementing legislation.
(II) Sequential referrals.--Should a sequential referral of
the implementing legislation be made, the additional
committee has 30 days for consideration of implementing
legislation before the discharge motion described in
subclause (I) would be in order.
(III) Procedure.--The motion described in subclause (I)
shall not be in order after the implementing legislation has
been placed on the calendar. While the motion described in
subclause (I) is pending, no other motions related to the
motion described in subclause (I) shall be in order. Debate
on a motion to discharge shall be limited to not more than 10
hours, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader
and the minority leader, or their designees. An amendment to
the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to
move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed or
disagreed to.
(IV) Exception.--If implementing language is submitted on a
date later than May 1 of the second session of a Congress,
the committee shall have 90 days to consider the implementing
legislation before a motion to discharge under this clause
would be in order.

(ii) House of representatives.--If the implementing
legislation or an original bill described in subparagraph (A)
has not been reported out of a committee of the House of
Representatives within 180 days after the date on which such
legislation was referred to committee under paragraph (1),
then on any day on which the call of the calendar for motions
to discharge committees is in order, any member of the House
of Representatives may move that the committee be discharged
from consideration of the implementing legislation, and this
motion shall be considered under the same terms and
conditions, and if adopted the House of Representatives shall
follow the procedure described in subsection (d)(1).
(d) Floor Consideration.--
(1) Motion to proceed.--If a motion to discharge made
pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B)(i) or (c)(2)(B)(ii) is
adopted, then, not earlier than 5 legislative days after the
date on which the motion to discharge is adopted, a motion
may be made to proceed to the bill.
(2) Failure of motion.--If the motion to discharge made
pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B)(i) or (c)(2)(B)(ii) fails,
such motion may be made not more than 2 additional times, but
in no case more frequently than within 30 days of the
previous motion. Debate on each of such motions shall be
limited to 5 hours, equally divided.
(3) Applicable rules.--Once the Senate is debating the
implementing legislation the regular rules of the Senate
shall apply.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act, other than section 4(i)(3), $3,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005.
(b) Health Report to the American People.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for the preparation and
dissemination of the Health Report to the American People
described in section 4(i)(3), such sums as may be necessary
for the fiscal year in which the report is required to be
submitted.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks,
especially his kind remarks with regard to me. I share a mutual
affection for him because, as a leader in the House on health care, he
did so many good things. We are so happy to have him in the Senate
where he has continued his work on health care. I am very grateful to
him.
Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my good
friend and colleague, the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
Last week, we were all dismayed to learn the Census Bureau figures
indicate the number of uninsured in our country has risen from 39.8
million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001.
Of even greater concern is the fact that most of the newly uninsured
previously had employer-based coverage.
Obviously, this is a trend in the wrong direction despite years of
efforts here in Washington to improve our country's health care
delivery system.
Clearly, we must take another approach.
In a nutshell, the legislation that Senator Wyden and I are
introducing today will stimulate fruitful discussion and debate on how
we can really effect improvements to our nation's health care system--
improvements that can be accepted at all levels, from communities on up
to the Federal government.
We have worked on this bill for several months and are proud to have
reached bipartisan consensus.
Bipartisanship, it seems, is a rare occurrence these days. But, in
our opinion, the only way to resolve our country's health crisis is to
put politics aside and work together toward common goals.
The Health Care That Works for All Americans Act of 2002 reflects our
common goals on how to resolve this country's health care woes.
We accomplish these important goals by fostering candid discussions--
in every corner of our country--through which the public can have an
earnest discussion about our current health care system.
These discussions will lead to recommendations on how to improve
health care coverage which will help guide the Congress as it moves
forward in this area.
It is our hope that, in the end, this legislation will provide
Americans with the proper tools to access high quality, affordable
health care coverage.
Basically, our legislation envisions three steps: public meetings;
recommendations to Congress; and congressional action.
We see this an as interactive process, which will help all of us be
more informed consumers and which can produce real changes for the
public.
At this point, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss each
of these steps in more detail.
The first step of this bill is to stimulate community gatherings at
which individuals from all walks of life can provide their viewpoints
on which health benefits they believe should be covered.
Obviously, a necessary component of that discussion will be how the
benefits can be paid for, and by whom. Strange as it may seem, our
government has never actually asked the American people what they want
from our health care system. These community meetings would pose
questions to individuals such as, ``What type of health coverage do you
want how much are you willing to pay?''
In addition, debate would focus on the financial responsibilities of
the government, businesses, and individual citizens.
I believe these issues must be discussed at the beginning of a new
debate on health coverage, because the public's response is essential
to building a nationwide consensus for creating a new health care
system. It is critical to receive feedback from those who use the
health care system on a daily, weekly or even annual basis.
Our plan is to hear from everyone who has had first-hand experience
with the health care system. We want to hear what people like and
dislike about the current system and their proposals for change. And,
we also hope to hear from those who do not use health services and the
reasons why they have not sought health care coverage.

We hope to stimulate a provocative discussion based on key questions.
Is health care too expensive? Too complicated? Or is it just not
available to certain segments of our society?
The Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens' Health Care Working
Group which would be charged with posing these tough questions and
overseeing this crucial debate on how to improve upon our current
health care system.
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group will be comprised of
individuals who have a deep interest in health care: patients;
providers, community leaders; and key state and federal officials.
The Working Group will coordinate nationwide community meetings and
facilitate the public in expressing their views on the complex and
often difficult choices concerning health care coverage.
To achieve this objective, our bill directs the Working Group to
produce a ``Health Care Report to the American People.'' This report
will be used as a guidebook designed to describe the cost and
availability of health choices available to Americans across the
country--taking into account geographic differences.
Since this issue has been visited over and over again without
noticeable results, we believe that it is time to have an honest
dialogue about sensitive health care issues with the public so that
individual citizens will have a better idea of what choices members of
Congress and key health officials are facing when health care issues
are being debated.
We envision asking citizens about a whole range of services and
procedures, a ``bottom-up'' review of the health

[[Page S10046]]

care system, if you will. We hope these community discussions will look
at current coverage issues, such as whether Medicaid should provide
better coverage for transplants, recognizing that these are very
expensive, labor-intensive procedures that may use scarce resources
that might have been used elsewhere.
Another area we hope might be explored is how to improve coverage of
long-term care services, and how this should be paid.
These choices--economic, moral, legal and social--will be difficult
ones, but the purpose of our legislation is this--to start discussing
these vital issues with those on whom there will be the greatest
impact--the American people. We cannot afford to put off these
discussions any longer.
In the past, health reform debates have not included the voice of the
people who actually need to live with these decisions. The Wyden-Hatch
legislation will ensure that those Americans who depend on quality,
affordable health care are at the forefront of the discussion before
the special interests weigh in with their objectives.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, given the failures of the past,
isn't it time that we approach this problem by listening to citizens'
viewpoints on health care coverage?
The second step of this legislation is to direct the Working Group to
take the ideas offered by the public and translate these comments into
recommendations for our elected officials, specifically Members of
Congress and the President.
The Working Group will have substantial awareness of our citizens'
preferences because of their involvement in the public meetings across
the country. After the meetings are completed, the Working Group will
highlight the issues raised by the public and provide them to members
of Congress and the President for evaluation.

The third step of this legislation involves drafting these
recommendations into legislation which will eventually be voted upon by
both the House and the Senate.
Never before has Congress voted on a health care proposal built on a
foundation created by the public making difficult heath care choices.
If enacted, the Wyden-Hatch bill will provide for just such a vote.
Senator Wyden and I both know there will be many questions about this
proposal, but, in my opinion, the most important question is ``Why
now?''
The answer is simple--the American people cannot afford to wait any
longer. The number of uninsured Americans, which had been declining for
the past couple of years, is now increasing.
In addition, the costs of gridlock are simply too great--on human,
social, economic and moral grounds. Congress is on the verge of
completing another session without significant progress on major health
care reforms.
Once again, we have not passed prescription drug coverage for
Medicare beneficiaries. Once again, we have not addressed the issue of
the uninsured. Once again, we have not approved legislation that
includes patient protections.
And the reason for this inaction is partisan politics--no one is
willing to compromise so we end up doing nothing and the American
public suffers. In my opinion, something must be done to address these
important issues, sooner rather than later.
One issue that must be addressed is the overwhelming cost of health
care. Every time I go home to Utah, I hear complaints from my
constituents about escalating health care premiums and the price of
prescription drugs. People are having a difficult time paying for their
health insurance premiums, their physicians' visits and their
medicines. We were all disturbed last year to hear about a recent
Towers Perrin survey indicating that the cost of health benefit plans
at large companies is expected to rise an average of 15 percent--15
percent!--in 2003.
Some businesses, especially smaller employers, are worried that they
will no longer be able to provide health insurance coverage to their
employees. Utah physicians complain to me about the inadequate Medicare
reimbursement rates and are threatening to leave the state.
In fact, many of the federal health programs have complicated and
over-bearing regulations that are confusing to participating providers.
For example, is it necessary to have a book of Medicaid regulations
thicker than the Black's Law Dictionary?
While our health care system provides the highest quality services in
the world and is the most technologically advanced, America's health
system has fundamental flaws. The purpose of this legislation is to
build on the positive components of our current system and improve the
flaws.
We believe that the best way to improve the current system is to
listen to public input and implement their ideas and suggestions.
We must get past playing the blame game. All of the powerful special
interests are going to have to accept some reforms they have rejected
in the past if America is to have a health care system that works for
all.
I believe this is what we will hear from the American people if they
are given the chance to drive the debate on health reform as envisioned
by this legislation. Unfortunately, there never has been a system to
gather that public input until now.
Mr. President, I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of the
Health Care that Works for All Americans Act of 2002. I urge my
colleagues to work with us so this legislation will be enacted into law
in a timely manner. The American people cannot afford to wait any
longer.
I praise my colleague again for his leadership in so many areas, but
especially the area of health care. He is sincere. He is dedicated. He
is smart. He works hard on these issues. I am proud to work with him on
this issue, and hope we can be successful in passing this bill and
getting this very worthwhile effort started.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 3064. A bill to prohibit the use of patient databases for
marketing without the express consent of the patient; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, privacy concerns continues to
grow not only in Florida, but throughout the Nation. This past August,
the Administration finalized rules which will allow pharmacies and
other health care entities to profit from their confidential patient
databases by entering marketing agreements with giant health
corporations.
Under the new rules, a pharmacy can search its database for patients
using a specific prescription drug and then turn around and send an
unsolicited advertisement on behalf of a drug maker peddling a more
expensive alternative drug, even if it's less effective. And to make
matters worse, the consumer can't ask the company to stop.
Instead of banning this anti-consumer practice, the Administration
issued non-binding guidelines asking third parties not to provide
financial incentives to doctors or pharmacies in exchange for
suggesting certain drugs to patients. While the guidelines are well
meaning, this terrible practice won't stop if the government doesn't do
more than offer suggestions. We need to pass a law to prohibit this
behavior.
Today, I'm introducing a bill that allows consumers to decide if they
want to receive health advertisements generated as a result of their
personal health characteristics. Under my legislation, pharmacies,
insurance companies and other health entities would be prohibited from
using private, personally identifiable health information to provide
marketing services to any entity without providing notice to the
consumer about its disclosure practices and obtaining the consumer's
express written consent.
The legislation makes an exception for treatment communications
unless the covered entity receives direct or indirect remuneration from
a third party for making the communication. The free flow of
information is important when sought by the consumer, but treatment
communications tarnished by the marketing dollars of third parties
create an inherent conflict of interest by encouraging patients, who
don't know their pharmacist has been paid, to purchase high-cost
alternative drugs that are not necessarily more effective than those
prescribed by their doctor. Unnecessary spending driven by this
practice, not only hurts individual consumers, but also the American
taxpayer as Medicare and Medicaid costs skyrocket.

[[Page S10047]]

My goal is to restore control to the consumer, so that they can make
a decision to receive, or not receive, these advertisements once they
have been informed that their personal information will be used for
that purpose and once they understand that the covered entity is being
paid to make a particular recommendation.
I look forward to working with all interested parties to resolve this
problem in a timely manner for consumers and ask unanimous consent that
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 3064

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 ``Health Records
Confidentiality Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Individually identifiable health information.--The term
``individually identifiable health information'' means
information that is a subset of health information, including
demographic information collected from an individual, that--
(A) is created or received from a health care provider,
health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse;
(B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or
mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of
health care to an individual, or the past, present or future
payment for the provision of health care to an individual;
and
(C)(i) identifies the individual; or
(ii) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the information can be used to identify the
individual.
(2) Marketing.--The term ``marketing'' means to make a
communication about a product or service to encourage
recipients of the communication to purchase or use the
product or service, but does not include communications made
as part of the treatment of a patient for the purpose of
furthering treatment unless the covered entity receives
direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for making
the communication.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE HEALTH INFORMATION.

Except in accordance with section 4, a health care
provider, pharmacy, health researcher, health plan, health
oversight agency, public health authority, employer, health
or life insurer, or school or university shall not--
(1) disclose individually identifiable health information
to an entity for marketing the products or services of such
entity; or
(2) use individually identifiable health information in its
possession to provide marketing services to any entity.

SEC. 4. NOTICE AND CONSENT REQUIREMENTS.

A health care provider, pharmacy, health researcher, health
plan, health oversight agency, public health authority,
employer, health or life insurer, or school or university may
provide marketing services to a pharmaceutical company if
such health care entity--
(1) provides clear and conspicuous notice to the individual
involved concerning its disclosure practices for all
individually identifiable health information collected or
created with regard to the individual; and
(2) obtains the consent of the individual involved to use
the information and that consent is manifested by an
affirmative act in a written communication which only
references and applies to the specific marketing purpose for
which the information is to be used.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 3066. A bill to improve programs relating to Indian tribes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill and additional material was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3066

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Indian
Technical Corrections Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

TITLE I--PROGRAMS RELATING TO PARTICULAR INDIAN TRIBES

Sec. 101. Leases of restricted land.
Sec. 102. Lease of tribally-owned land by Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
of the Fort Peck Reservation.
Sec. 103. Navajo-Hopi relocation impact study.
Sec. 104. Indian health demonstration project.
Sec. 105. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect grants.
Sec. 106. Illegal narcotics traffic on the Tohono O'Odham and St. Regis
Reservations.
Sec. 107. Rehabilitation of Celilo Indian Village.
Sec. 108. Rural health care facility, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,
North Dakota.
Sec. 109. Health care funding allocation, Eagle Butte Service Unit.
Sec. 110. Oklahoma Native American Cultural Center and Museum.
Sec. 111. Certification of rental proceeds.
Sec. 112. Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to the Oglala
Sioux Tribe.
Sec. 113. Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to the
Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.
Sec. 114. Facilitation of construction of pipeline to provide water for
emergency fire suppression and other purposes.
Sec. 115. Conveyance of Native Alaskan objects.
Sec. 116. Shakopee fee land.
Sec. 117. Agreement with Dry Prairie Rural Water Association,
Incorporated.

TITLE II--COLLABORATION BETWEEN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND FOREST SERVICE

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Forest legacy program.
Sec. 204. Forestry and resource management assistance to Indian tribes.

TITLE III--PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA AND SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico.
Sec. 303. Trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico.
Sec. 304. Survey and legal descriptions.
Sec. 305. Administration of trust land.
Sec. 306. Effect.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.

TITLE I--PROGRAMS RELATING TO INDIAN TRIBES

SEC. 101. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LAND.

Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9,
1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
approval by the Secretary shall be required for any new
lease, or for renewal of any existing lease, of land under
this subsection if the lease, including all periods covered
by any renewal, is for an aggregate term of less than 7
years.''.

SEC. 102. LEASE OF TRIBALLY-OWNED LAND BY ASSINIBOINE AND
SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION.

The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C.
415) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Lease of Tribally-Owned Land by Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) and any
regulations under part 162 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations, subject to paragraph (2), the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation may lease to the
Northern Border Pipeline Company tribally-owned land on the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation for 1 or more interstate gas
pipelines.
``(2) Conditions.--A lease entered into under paragraph
(1)--
``(A) shall commence during fiscal year 2011 for an initial
term of 25 years;
``(B) may be renewed for an additional term of 25 years;
and
``(C) shall specify in the terms of the lease an annual
rental rate--
``(i) which rate shall be increased by 3 percent for each
5-year period; and
``(ii) the adjustment of which in accordance with clause
(i) shall be considered to satisfy any review requirement
under part 162 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations.''.

SEC. 103. NAVAJO-HOPI RELOCATION IMPACT STUDY.

(a) In General.--Section 34 of Public Law 93-531 (commonly
known as the ``Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974'') (25
U.S.C. 640d et seq.) (as added by section 203 of the Indian
Programs Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act of
2002) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 34. NAVAJO-HOPI RELOCATION IMPACT STUDY.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation shall enter into a contract with an
independent contractor under which the independent contractor
shall complete, not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, a study to determine whether--
``(1) the purposes of this Act have been achieved; and
``(2) recommended activities should be carried out to
mitigate the consequences of the implementation of this Act.
``(b) Scope.--The study conducted under subsection (a)
shall include an analysis of--
``(1) the long-term effects of the relocation programs
under this Act on the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation;
``(2) the ongoing needs of the Hopi and Navajo populations
relocated under this Act;
``(3) the ongoing needs of the other communities affected
by relocations under this Act (including communities affected
by section 10(f) and communities on Hopi partitioned land and
Navajo partitioned land);

[[Page S10048]]

``(4) the effects of termination of the relocation programs
under this Act, including the effects of--
``(A) closure of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation; and
``(B) transfer of responsibilities of that Office to other
Federal agencies, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation in
accordance with applicable provisions of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.); and
``(5) other appropriate factors, as determined by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.
``(c) Restriction on Study.--The study conducted under
subsection (a) shall neither address, nor make any
recommendations relating to, the relocation requirements for
Navajos and Hopis under this Act, including any proposals for
the return of Navajos or Hopis.
``(d) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Relocation shall submit to Congress, the Hopi Tribe, and the
Navajo Nation a report that describes the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
``(e) Funding.--Of amounts made available to the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, not more than $1,000,000
shall be made available to carry out this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on the later of--
(1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date of enactment of the Indian Programs
Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act of 2002.

SEC. 104. INDIAN HEALTH DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Section 10 of the Ponca Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 983h) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Demonstration Project.--The Director of the Indian
Health Service shall direct the Aberdeen Area Office of the
Indian Health Service to carry out, in coordination with the
Tribe, a demonstration project to determine--
``(1) the ability of an urban, restored facility of the
Tribe to provide health services to members residing in
Douglas County and Sarpy County, Nebraska, and Pottawattamie
County, Iowa;
``(2) the viability of using third-party billing to enable
a facility described in paragraph (1) to become self-
sustaining; and
``(3) the effectiveness of using a computer-registered
patient management system in the counties specified in
paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 105. FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME AND FETAL ALCOHOL EFFECT
GRANTS.

Section 708(f)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(25 U.S.C. 1665g(f)(2)) (as amended by section 103(g)(1)(C)
of the Indian Programs Reauthorization and Technical
Amendments Act of 2002) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``(including to carry out
demonstration projects that involve 1 or more Indian tribes,
tribal organizations, or urban Indian organizations working
with organizations such as the National Organization on Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome to carry out subparagraphs (A) and (F) of
subsection (a)(2))''.

SEC. 106. ILLEGAL NARCOTICS TRAFFIC ON THE TOHONO O'ODHAM AND
ST. REGIS RESERVATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 4216(a)(3) of the Indian Alcohol
and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 (25
U.S.C. 2442(a)(3)) (as amended by section 104(e)(1) of the
Indian Programs Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act
of 2002) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting
the following:
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated--
``(A) to carry out paragraph (1)(A), $1,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2006; and
``(B) to carry out provisions of this subsection other than
paragraph (1)(A), such sums as are necessary for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2006.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on the later of--
(1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date of enactment of the Indian Programs
Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act of 2002.

SEC. 107. REHABILITATION OF CELILO INDIAN VILLAGE.

Section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100-581 (102 Stat. 2944) is
amended by inserting ``Celilo Village and other'' before
``existing sites''.

SEC. 108. RURAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN
RESERVATION, NORTH DAKOTA.

The Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Equitable Compensation Act is amended--
(1) in section 3504 (106 Stat. 4732), by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''; and
(2) by striking section 3511 (106 Stat. 4739) and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 3511. RURAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN
RESERVATION, NORTH DAKOTA.

``There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services for the construction of a rural
health care facility on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
of the Three Affiliated Tribes, North Dakota, $20,000,000.''.

SEC. 109. HEALTH CARE FUNDING ALLOCATION, EAGLE BUTTE SERVICE
UNIT.

Section 117 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1616j) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Bonus Payment.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, to promote more efficient use of the health care funding
allocation for fiscal year 2003, the Eagle Butte Service Unit
of the Indian Health Service, at the request of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, may carry out a program under which a
health professional may be paid--
``(A) a base salary in an amount up to the highest grade
and step available to a physician, pharmacist, or other
health professional, as the case may be; and
``(B) a recruitment or retention bonus of up to 25 percent
of the base salary rate of the health professional.
``(2) Monitoring and reporting.--If the Service implements
the program under paragraph (1), the Service shall--
``(A) monitor the program closely; and
``(B) not later than September 30, 2003, submit to the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives a report that includes an evaluation
of the program.''.

SEC. 110. OKLAHOMA NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER AND
MUSEUM.

Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the
construction of a Native American Cultural Center and Museum
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma'' is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c)(3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Institute of Museum and Library Services.''; and
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Director''.

SEC. 111. CERTIFICATION OF RENTAL PROCEEDS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any actual
rental proceeds from the lease of land acquired under section
1 of Public Law 91-229 (25 U.S.C. 488) certified by the
Secretary of the Interior shall be deemed--
(1) to constitute the rental value of that land; and
(2) to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.

SEC. 112. WAIVER OF REPAYMENT OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS TO
THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans
made to the Oglala Sioux Tribe under Public Law 88-168 (77
Stat. 301), and relating to Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United
States (Docket No. 117 of the United States Court of Federal
Claims), including all principal and interest, are canceled;
and
(2) the Secretary of the Interior shall take such action as
is necessary to--
(A) document the cancellation under paragraph (1); and
(B) release the Oglala Sioux Tribe from any liability
associated with any loan described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 113. WAIVER OF REPAYMENT OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS TO
THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans
made to the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma under Public Law 88-
168 (77 Stat. 301), and relating to Seminole Tribe of
Oklahoma v. United States (Docket No. 247 of the United
States Court of Federal Claims), including all principal and
interest, are canceled; and
(2) the Secretary of the Interior shall take such action as
is necessary to--
(A) document the cancellation under paragraph (1); and
(B) release the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma from any
liability associated with any loan described in paragraph
(1).

SEC. 114. FACILITATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE TO PROVIDE
WATER FOR EMERGENCY FIRE SUPPRESSION AND OTHER
PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, subject to valid existing rights under Federal and State
law, the land described in subsection (b), fee title to which
is held by the Barona Band of Mission Indians of California
(referred to in this section as the ``Band'')--
(1) is declared to be held in trust by the United States
for the benefit of the Band; and
(2) shall be considered to be a portion of the reservation
of the Band.
(b) Land.--The land referred to in subsection (a) is land
comprising approximately 85 acres in San Diego County,
California, and described more particularly as follows: San
Bernardino Base and Meridian; T. 14 S., R. 1 E.; sec. 21:
W\1/2\SE\1/4\, 68 acres; NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, 17 acres.
(c) Gaming.--The land taken into trust by subsection (a)
shall neither be considered to have been taken into trust for
gaming, nor be used for gaming (as that term is used in the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).

SEC. 115. CONVEYANCE OF NATIVE ALASKAN OBJECTS.

Notwithstanding any provision of law affecting the disposal
of Federal property, on the request of the Chugach Alaska
Corporation or Sealaska Corporation, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall convey to whichever of

[[Page S10049]]

those corporations that has received title to a cemetery site
or historical place on National Forest System land conveyed
under section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)) all artifacts, physical remains,
and copies of any available field records that--
(1)(A) are in the possession of the Secretary of
Agriculture; and
(B) have been collected from the cemetery site or
historical place; but
(2) are not required to be conveyed in accordance with the
Native American Graves Protection Act and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) or any other applicable law.

SEC. 116. SHAKOPEE FEE LAND.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, without further authorization by the United States, the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in the State of
Minnesota (referred to in this section as the ``Community'')
may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all
or any part of the interest of the Community in or to any
real property that is not held in trust by the United States
for the benefit of the Community.
(b) Trust Land not Affected.--Nothing in this section--
(1) authorizes the Community to lease, sell, convey,
warrant, or otherwise transfer all or part of an interest in
any real property that is held in trust by the United States
for the benefit of the Community; or
(2) affects the operation of any law governing leasing,
selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any
interest in that trust land.

SEC. 117. AGREEMENT WITH DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED.

(a) In General.--Any agreement between the Tribe and Dry
Prairie Rural Water Association, Incorporated (or any non-
Federal successor entity) for the use of water to meet the
needs of the Dry Prairie system that is entered into under
section 5 of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 1454)--
(1) is approved by Congress; and
(2) shall be approved and executed by the Secretary.

TITLE II--COLLABORATION BETWEEN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND FOREST SERVICE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Tribal Governments and
Forest Service Collaboration Act of 2002''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) Indian tribes, members of Indian tribes, and Alaska
Natives hold 100,600,000 acres of land (56,600,000 acres in
the lower 48 States and 44,000,000 acres in Alaska), equaling
4.2 percent of the land area of the United States;
(2) land held in trust for Indian tribes shares thousands
of miles of common boundary with National Forest System land;
(3) Indian tribes have reserved rights and interests that
affect the management of hundreds of thousands of acres of
National Forest System land;
(4) National Forest System land contains hundreds of
thousands of acres in which Indian tribes have cultural,
religious, and traditional interests, including interests
recognized in--
(A) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.); and
(B) the Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq.)
(commonly referred to as the ``American Indian Religious
Freedom Act'');
(5) tribal land and National Forest System land share
natural resource attributes in many common ecosystems,
including biodiversity of plant and animal fauna, timber,
fish, wildlife, range, soils, recreation attributes,
airsheds, and watersheds;
(6) effective ecosystem management--
(A) integrates ecological principles and economic and
social factors; and
(B) safeguards ecological sustainability, biodiversity, and
productivity;
(7) Federal land management activities on National Forest
System land are affecting ecosystems that encompass National
Forest System land and tribal land;
(8) collaborative planning and management between Indian
tribes and the Forest Service needs to be strengthened;
(9) management practices on National Forest System land
can--
(A) adversely affect tribal trust, cultural, religious, and
traditional resources on National Forest System land; and
(B) place tribal land and resources at risk;
(10) Indian tribal land managers and National Forest System
land managers have shared interests in maintaining the health
of the forests and in coordinating and sustaining the timber
supply from National Forest System land and tribal trust land
in order to jointly contribute to the economic stability of
local, timber-dependent communities;
(11) cross-boundary management collaboration is needed to
address forest health emergencies that currently exist on
Federal and tribal forest land because of substantial areas
of dead and dying trees resulting from drought, insects,
fire, windstorm, or other causes;
(12) tribal communities possess unique traditional
knowledge and technical expertise that can provide valuable
insight and guidance in the management of land and resources
contained within the National Forest System;
(13) the Forest Service lacks comprehensive authorities to
work with tribal neighbors on collaborative or other issues;
(14)(A) in recognition of that goal, in October 1999, the
Chief Operating Officer of the Forest Service commissioned a
National Tribal Relations Program Task Force to develop
recommendations to improve working relationships with Indian
tribes; and
(B) the Task Force issued a final report in August 2000,
including administrative and legislative recommendations on
which this title is based;
(15) Indian tribes and National Forests would benefit from
improved coordination and integration in application of
wildland fire resources, including Native American fire
crews; and
(16) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) does not contain
specific authority for the Secretary to enter into
cooperative research and development agreements with tribal
governments.

SEC. 203. FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM.

(a) Participation by Indian Tribes.--Section 7 of the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c)
is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``, and Indian tribes,'' after ``government'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and programs of
Indian tribes'' after ``regional programs'';
(3) in the second sentence of subsection (f), by striking
``other appropriate State or regional natural resource
management agency'' and inserting ``other appropriate natural
resource management agency of a State, region, or Indian
tribe'';
(4) in subsection (h)(2), by inserting ``or Indian tribe''
before the period at the end; and
(5) in the first sentence of subsection (j)(2), by
inserting ``Indian tribes,'' after ``governmental units,''.
(b) Optional State and Tribal Grant Program.--
``(1) In general.--Section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is amended by
striking subsection (l) and inserting the following:
``(l) Optional State and Tribal Grants.--
``(1) Definition of indian tribe.--In this subsection, the
term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section
4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
``(2) Grants.--At the request of a participating State or
participating Indian tribe, the Secretary shall provide a
grant to the State or Indian tribe to carry out the Forest
Legacy Program.
``(3) Administration.--If a State or Indian tribe elects to
receive a grant under this subsection--
``(A) the Secretary shall use a portion of the funds made
available under subsection (m), as determined by the
Secretary, to provide the grant to the State or Indian tribe;
and
``(B) the State or Indian tribe shall use the grant to
carry out the Forest Legacy Program.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 7 of the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (i), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``this section'';
(B) in subsection (j)(1), by striking the first sentence
and inserting the following: ``Fair market value shall be
paid for any property interest acquired under this
section.''; and
(C) in subsection (k)(2), by striking ``United States or
its'' and inserting ``United States, a State, Indian tribe,
or other entity, or their''.

SEC. 204. FORESTRY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TO
INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) Authority to Provide Assistance.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may provide financial, technical, educational,
and related assistance to an Indian tribe (as defined in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) for--
(1) tribal consultation and coordination with the Forest
Service on issues relating to--
(A) access by members of the Indian tribe to National
Forest System land for traditional, religious, and cultural
purposes;
(B) coordinated or cooperative management of resources
shared by the Forest Service and the Indian tribe; and
(C) provision of tribal traditional, cultural, or other
expertise or knowledge;
(2) projects and activities for conservation education and
awareness with respect to forest land and grassland under the
jurisdiction of the Indian tribe; and
(3) technical assistance for forest resources planning,
management, and conservation on land under the jurisdiction
of the Indian tribe.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate regulations to implement subsection (a), including
rules for determining the distribution of assistance under
that subsection.
(2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall engage in full, open, and substantive
consultation with Indian tribes and representatives of Indian
tribes.
(c) Coordination With the Secretary of the Interior.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate with the Secretary
of the

[[Page S10050]]

Interior during the establishment, implementation, and
administration of subsection (a) to ensure that programs
under that subsection--
(1) do not conflict with tribal programs provided under the
authority of the Department of the Interior; and
(2) meet the goals of the Indian tribes.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.

TITLE III--PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA AND SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO

SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement
entitled ``Agreement to Affirm Boundary Between Pueblo of
Santa Clara and Pueblo of San Ildefonso Aboriginal Lands
Within Garcia Canyon Tract'', entered into by the Governors
on December 20, 2000.
(2) Boundary line.--The term ``boundary line'' means the
boundary line established under section 304(a).
(3) Governors.--The term ``Governors'' means--
(A) the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico;
and
(B) the Governor of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New
Mexico.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(5) Pueblos.--The term ``Pueblos'' means--
(A) the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; and
(B) the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(6) Trust land.--The term ``trust land'' means the land
held by the United States in trust under section 302(a) or
303(a).

SEC. 302. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA, NEW MEXICO.

(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in subsection (b),
including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral
rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall
be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of Santa
Clara, New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,484 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County,
New Mexico, and more particularly described as--
(1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 22, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary
line;
(2) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 23, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(3) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 24, New
Mexico Principal Meridian;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 25, excluding the 5-acre tract
in the southeast quarter owned by the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso;
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north and east of the
boundary line;
(6) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary
line;
(7) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., sec. 19, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the Santa Clara
Pueblo Grant or the Santa Clara Indian Reservation; and
(8) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., sec. 30, that is not
included in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant or the San Ildefonso
Grant.

SEC. 303. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO.

(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in subsection (b),
including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral
rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall
be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso, New Mexico.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,000 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County
and Santa Fe County in the State of New Mexico, and more
particularly described as--
(1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 22, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(2) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 26, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south and west of the
boundary line;
(3) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 27, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary
line;
(4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 34, New Mexico Principal
Meridian; and
(5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., sec. 35, New Mexico
Principal Meridian, that is not included in the San Ildefonso
Pueblo Grant.

SEC. 304. SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

(a) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Cadastral Survey of the
Bureau of Land Management shall, in accordance with the
Agreement, complete a survey of the boundary line established
under the Agreement for the purpose of establishing, in
accordance with sections 302(b) and 303(b), the boundaries of
the trust land.
(b) Legal Descriptions.--
(1) Publication.--On approval by the Governors of the
survey completed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register--
(A) a legal description of the boundary line; and
(B) legal descriptions of the trust land.
(2) Technical corrections.--Before the date on which the
legal descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary may correct any technical errors in the
descriptions of the trust land provided in sections 302(b)
and 303(b) to ensure that the descriptions are consistent
with the terms of the Agreement.
(3) Effect.--Beginning on the date on which the legal
descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the legal
descriptions shall be the official legal descriptions of the
trust land.

SEC. 305. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST LAND.

(a) In General.--Effective beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) the land held in trust under section 302(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation;
and
(2) the land held in trust under section 303(a) shall be
declared to be a part of the San Ildefonso Indian
Reservation.
(b) Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The trust land shall be administered in
accordance with any law (including regulations) or court
order generally applicable to property held in trust by the
United States for Indian tribes.
(2) Pueblo lands act.--The following shall be subject to
section 17 of the Act of June 7, 1924 (commonly known as the
``Pueblo Lands Act'') (25 U.S.C. 331 note):
(A) The trust land.
(B) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act
or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the
Pueblo of Santa Clara in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant.
(C) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act
or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant.
(c) Use of Trust Land.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the criteria developed under
paragraph (2), the trust land may be used only for--
(A) traditional and customary uses; or
(B) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Pueblo
for which the trust land is held in trust.
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with the Pueblos to
develop appropriate criteria for using the trust land in a
manner that preserves the trust land for traditional and
customary uses or stewardship conservation.
(3) Limitation.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the trust land shall not be used for any new commercial
developments.

SEC. 306. EFFECT.

Nothing in this title--
(1) affects any valid right-of-way, lease, permit, mining
claim, grazing permit, water right, or other right or
interest of a person or entity (other than the United States)
that is--
(A) in or to the trust land; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) enlarges, impairs, or otherwise affects a right or
claim of the Pueblos to any land or interest in land that
is--
(A) based on Aboriginal or Indian title; and
(B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
(3) constitutes an express or implied reservation of water
or water right with respect to the trust land; or
(4) affects any water right of the Pueblos in existence
before the date of enactment of this Act.
____

Section by Section Analysis of S. 3059--Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of
the Fort Peck Reservation Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2002

Section 1. Short Title. The Act may be cited as the
``Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation
Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2002.''
Section 2. Findings and Purpose. Section 2 provides
congressional findings including that in 1987, the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation and
five individual Fort Peck tribal members filed a complaint in
the United States Claims Court in Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation v. the United States of
America, Docket No. 773-87-L to recover interest earned on
trust funds while those funds were held in special deposit
and IMPL-agency accounts; in this case, the Court held that
the United States was liable for any income derived from
investment of the trust funds of the Tribe and individual
members of the Tribe; the plaintiffs entered into a
settlement with the United States for payment of the claims;
the terms of the settlement were approved by the Court and
judgment in the amount of $4,522,551.81 was entered;
Section 3. Definitions. Terms defined in this section
include ``Distribution Amount,'' ``Judgment Amount,''
``Principal Indebtedness,'' and ``Tribe.''
Section 4. Distribution of Judgment Funds. Section 4
describes how the distribution amount awarded to the Tribe
shall be made available for tribal health, education, housing
and social services programs of the Tribe and the amount of
funds allocated among these uses shall be specified in an
annual budget developed by the Tribe and approved by the
Secretary of the Interior.
Section 5. Applicable Law. Section 5 provides that all
funds distributed under this act, except those distributed
under Section 4 are subject to sections 7 and 8 of the Indian
Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act.

[[Page S10051]]

Section 6. Agreement with Dry Prairie Rural Water
Association, Incorporated. Section 6 provides that any
agreement between the Tribe and the Dry Prairie Rural Water
Association for the use of water that is entered into under
section 5 of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act
of 2000 is approved by Congress and shall be approved and
executed by the Secretary.
______

By Mr. THOMPSON:
S. 3067. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to make
Government information security reform permanent, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which
will make permanent a law which was intended to protect the security of
Federal computers and information systems. Over the years, numerous
Governmental Affairs Committee hearings and General Accounting Office
reports uncovered and identified systemic failures of government
information systems which highlighted our Nation's vulnerability to
computer attacks, from international and domestic terrorists to crime
rings to everyday hackers. As a result, Congress enacted the Government
Information Security Reform Act as part of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398.
Since its passage in the 106th Congress, the law has required Federal
agencies to develop and implement security policies and provided the
Office of Management and Budget authority to demand from agencies
better plans for improving computer security. Unfortunately, this
relatively new law is set to expire next month.
The information security legislation upon which the law is based,
which I sponsored along with Senator Lieberman, was reported by the
Governmental Affairs Committee and passed by the Senate with no sunset
provision. A two-year sunset was added in conference providing that the
law expire on November 29, 2002.
The bill I am introducing today would repeal the sunset and restore
the language to what originally was approved by the Governmental
Affairs Committee and the Senate last Congress. Further, given that the
law is commonly referred to as the ``Government Information Security
Reform Act,'' the bill also would codify that short title.
We must ensure that Federal agencies continue to protect their assets
and prevent hackers and cyberterrorists from wreaking havoc with
citizens' sensitive information, such as taxpayer data, veterans'
medical records, and social security portfolios. We must not let this
law expire.
______

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 3068. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to require
the Secretary of Agriculture to use the price of feed grains and other
cash expenses as factors to determine the basic formula price for milk
under milk marketing orders; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had sought recognition initially to
discuss two other subjects. While the issue of Iraq is very much on the
minds of the American people and the focus of attention worldwide,
there are other important considerations which are pending and are of
interest to Pennsylvanians and what is happening with the economy.
We really cannot let our attention focus solely on Iraq.
There are many matters which involve important economic issues and
great numbers of jobs. That is a subject that is very much on my mind
with respect to the Pennsylvania dairy farmers. I propose to introduce
legislation this afternoon on that subject.
Agriculture is the largest industry in Pennsylvania, and dairy is its
single largest component. Pennsylvania is the fourth largest dairy
producer in the Nation. We have approximately 10,300 dairy farms which
produce $1.710 billion worth of milk each year.
Regrettably, over the past decades, Pennsylvania has lost an average
of 300 to 500 dairy farmers per year. In the years 1993 to 1998,
Pennsylvania lost more than 11 percent of its dairy farmers. That is
because Pennsylvania farmers have had to deal with drought and other
natural disasters, high feed and transportation costs, and other
variables that challenge their ability to sustain their farms, but
mostly because the cost of production exceeds what has been the average
price for class 3 dairy products. It varies tremendously. It was $15.90
in September of last year. It went down to $9.92 in September of this
year. The cost has been tremendous.
Meanwhile, the average cost of production of milk in Pennsylvania per
hundredweight is calculated by the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture. The average was $14.32 in the year 2001. The price for
milk in January of 2002 was $11.87 per hundredweight, going down to
$10.82 per hundredweight in May, and $9.54 per hundredweight in August
of this year. The cost of production exceeds what the Pennsylvania
dairy farmers are able to obtain for their milk.
I serve on the Agriculture Subcommittee of Appropriations. On May 14
of last year at an extensive hearing in Philadelphia, we heard from
economists, we heard from farmers, and an analysis for merchants and an
analysis of what was happening on dairy farming.
It is a complex matter. While the price of milk goes down for dairy
farmers, the cost of milk goes up to the consumer. I know at the shop
where I buy a half-gallon of milk, it was $1.89, and it jumped to $2.19
for a half-gallon of milk at the precise time when the payments made to
the dairy farmers were going down. It seems to me there really has to
be an additional factor in the calculation of these prices by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
It is for that reason that I am proposing legislation today which
would amend section 8(c)(5) of the Agriculture Adjustment Act with
amendments by the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to add
the following:
Subsection M, using as factors to determine the basic formula price
for milk under an order issued pursuant to this section (i) the price
of feed grains, including the cost of concentrates, by-products,
liquid, whey, hay, silage, pasture, and other forage; and (ii) other
cash expenses, including the cost of hauling, artificial insemination,
veterinary services and medicine, bedding and litter, marketing, custom
services and supplies, fuel, lubrication, electricity, machinery and
building repairs, labor, association fees, and assessments.
During the course of the July and August break, I traveled
extensively on open house town meetings throughout Pennsylvania. I
heard recurrent complaints from the dairy farmers about being unable to
maintain the dairy farms. It is a very important matter that the small
dairy farmers be able to continue to produce milk, which is a very
important item in our daily diets. I don't think I need to expand upon
that point.
But the dairy farmers are facing enormous problems. We had hoped
there would be a dairy compact. There had been one for the New England
States. Legislation has been introduced--S. 1157--which is now pending
before the Judiciary Committee. And the dairy compact would be of
material assistance to farmers generally but certainly farmers in
Pennsylvania.
We had many Senators supporting the dairy compact concept but have
had contentious battles on the Senate floor. And while the proposed
legislation on the dairy compact was pending, I do propose the
legislation to which I refer, and I send that amendment to the desk.

____________________