[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S848-S866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 162. A bill to provide for the use of distribution of certain
funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
authorize the distribution of judgment funds to eligible tribal members
of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Identical legislation
unanimously passed the Senate last year, but was not able to be
considered by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of
the 107th Congress.
The Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act
resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against
the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect
the community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in
Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims
Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of
Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the community, and
recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be 7
million.
So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in
charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not
disappear. The judgment award has since been transferred from the
Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the community,
managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of the
Interior.
This judgment award was certified by the Treasury Department on
October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two
remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time,
the community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a
use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As
outlined in its plan, the community has decided to distribute the
judgment award equally to eligible tribal members.
[[Page S849]]
The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations
which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment
funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an
agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by
the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to
resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian
Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida,
as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.
Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century
for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter.
After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and
provide compensation as soon as possible. I hope that my colleagues
will act quickly to move this legislation through the process.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 163. A bill to reauthorize the United States Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution. This legislation is identical to legislation which
passed the Senate unanimously in September of last year.
The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering
an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental
conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in
lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In
cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court
proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still
a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for
alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to
address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged
Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to
build a consensus amoung fractious and even hostile interests. The
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have
imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already
provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts
across 30 states.
Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for
assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the
Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the
management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in
the Northwest.
The Institution also assisted in facilitating interagency temawork
for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades
Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to
bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on
grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even members of Congress
have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the
Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental
Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative
processes.
The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster
of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 states.
We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of
the dispute whenever possible and that system is working.
The demand on the Institute's assistance had been much greater than
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal
Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and
designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal
agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to
pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a
participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of
parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will
provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford
mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.
In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation
simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional
five years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed
increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's
services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by
preventing costly litigation.
I hope that we can consider this legislation expeditiously to ensure
continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 164. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar
Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource
study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez
is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his
leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing
inspiration to those most oppressed in our society. He is an exemplary
American hero. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what
we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and
other States that are significant to his life.
Cesar Chavez, a fellow Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant
farm workers. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his
family's Hispanic heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity
of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend
distinctions of experience, and share equally in the rights and
responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better
nation.
While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for
farm work, he evolved into a defender to worker's rights. He founded
the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which latter became the
United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those
that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for
ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. .
.our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and
needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''
I introduced this legislation last October and received an
overwhelming positive response, not only from my constituents in
Arizona, but from Americans all across the nation. Similar legislation
was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001.
The bill specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed
on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be
conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to
establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for
these sites to become historic landmarks.
Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what
it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero
who
[[Page S850]]
embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear.
Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and
serve as an example for our future leaders.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of
support from the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 164
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 ``Cesar Estrada Chavez Study
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) on March 31, 1927, Cesar Estrada Chavez was born on a
small farm near Yuma, Arizona;
(2) at age 10, Chavez and his family became migrant farm
workers after they lost their farm in the Great Depression;
(3) throughout his youth and into adulthood, Chavez
migrated across the Southwest, laboring in fields and
vineyards;
(4) during this period, Chavez was exposed to the hardships
and injustices of farm worker life;
(5) in 1952, Chavez's life as an organizer and public
servant began when he left the fields and joined the
Community Service Organization, a community-based self-help
organization;
(6) while with the Community Service Organization, Chavez
conducted--
(A) voter registration drives; and
(B) campaigns against racial and economic discrimination;
(7) during the late 1950's and early 1960's, Chavez served
as the national director of the Community Service
Organization;
(8) in 1962, Chavez founded the National Farm Workers
Association, an organization that--
(A) was the first successful farm workers union in the
United States; and
(B) became known as the ``United Farm Workers of America'';
(9) from 1962 to 1993, as leader of United Farm Workers of
America, Chavez achieved for tens of thousands of farm
workers--
(A) dignity and respect;
(B) fair wages;
(C) medical coverage;
(D) pension benefits;
(E) humane living conditions; and
(F) other rights and protections;
(10) the leadership and humanitarianism of Cesar Chavez
continue to influence and inspire millions of citizens of the
United States to seek social justice and civil rights for the
poor and disenfranchised; and
(11) the life of Cesar Chavez and his family provides an
outstanding opportunity to illustrate and interpret the
history of agricultural labor in the western United States.
SEC. 3. RESOURCE STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
complete a resource study of sites in the State of Arizona,
the State of California, and other States that are
significant to the life of Cesar E. Chavez and the farm labor
movement in the western United States to determine--
(1) appropriate methods for preserving and interpreting the
sites; and
(2) whether any of the sites meets the criteria for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places or designation as
a national historic landmark under--
(A) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); and
(B) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.).
(b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) consider the criteria for the study of areas for
potential inclusion in the National Park System under section
8(b)(2) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(b)(2)); and
(2) consult with--
(A) the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation;
(B) the United Farm Workers Union;
(C) State and local historical associations and societies;
and
(D) the State Historic Preservation Officers of the State
of Arizona, the State of California, and any other State in
which a site described in subsection (a) is located.
(c) Report.--On completion of the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on--
(1) the findings of the study; and
(2) any recommendations of the Secretary.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this Act.
____
Cesar E. Chavez Foundation,
Los Angeles, CA, January 13, 2003.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, 241 Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Cesar E. Chavez
Foundation and the Chavez family, thank you for interest in
the life, work, and ideals of Cesar E. Chavez, a true
American hero. Your efforts to further Cesar's legacy by
reintroducing the bill for the study, documentation, and
preservation of historically significant sites related to
Cesar are to be applauded.
The Cesar E. Chavez Foundation understands the importance
of such initiatives, which provide a powerful vehicle to
educate and inspire Americans to carry on Cesar's values and
his timeless vision for a better world. It is through
initiatives such as yours, that current and future
generations will continue to learn about Cesar and his vital
contributions to our nation.
Your steadfast commitment to teaching our youth about
Cesar's philosophies of non-violent social change; his
unconditional acceptance of all people; and his profound
respect for life and the environment is an example of how
Cesar's legacy continues today.
We look forward to continuing to work together with you on
this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Andres F. Irlando,
Executive Director.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 165. A bill to improve air cargo security; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
my colleague Senator Feinstein, the Air Cargo Security Act.
Since the 9/11 attacks, we in Congress, working with the
Administration, the aviation industry, and the flying public have made
tremendous progress in transportation security. Together we have
created the new Department of Homeland Security, signifying the largest
governmental reorganization in 50 years. We have created the
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and worked together with
the Administration to hire and train over 40,000 new security
employees. We have invested heavily in our personnel and equipment, and
we have revamped screening procedures in virtually every aspect of
passenger air travel.
Today, there is no doubt in my mind that the traveling public is
considerably safer than we were on September 10, 2001. That is
important to recognize. I think it is also important to note that our
progress is due in large part to those Americans who continue to
patiently cooperate with personnel during the security overhaul. The
importance of their contributions and vigilance during this time cannot
be overstated. With their cooperation, passengers today are screened
more carefully. Bags are being checked more thoroughly, and we all are
traveling under a more secure system.
While our efforts in the 107th Congress have dramatically improved
our transportation security, we in the 108th must continue to strive
for seamless security operations. This responsibility includes closing
the cargo security loophole. It just does not make any sense to go to
the trouble of inconveniencing airline passengers with security
screening and baggage checking if we are then willing to leave the
contents of the plane's belly unchecked. Currently, twenty-two percent
of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, only a
tiny fraction of which is inspected. That is inexcusable.
The measures that I am introducing today, with my good friend from
California, Dianne Feinstein, have already received the unanimous
support of the full Senate, as well as the Commerce Committee last
year. The purpose of the Air Cargo Security Act will be to strengthen
air cargo security on all commercial flights. Specifically, this bill
establishes a more reliable known shipper program by requiring random
shipping facility inspections, creating an accessible shipper database,
and providing for tamper-proof identification cards for airport
personnel. It also gives the TSA the tools required to hold shippers
accountable for the contents they ship by allowing the Administration
to revoke the license of a shipper and freight forwarder engaged in
unsound or illegal practices.
This legislation also requires the TSA to develop a comprehensive
training program for cargo professionals as well as an approved cargo
security plan. The rules and procedures that are strengthened in this
bill were developed in consultation with the TSA, the airlines, and the
cargo carriers to ensure that the requirements were aggressive. Working
together has allowed us to remain sensitive to the airline industry
that finds itself in dire financial straits.
What this vote boils down to is the simple question of, ``Are we
going to
[[Page S851]]
continue doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our passenger
airplanes?'' By closing the cargo security loophole and passing the Air
Cargo Security Act, we will demonstrate our commitment to finishing the
job we started after 9/11/01.
To strengthen air cargo security and passenger safety, I urge my
colleagues to support the Air Cargo Security Act of 2003.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison
in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the
Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress.
Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General
Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the
Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to
shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist
attack.
I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the
board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the
vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September
11th.
After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the
airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we
have not done enough to increase our air cargo security.
The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require
the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to
protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this
report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack
because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that
someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has
taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second,
cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers
from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to
have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their
identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo
shipped by air is never screened.
To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation
Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air
cargo security.
The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1.
Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2.
Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3.
set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo
from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a
regular basis.
The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required
the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air
cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any
longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this
legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent
terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of
our airplanes.
The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for
Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that
includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs,
deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets.
The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could:
screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals;
control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking
systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast
resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in
decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the
identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish
an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background
checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and
require third party inspections.
We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives
because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent
of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo
industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of
the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan
for air cargo.
Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically
filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is
loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as
important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers
safe without stronger air cargo security.
Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our
aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack
for us to finally pass this legislation into law.
I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the
issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support
our legislation.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 166. A bill to amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to
clarify that the value of certain funeral and burial arrangements are
not to be considered available resources under the supplemental
security income program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
that codifies the exclusion of irrevocable funeral trusts from
Supplemental Security Income, SSI, resource calculations.
Irrevocable funeral trusts are funds set aside for funeral and burial
expenses. These funds cannot be accessed until after the owner's death.
Until recently, these trusts were not included in SSI resource
calculations, but an administrative misinterpretation in 2001 dropped
this important exclusion.
This misinterpretation has since been corrected, but it had serious
repercussions for many senior citizens while it was in effect. When
irrevocable funeral and burial trusts were included in SSI
calculations, it penalized those SSI applicants who chose to save for
their funeral by inflating their actual individual wealth, even though
the trusts could not be accessed. The end result was that many senior
citizens' SSI applications were rejected. Because the SSI definition of
resources and exclusions is used for Medicaid eligibility
determinations, the inclusion also affected Medicaid applicants.
I am introducing this bill to codify the exclusion to give senior
citizens certainty that future administrations will not be able to
misinterpret Congressional intent.
In the past, Congress has recognized the value of funeral planning as
good social policy. We have encouraged consumers to engage in ``pre-
need'' funeral planning in a number of ways.
This legislation will encourage people to engage in pre-need
planning. It will codify the existing practice of excluding irrevocable
funeral trusts from SSI calculations and ensure that future
misinterpretations are avoided. We must ensure that people are not
penalized for providing for their own funerals. I encourage my
colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 167. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to carry out a Next
Generation Lighting Initiative; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
DeWine, to introduce legislation which will help maintain our
leadership in a field Thomas Edison invented over 100 years ago,
lighting.
The title of this bill is the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, or
NGLI. The NGLI's purpose is to develop a partnership between our
government, industry, and the research community, to enable the U.S.
lighting to illuminate our surroundings using energy efficient
semiconductors. This bill is structured along the lines of the well
known government--industry semiconductor partnership called SEMATECH
which the Congress authorized in the 1988 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Lighting currently accounts for roughly 19 percent of the energy use
in the United States. Lighting is a $40 billion dollar global industry.
The United States occupies roughly one-third of that market. Today's
lighting market primarily consists of two technologies. The first
technology is incandescent
[[Page S852]]
lighting, that's the one Thomas Edison invented over 100 years ago.
Incandescent lighting relies on running a current through a wire to
heat it up and illuminate your surroundings, but only 5 percent of the
electricity in a conventional bulb is converted into visible light. The
second type of lighting is fluorescent lights, which use a combination
of chemical vapors, mainly mercury, to discharge light when current is
passed through it. Fluorescent lights are six times more efficient than
a light bulb.
In 1998, electricity from lighting cost about 47 billion dollars,
which accounted for about 100 million tons of carbon equivalent from
fossil energy plants.
Today, this paradign is changing, because some scientists recently
made a leap ahead in lighting research. Technology leaps displace, very
quickly, traditional markets. We know the stories all too well, the
horse courier, the telegraph, the telephone and finally the Internet.
That's why we are proposing this legislation, because some advances
have been made in the areas of solid state lighting that require a
national investment that no one lighting industry can match. This
emerging technology has the capability to disrupt our existing lighting
markets. So quickly in fact, that other countries have formed consortia
between their governments, industries, laboratories and universities.
Solid state lighting is being taken very seriously around the world.
Let me describe solid state lighting. The best examples are red light
emitting diodes, or ``LED's'', found in digital clocks. LED's produce
only one color but they do not burn up a wire like a bulb and are seven
times more efficient.
Until recently LED's were limited to yellow or red. That all changed
in 1995. In 1995, some Japanese researchers developed a blue LED. Soon
other bright colors started to emerge, such as green. That is when
things started to change. Because, white light is a combination of red,
blue, the recent Japanese breakthrough, and green or yellow. The recent
Japanese breakthrough of that simple blue LED has now made it possible
to produce white light from LED's ten times more efficient than a light
bulb.
If it's successful, white light LED's will revolutionize lighting
technology and will disrupt the existing industries. It's imperative
that we move quickly on these advances. We need a consortia between our
government, industry, research labs and academia to develop the
necessary pre-competitive research to maintain our leadership role in
this field.
I'd like to mention one other technology that will change lighting.
That technology is found in your cell phone and on your computer
screen. It's called conductive polymers. Three Nobel Prizes were just
awarded for this technology. Conductive polymers offer the possibility
of covering large surface areas and replacing fluorescent lamps. These
materials will not only provide white light, but can display text or
programmed color pictures. These technologies can be Internet
controlled to adjust building lighting across the country.
Let me describe the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Act. If
enacted, it will allow our country to capture these revolutionary
mergers between lighting and information. It will supply the necessary
pre-competitive R&D which no one industry alone can provide, and, which
we as holders of the public trust of basic research owe a duty to
further. It will keep the United States in a leadership role for
commercial lighting and promote energy efficiency that is ten times
that of incandescent lights and twice that of fluorescent lights. We
need to enact this legislation now.
The Next Generation Lighting Initiative authorizes the Department of
Energy to grant up to $460 million over ten years to a consortium of
the United States lighting industry and research institutions. The
goals of the Act are to have a 25 percent penetration of solid state
lighting into the commercial markets by the 2013. The Next Generation's
consortium will perform the basic and manufacturing research. The
lighting industry will take this R&D and develop the necessary
technologies to make it commercially viable.
This is precompetitive research. It is research that no one industry
by itself can perform and which we have a duty to promote together with
industry. It has implications for our country's energy policy far
broader than economic competitiveness. The potential reduction in
energy consumption makes it a national initiative. Once the pre-
competitive research is transitioned to industry then it should be
terminated, we think that will take about 10 years.
If this initiative is successful, then by 2025, it can reduce our
energy consumption by roughly 17 billion watts of power or eliminate
the need for 17 large electricity generating plants. That's as much as
17 million homes consume in a single day. That's more homes than in
California, Oregon, and Washington combined.
Almost all of the language of this bill was worked out in detail with
the House during the 107th Congress as part of the energy bill
conference. We feel it is not only bipartisan but bicameral, and we
hope that in this Congress it becomes law.
So let me conclude, by saying that the Next Generation Lighting
Initiative will carry that U.S. lighting industry into the twenty-first
century. It capitalizes on technologies that have the potential to
displace our lighting industry. This Initiative will reduce our
nation's energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The research
necessary to advance this technology requires a national investment
that must be in partnership with industry.
I encourage my colleagues to review this bill, offer their comments,
and join us in its support. 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. 167
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING INITIATIVE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Consortium.--The term ``consortium'' means the
consortium selected by the Secretary under subsection (d)(1).
(2) Initiative.--The term ``Initiative'' means the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative carried out under subsection
(b).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) General Authority.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program, to be known as the ``Next Generation Lighting
Initiative'', to support research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application activities related
to advanced solid-state lighting technologies based on white
light emitting diodes.
(c) Objectives.--The objectives of the Initiative shall
be--
(1) to develop, by 2012, advanced solid-state lighting
technologies based on white light emitting diodes that,
compared to incandescent and fluorescent lighting
technologies, are--
(A) longer lasting;
(B) more energy-efficient; and
(C) cost-competitive;
(2) to develop an inorganic white light emitting diode that
has an efficiency of 160 lumens per watt and a 10-year
lifetime; and
(3) to develop an organic white light emitting diode with
an efficiency of 100 lumens per watt with a 5-year lifetime
that--
(A) illuminates over a full color spectrum;
(B) covers large areas over flexible surfaces; and
(C) does not contain harmful pollutants (such as mercury)
that are typical of fluorescent lamps.
(d) Fundamental Research.--
(1) Consortium.--The Secretary shall carry out the
fundamental research activities of the Initiative through a
private consortium (which may include private firms, trade
associations and institutions of higher education), which the
Secretary shall select through a competitive process.
(2) Submission of information.--Each proposed consortium
shall submit to the Secretary such information as the
Secretary may require, including a program plan agreed to by
all participants of the consortium.
(3) Joint venture.--The consortium shall be structured as a
joint venture among the participants of the consortium.
(4) Governing council.--The Secretary shall serve on the
governing council of the consortium.
(5) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under
paragraph (6), an applicant shall be broadly representative
of United States solid-state lighting research, development,
and manufacturing expertise.
(6) Grants.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants for
fundamental research to the consortium, which the consortium
may disburse to researchers, including researchers that are
not participants in the consortium.
(B) Submission.--To receive a grant, the consortium shall
submit to the Secretary a
[[Page S853]]
description of the proposed research and a list of the
persons that will receive funding.
(C) Cost-sharing.--Grants shall be matched by the
consortium in accordance with subsection (h).
(7) National laboratories.--National Laboratories may
participate in the research under this section and receive
funds from the consortium.
(8) Intellectual property.--Participants in the consortium
and the Federal Government shall have royalty-free
nonexclusive rights to use intellectual property derived from
research funded under this subsection.
(e) Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
Application.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the
development, demonstration, and commercial application
activities of the Initiative through awards to private firms,
trade associations, and institutions of higher education.
(2) Preference.--In selecting awardees, the Secretary shall
give preference to members of the consortium.
(f) Plans and Assessments.--
(1) In general.--The consortium shall formulate an annual
operating plan which shall include research priorities,
technical milestones, and plans for technology transfer, and
which shall be subject to approval by the Secretary.
(2) Review.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
periodic reviews of the Initiative.
(B) Duties.--The Academy shall review the research
priorities, technical milestones, and plans for technology
transfer established under paragraph (1) and evaluate the
progress toward achieving them.
(C) Consideration of results.--The Secretary shall consider
the results of the reviews in evaluating the plans submitted
under paragraph (1).
(g) Audit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall retain an independent,
commercial auditor to perform an audit of the consortium to
determine the extent to which the funds authorized by this
section have been expended in a manner consistent with this
section.
(2) Report.--
(A) To the secretary.--The auditor shall annually submit to
the Secretary a report describing the results of the audit
under paragraph (1).
(B) To congress.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress
a copy of each report submitted under subparagraph (A),
including a plan to remedy any deficiencies noted in the
report.
(h) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Research and development.--
(A) In general.--For research and development programs
carried out under this section, the Secretary shall require a
commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of
the cost of the project.
(B) Reduction or waiver.--The Secretary may reduce or waive
the non-Federal requirement under this subsection if the
Secretary determines that the research and development is of
a basic or fundamental nature.
(2) Demonstration and commercial application.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall require at least 50
percent of the costs directly and specifically related to any
demonstration or commercial application project under this
section to be provided from non-Federal sources.
(B) Reduction.--The Secretary may reduce the non-Federal
requirement under this subsection if the Secretary determines
that the reduction is necessary and appropriate considering
the technological risks involved in the project and is
necessary to meet the objectives of this title.
(3) Calculation of amount.--In calculating the amount of
the non-Federal commitment under paragraph (1) or (2), the
Secretary may include personnel, services, equipment, and
other resources.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2013.
(j) Termination of Initiative.--The Secretary shall
terminate the Initiative not later than September 30, 2013.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 168. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins
in commemoration of the San Francisco Old Mint; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague
Senator Boxer, to introduce the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative
Coin Act'' to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative
coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this
historic building in downtown San Francisco.
The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical
landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United
States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the San Francisco Mint was
established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in
the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half
of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco
Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. Today the
``S'' Mint Mark is found on many rare coins as well as on many new
proof coin sets.
The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been
standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San
Francisco. It is the Old Mint opened in 1874, it was the largest
Federal building in the West. Architect Alfred B. Mullet designed this
building which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
A.B. Mullet is the same architect who designed both the U.S. Treasury
building and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington D.C.
A product of America's ``Gilded Age,'' the Old Mint is
architecturally reflective of a distinguished line of Greek revival-
style buildings that were soon to be eclipsed by other designs at the
turn of the century.
Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was
able to survive the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact,
the Mint was the only financial instruction that remained operable
after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the
city's disaster relief funds.
The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the
building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space
elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has
deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint
because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic
retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since then the building,
transferred to the General Services Administration, has remained
closed.
Now, the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an
exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in
downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops,
restaurants, community office space, a coin shop, and a visitors center
will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination.
I am introducing this legislation to honor the history of the San
Francisco Old Mint and the role it played in rebuilding the great
``City by the Bay'' after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. This
legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and
issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins, which will be
emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to
California and the United States.
The commemorative coin will also help provide funds for the
building's restoration. The proceeds generated from the sale of these
commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and
Historical Society for the building's rehabilitation.
The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors as the
``Granite Lady'' and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I
am very pleased to note that the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee, CCCAC, has agreed and that its members have unanimously
endorsed this legislation for a 2006 coin, a year that will mark the
100-year anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 earthquake
and fire.
2006 is also the year the U.S. Mint will issue the California quarter
and I expect both coins will be attractive to coin collectors. The
CCCAC's recommendation will be included in its 2002 annual report that
will be delivered to Congress before the end of this month.
Collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans hold the San
Francisco Old Mint in the highest regard as a national treasure.
Because no other such icon of the numismatic community has been honored
by the issuance of a commemorative coin, I believe the San Francisco
Old Mint merits commemoration at this time.
I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint Building
is an important historic preservation project. I hope my colleagues
will join me to support the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin
Act to honor the unique and proud history of the ``Granite Lady.''
______
By Mr. KYL:
[[Page S854]]
S. 169. A bill to permanently repeal the estate and generation-
skipping transfer taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal
the death tax permanently, effective January 1, 2005. While I strongly
believe that Congress must make all of the tax cuts enacted in 2001
permanent, and I have introduced S. 96, the ``Contract with
Investors,'' that would make this and other important tax law changes,
I want to make a separate and special case for repealing the death tax
forever.
It is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and, frankly,
immoral tax that should not come back. In 2001, President Bush and
Congress agreed to repeal the death tax. Repeal was tremendously
popular. Even though most Americans may never be subject to the death
tax, the vast majority know it is terribly unfair to allow Washington
to seize more than half of a person's assets when he or she dies.
According to a 2001 McLaughlin and Associates poll, 79 percent of
respondents approve of the idea of abolishing the death tax.
It is unfair, first of all, to the decedent and to his or her heirs.
A person who works hard throughout his or her life, perhaps starts a
business, and buys a home in a fast-growing metropolitan area where
real estate values are skyrocketing. Or perhaps the person owns a farm
or just works hard in a company owned by others, but that person saves
and invests and eventually accumulates a small but respectable nest
egg. The American dream is to be able to leave these assets to one's
children so that they might enjoy a slightly better life than their
parents. It is simply unfair and immoral for the government to take
more than half of these assets at death.
The impact of the death tax on small, family-owned businesses
highlights another inequity, that small businesses often pay taxes at
the highest individual rate, currently set at 38.6 percent, while the
highest corporate tax rate is 35 percent. When the owner of a small
business dies, the heirs may be forced to sell off the business to pay
the applicable death tax. When the head of a C corporation dies, his or
her heirs may have to sell some assets to pay the death taxes, but
generally there is no need for the business to be sold. While Congress
has tried to make provisions to ease the impact of the death tax on
family businesses, the rules are so restrictive that a business owner
can never be sure if he or she qualifies. Furthermore, the family
business provisions restrict the size to which the business can grow
and still quality for special treatment, creating a disincentive for
businesses to expand and create new jobs. A far better solution is to
repeal the death tax entirely and permanently.
The death tax also causes collateral damage. Take our small
entrepreneur described above. Suppose the business employs 25, maybe 30
people, all of whom rely on the business for their livelihood, health
insurance, and retirement savings. The entrepreneur's heirs may not
have enough cash to pay the applicable death tax and, therefore, may be
forced to liquidate the business. All its employees must now find other
jobs. Or suppose the heirs cannot find a ready purchaser for the
business and must sell it off in pieces. All of the companies that sold
items to or bought items from this business must find other suppliers
or customers, leaving a hole in the economy. Although the death tax
brings in only about one-and-a-half percent of the Federal Government's
annual revenue, it inflicts a disproportionately large and negative
impact on the economy.
Not only does the death tax cost jobs directly when heirs are forced
to liquidate businesses, it actually reduces Federal revenues by
weakening the incentive to save and invest. One of the biggest problems
our economy is facing now is that individuals are unwilling to invest
at sufficient levels, leading to lower profits, interest, dividends and
capital gains, not to mention reduced productivity and lower taxable
wages. Economists Gary and Aldona Robbins estimate that repeal of the
death tax would increase gross domestic product to such an extent that
in 10 years' time, Federal tax revenue would be higher than it would be
if the tax were retained. Of course, if the tax comes back after only
one year of repeal, this growth will go unrealized.
Beyond lost jobs, liquidated businesses, and confiscatory tax rates,
the death tax is inefficient because people pay tremendous sums to tax-
planners in hopes of avoiding as much of the tax as possible. Alicia
Munnell, a former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic
Advisors, estimates that the costs of complying with death tax laws are
roughly equal to the revenue raised, or about $23 billion in 1998.
In addition to being unfair and a drag on the economy, the current
plan for repealing the death tax and then reinstating it the next year
is incomprehensible to most Americans. Under current law, the exemption
is $1 million in 2003, gradually raising to $3.5 million in 2009. At
the same time, the tax rate drops from its original high of 55 percent
down to 45 percent by 2007 and stays there until the death tax is
repealed in 2010. In that year, heirs will only be taxed on any
inherited property when they sell or otherwise dispose of the property,
applying carryover basis, and then at capital gains rates and with an
exemption of $1.3 million, and an additional $3 million for a surviving
spouse. But, the entire death tax returns the following year at the
2001 rate of 55 percent, with the 2001 exemption of $675,000. The
American people know that this makes absolutely no sense. We must fix
this problem now and fix it permanently.
My legislation, the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2003, abolishes
the death tax permanently, effective January 1, 2005. I suggest 2005 to
give people time to plan for the altered date of repeal. I believe that
fairness and sound economic policy require that we enact my legislation
as soon as possible, so that people will know that when the death tax
disappears, it will disappear for good. As Edward J. McCaffrey, a law
professor from the University of Southern California and self-described
liberal, said in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee a few
years back: ``Polls and practices show that we like sin taxes, such as
on alcohol and cigarettes. . . . The estate tax is an anti-sin, or a
virtue, tax. It is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on
thrift, on long term savings.'' We must end this tax on virtue, work,
savings, job creation and the American dream, and we must end it
permanently.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH:
S. 170. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving
funds, and further purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean
Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2003, legislation which will
reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF, Program administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As many of my colleagues know,
the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular
source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects.
Congress created the SRF in 1987 to replace the direct grants program
that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, or, as it is also known, the Clean Water Act. State and
local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet
critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program
operates much like a community bank, where each State determines which
projects are built.
The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular.
Total Federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-
Federal funding sources, including State contributions, leveraged
bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes
are participating in the program, and approximately 11,000 low-interest
loans totaling more than $34.3 billion have been approved to date. As
in many States, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system
improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding
levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was
appropriated for the Clean Water [SRF program nationwide. However,
according to the EPA's 1996 Clean Water] Needs Survey, Ohio's 20-year
capital investment needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities are $7.4 billion. Of that amount,
[[Page S855]]
over $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to
address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems in over 100 communities
in Ohio. The city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $377
million over 30 years to fix the city's CSO problems.
Due to the CSO problem, many Ohio communities face millions of
dollars worth of wastewater infrastructure improvements and the
likelihood of increased sewer rates without receiving outside funding.
In recent years, Ohio cities and villages also have been spending more
on maintaining and operating their systems in order to postpone the
inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will
soon need to be replaced.
While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the
condition of our Nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains
alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996
documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide.
In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200
billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary
sewer needs. Private studies demonstrate that total needs exceed $300
billion, when anticipated replacement costs are considered. EPA's most
recent Clean Water Gap Analysis projected a $6 billion per year capital
payments gap for clean water over the next two decades.
Authorization for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal
year 1994, and the failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends
an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a
national priority. The longer we wait to re-authorize this program, the
longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of
borrowers, which could delay or in some cases prevent project
financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in
spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary.
The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15
billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only
would this authorization help bridge the enormous infrastructure
funding gap, the investment also would pay for itself in perpetuity by
protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and
increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the
bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems,
expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer
financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and
principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority
consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.
The health and well-being of the American public depends on the
condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often
taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me emphasize to my colleagues
that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored.
Last year marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have
come a long way since the Clean Water Act's implementation in 1972.
Yet, we still have a long way to go. After 30 years since the passage
of the Clean Water Act approximately 45 percent of U.S. waters are
still not clean enough for fishing or swimming. The 30th Anniversary of
the Clean Water Act is cause for celebration of our accomplishments. It
is also an opportunity to recommit ourselves to achieving the goals of
the Clean Water Act. The Federal Government must maintain a strong
partnership with States and local communities and share in the
financial burden of sustaining hard-won water quality gains and making
additional improvements to the quality of the Nation's waters.
In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped
thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill
will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable
component in the overall development of our Nation's infrastructure for
years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this
legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.
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. 170
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 ``Clean Water Infrastructure
Financing Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.
Section 601(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking ``(1) for
construction'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``to accomplish the purposes of this
Act.''.
SEC. 3. CAPITALIZATION GRANTS AGREEMENTS.
(a) Requirements for Construction of Treatment Works.--
Section 602(b)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
(2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through
``218,'' and inserting ``211,''.
(b) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1382) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Guidance for Small Systems.--
``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator
shall assist the States in establishing simplified procedures
for small systems to obtain assistance under this title.
``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator
shall publish--
``(A) a manual to assist small systems in obtaining
assistance under this title; and
``(B) in the Federal Register, notice of the availability
of the manual.
``(3) Definition of small system.--In this title, the term
`small system' means a system for which a municipality or
intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency seeks assistance
under this title and that serves a population of 20,000 or
fewer inhabitants.''.
SEC. 4. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS.
(a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is
amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the
following:
``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The water pollution control revolving
fund of a State shall be used only for providing financial
assistance for activities that have, as a principal benefit,
the improvement or protection of the water quality of
navigable waters to a municipality, intermunicipal,
interstate, or State agency, or other person, including
activities such as--
``(A) construction of a publicly owned treatment works;
``(B) implementation of lake protection programs and
projects under section 314;
``(C) implementation of a nonpoint source management
program under section 319;
``(D) implementation of an estuary conservation and
management plan under section 320;
``(E) restoration or protection of publicly or privately
owned riparian areas, including acquisition of property
rights;
``(F) implementation of measures to improve the efficiency
of public water use;
``(G) development and implementation of plans by a public
recipient to prevent water pollution; and
``(H) acquisition of land necessary to meet any mitigation
requirements related to construction of a publicly owned
treatment works.
``(2) Fund amounts.--
``(A) Repayments.--The water pollution control revolving
fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and
credited with repayments.
``(B) Availability.--The balance in the fund shall be
available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance
described in paragraph (1).
``(C) Fees.--Fees charged by a State to recipients of the
assistance may be deposited in the fund and may be used only
to pay the cost of administering this title.''.
(b) Extended Repayment Period for Financially Distressed
Communities.--Section 603(d)(1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``20 years''
the following: ``or, in the case of a financially distressed
community, the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the
project to be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``not later than 20
years after project completion'' and inserting ``on the
expiration of the term of the loan''.
(c) Loan Guarantees.--Section 603(d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
``(A) similar revolving funds established by municipalities
or intermunicipal agencies; and
[[Page S856]]
``(B) developing and implementing innovative
technologies;''.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(7)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or the greater of $400,000 per year or an amount
equal to \1/2\ percent per year of the current valuation of
the fund, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State
under subsection (c)(2)(C)''.
(e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
Section 603(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning
assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee
analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility
operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other
activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations,
except that the amounts used under this paragraph for a
fiscal year shall not exceed 2 percent of all grants provided
to the fund for the fiscal year under this title.''.
(f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1383(f)) is amended by striking ``is consistent'' and
inserting ``is not inconsistent''.
(g) Construction Assistance.--Section 603 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is amended by
striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Construction Assistance.--
``(1) Priority list requirement.--The State may provide
financial assistance from the water pollution control
revolving fund of the State for a project for construction of
a publicly owned treatment works only if the project is on
the priority list of the State under section 216, without
regard to the rank of the project on the list.
``(2) Eligibility of certain treatment works.--A treatment
works shall be treated as a publicly owned treatment works
for purposes of subsection (c) if the treatment works,
without regard to ownership, would be considered a publicly
owned treatment works and is principally treating municipal
waste water or domestic sewage.''.
(h) Principal Subsidization.--Section 603 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Principal Subsidization.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in a case in
which a State makes a loan under subsection (d)(1) to a
financially distressed community, the State may provide
additional subsidization to the loan recipient (including
forgiveness of principal).
``(2) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the total amount
of loan subsidies made by a State under this subsection shall
not exceed 30 percent of the amount of the capitalization
grant received by the State for that fiscal year.
``(j) Information To Assist States.--The Administrator may
publish information to assist States in establishing the
affordability criteria referred to in subsection (l).
``(k) Priority.--In making a loan under this section, a
State may give priority to a financially distressed
community.
``(l) Definition of Financially Distressed Community.--In
this section, the term `financially distressed community'
means any community that meets affordability criteria that
are--
``(1) established by the State in which the community is
located; and
``(2) developed after public review and comment.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 607 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1387) is amended by striking ``the following sums:''
and all that follows through the period at the end of
paragraph (5) and inserting ``$3,000,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.
______
By Mr. DAYTON:
S. 171. A bill to amend the title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide payment to medicare ambulance suppliers of the full costs of
providing such services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 171
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Ambulance Payment
Reform Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. AMBULANCE PAYMENT RATES.
(a) Payment Rates.--
(1) In General.--Section 1834(l)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Payment rates.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to any adjustment under
subparagraph (B) and paragraph (9) and the full payment of a
national mileage rate pursuant to paragraph (2)(E), in
establishing such fee schedule, the following rules shall
apply:
``(i) Payment rates in 2003.--
``(I) Ground ambulance services.--In the case of ground
ambulance services furnished under this part in 2003, the
Secretary shall set the payment rates under the fee schedule
for such services at a rate based on the average costs (as
determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent
and reliable information available) incurred by full cost
ambulance suppliers in providing nonemergency basic life
support ambulance services covered under this title, with
adjustments to the rates for other ground ambulance service
levels to be determined based on the rule established under
paragraph (1). For the purposes of the preceding sentence,
the term `full cost ambulance supplier' means a supplier for
which volunteers or other unpaid staff comprise less than 20
percent of the supplier's total staff and which receives less
than 20 percent of space and other capital assets free of
charge.
``(II) Other ambulance services.--In the case of ambulance
services not described in subclause (I) that are furnished
under this part in 2003, the Secretary shall set the payment
rates under the fee schedule for such services based on the
rule established under paragraph (1).
``(ii) Payment rates in subsequent years for all ambulance
services.--In the case of any ambulance service furnished
under this part in 2004 or any subsequent year, the Secretary
shall set the payment rates under the fee schedule for such
service at amounts equal to the payment rate under the fee
schedule for that service furnished during the previous year,
increased by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index for all urban consumers (United States city average)
for the 12-month period ending with June of the previous
year.
``(B) Adjustment in rural rates.--For years beginning with
2004, the Secretary, after taking into consideration the
recommendations contained in the report submitted under
section 221(b)(3) the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvements and Protection Act of 2000, shall adjust the fee
schedule payment rates that would otherwise apply under this
subsection for ambulance services provided in low density
rural areas based on the increased cost (if any) of providing
such services in such areas.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 221(c) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-487), as enacted into law by section
1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is repealed.
(b) Use of Medical Conditions for Coding Ambulance
Services.--Section 1834(l)(7) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395m(l)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Coding system.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in accordance with
section 1173(c)(1)(B), establish a system or systems for the
coding of claims for ambulance services for which payment is
made under this subsection, including a code set specifying
the medical condition of the individual who is transported
and the level of service that is appropriate for the
transportation of an individual with that medical condition.
``(B) Medical conditions.--The code set established under
subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) take into account the list of medical conditions
developed in the course of the negotiated rulemaking process
conducted under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) notwithstanding any other provision of law, be
adopted as a standard code set under section 1173(c).''.
______
By Mr. DAYTON:
S. 172. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the access of medicare beneficiaries to services in rural
hospitals and critical access hospitals, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 172
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; AMENDMENTS TO THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rural
Health Care Equity Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Permitting hospitals to allocate swing beds and acute care
inpatient beds subject to a total limit of 25 beds.
Sec. 3. Elimination of isolation test for cost-based CAH ambulance
services.
Sec. 4. Adjustment to wage index.
Sec. 5. Establishing a single standardized amount under medicare
inpatient hospital PPS.
Sec. 6. Restoring full market basket update for inpatient PPS
hospitals.
Sec. 7. Freezing indirect medical education (IME) adjustment percentage
at 6.5 percent.
Sec. 8. Establishment of rural community hospital (RCH) program.
Sec. 9. Removing barriers to establishment of distinct part units by
RCH and CAH facilities.
[[Page S857]]
Sec. 10. Improvements to medicare critical access hospital (CAH)
program.
Sec. 11. 5-year extension of the authorization for appropriations grant
program.
Sec. 12. GAO study on wage indexing and placement of hospitals in MSAs.
(c) Amendments to the Social Security Act.--Except as
otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered a reference to that section or other provision of
the Social Security Act.
SEC. 2. PERMITTING HOSPITALS TO ALLOCATE SWING BEDS AND ACUTE
CARE INPATIENT BEDS SUBJECT TO A TOTAL LIMIT OF
25 BEDS.
(a) In General.--Section 1820(c)(2)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
1395i-4(c)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) provides not more than a total of 25 extended care
service beds (pursuant to an agreement under subsection (f))
or acute care inpatient beds (meeting such standards as the
Secretary may establish) for providing inpatient care for a
period that does not exceed, as determined on an annual,
average basis, 96 hours per patient;''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1820(f) (42 U.S.C.
1395i-4(f)) is amended by striking ``and the number of beds
used at any time for acute care inpatient services does not
exceed 15 beds''.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF ISOLATION TEST FOR COST-BASED CAH
AMBULANCE SERVICES.
Section 1834(l)(8) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)), as added by
section 205(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (Appendix F, 114 Stat.
2763A-463), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public
Law 106-554, is amended by striking the comma at the end of
subparagraph (B) and all that follows and inserting a period.
SEC. 4. ADJUSTMENT TO WAGE INDEX.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(3)(E) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``wage levels.--The Secretary'' and
inserting ``wage levels.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) Alternative proportion to be adjusted in fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2002, and
before October 1, 2005, the Secretary shall substitute `63
percent' for the proportion described in the first sentence
of clause (i).
``(II) Hold harmless for certain hospitals.--For discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1,
2005, if the application of subclause (I) would result in
lower payments to a hospital than would otherwise be made,
then this subparagraph shall be applied as if this clause had
not been enacted.
(b) Waiving Budget Neutrality.--Section 1886(d)(3)(E) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)), as amended by subsection (a), is
amended by adding at the end of clause (i) the following new
sentence: ``The Secretary shall apply the previous sentence
for any period as if clause (ii) had not been enacted.''.
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHING A SINGLE STANDARDIZED AMOUNT UNDER
MEDICARE INPATIENT HOSPITAL PPS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iv), by inserting ``and ending on or before
September 30, 2002,'' after ``October 1, 1995,''; and
(2) by redesignating clauses (v) and (vi) as clauses (vii)
and (viii), respectively, and inserting after clause (iv) the
following new clauses:
``(v) For discharges occurring in the fiscal year beginning
on October 1, 2002, the average standardized amount for
hospitals located in areas other than a large urban area
shall be equal to the average standardized amount for
hospitals located in a large urban area.
``(vi) For discharges occurring in a fiscal year beginning
on or after October 1, 2003, the Secretary shall compute an
average standardized amount for hospitals located in all
areas within the United States equal to the average
standardized amount computed under clause (v) or this clause
for the previous fiscal year increased by the applicable
percentage increase under subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) for the
fiscal year involved.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Update factor.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)(XVII) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)(XVII)) is amended by striking ``for
hospitals in all areas,'' and inserting ``for hospitals
located in a large urban area,''.
(2) Computing drg-specific rates.--
(A) In general.--Section 1886(d)(3)(D) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(3)(D)) is amended--
(i) in the heading by striking ``in different areas'';
(ii) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(I) by inserting ``for fiscal years before fiscal year
1997'' before ``a regional DRG prospective payment rate for
each region,''; and
(II) by striking ``each of which is'';
(iii) in clause (i)--
(I) by inserting ``for fiscal years before fiscal year
2003,'' after ``(i)''; and
(II) in subclause (II), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(iv) in clause (ii)--
(I) by inserting ``for fiscal years before fiscal year
2003,'' after ``(ii)''; and
(II) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(v) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) for a fiscal year beginning after fiscal year 2002,
for hospitals located in all areas, to the product of--
``(I) the applicable average standardized amount (computed
under subparagraph (A)), reduced under subparagraph (B), and
adjusted or reduced under subparagraph (C) for the fiscal
year; and
``(II) the weighting factor (determined under paragraph
(4)(B)) for that diagnosis-related group.''.
(B) Technical conforming sunset.--Section 1886(d)(3) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)) is amended in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting ``for fiscal years
before fiscal year 1997'' before ``a regional DRG prospective
payment rate''.
SEC. 6. RESTORING FULL MARKET BASKET UPDATE FOR INPATIENT PPS
HOSPITALS.
Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is
amended--
(1) in subclause (XV), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (XVI)--
(A) by inserting ``and each subsequent fiscal year'' after
``for fiscal year 2001''; and
(B) by striking the comma at the end and inserting a
period; and
(3) by striking subclauses (XVII), (XVIII), and (XIX).
SEC. 7. FREEZING INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME) ADJUSTMENT
PERCENTAGE AT 6.5 PERCENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (V), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking subclauses (VI) and (VII) and inserting the
following:
``(VI) on or after October 1, 2001, `c' is equal to 1.6.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of
Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1999 or'' and inserting ``1999,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or of section 7 of the Rural Health
Care Equity Act of 2003'' after ``2000''.
SEC. 8. ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (RCH)
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1861 (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended
by adding at the end of the following new subsection:
``Rural Community Hospital; Rural Community Hospital Services
``(ww)(1) The term `rural community hospital' means a
hospital (as defined in subsection (e)) that--
``(A) is located in a rural area (as defined in section
1886(d)(2)(D)) or treated as being so located pursuant to
section 1886(d)(8)(E);
``(B) subject to subparagraph (B), has less than 51 acute
care inpatient beds, as reported in its most recent cost
report;
``(C) makes available 24-hour emergency care services;
``(D) subject to subparagraph (C), has a provider agreement
in effect with the Secretary and is open to the public as of
January 1, 2002; and
``(E) applies to the Secretary for such designation.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), beds in a
psychiatric or rehabilitation unit of the hospital which is a
distinct part of the hospital shall not be counted.
``(3) Subparagraph (1)(C) shall not be construed to
prohibit any of the following from qualifying as a rural
community hospital:
``(A) A replacement facility (as defined by the Secretary
in regulations in effect on January 1, 2002) with the same
service area (as defined by the Secretary in regulations in
effect on such date).
``(B) A facility obtaining a new provider number pursuant
to a change of ownership.
``(C) A facility which has a binding written agreement with
an outside, unrelated party for the construction,
reconstruction, lease, rental, or financing of a building as
of January 1, 2002.
``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
prohibiting a critical access hospital from qualifying as a
rural community hospital if the critical access hospital
meets the conditions otherwise applicable to hospitals under
subsection (e) and section 1866.''.
(b) Payment.--
(1) Inpatient services.--Section 1814 (42 U.S.C. 1395f) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Payment for Inpatient Services Furnished in Rural Community Hospitals
``(m) The amount of payment under this part for inpatient
hospital services furnished in a rural community hospital,
other than such services furnished in a psychiatric or
rehabilitation unit of the hospital which is a distinct part,
is, at the election of the hospital in the application
referred to in section 1861(ww)(1)(D)--
``(1) the reasonable costs of providing such services,
without regard to the amount of the customary or other
charge, or
``(2) the amount of payment provided for under the
prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services
under section 1886(d).''.
(2) Outpatient services.--Section 1834 (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page S858]]
``(n) Payment for Outpatient Services Furnished in Rural
Community Hospitals.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of payment under this part
for outpatient services furnished in a rural community
hospital is, at the election of the hospital in the
application referred to in section 1861(ww)(1)(D)--
``(A) the reasonable costs of providing such services,
without regard to the amount of the customary or other charge
and any limitation under section 1861(v)(1)(U), or
``(B) the amount of payment provided for under the
prospective payment system for covered OPD services under
section 1833(t).
``(2) Beneficiary cost sharing for outpatient services
furnished in a rural community hospital.--The amounts of
beneficiary cost sharing for outpatient services furnished in
a rural community hospital under this part shall be as
follows:
``(A) For items and services that would have been paid
under section 1833(t) if provided by a hospital, the amount
of cost sharing determined under paragraph (8) of such
section.
``(B) For items and services that would have been paid
under section 1833(h) if furnished by a provider or supplier,
no cost sharing shall apply.
``(C) For all other items and services, the amount of cost
sharing that would apply to the item or service under the
methodology that would be used to determine payment for such
item or service if provided by a physician, provider, or
supplier, as the case may be.''.
(3) Home health services.--
(A) Exclusion from home health pps.--
(i) In general.--Section 1895 (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Exclusion.--
``(1) In general.--In determining payments under this title
for home health services furnished on or after October 1,
2002, by a qualified RCH-based home health agency (as defined
in paragraph (2))--
``(A) the agency may make a one-time election to waive
application of the prospective payment system established
under this section to such services furnished by the agency
shall not apply; and
``(B) in the case of such an election, payment shall be
made on the basis of the reasonable costs incurred in
furnishing such services as determined under section 1861(v),
but without regard to the amount of the customary or other
charges with respect to such services or the limitations
established under paragraph (1)(L) of such section.
``(2) Qualified rch-based home health agency defined.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), a `qualified RCH-based home health
agency' is a home health agency that is a provider-based
entity (as defined in section 404 of the Medicare, Medicaid,
and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-554; Appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-506) of a
rural community hospital that is located--
``(A) in a county in which no main or branch office of
another home health agency is located; or
``(B) at least 35 miles from any main or branch office of
another home health agency.''.
(ii) Conforming changes.--
(I) Payments under part a.--Section 1814(b) (42 U.S.C.
1395f(b)) is amended by inserting ``or with respect to
services to which section 1895(f) applies'' after
``equipment'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1).
(II) Payments under part b.--Section 1833(a)(2)(A) (42
U.S.C. 1395l(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``the
prospective payment system under''.
(III) Per visit limits.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L)(i) (42
U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)(i)) is amended by inserting ``(other
than by a qualified RCH-based home health agency (as defined
in section 1895(f)(2))'' after ``with respect to services
furnished by home health agencies''.
(iii) Consolidated billing.--
(I) Recipient of payment.--Section 1842(b)(6)(F) (42 U.S.C.
1395u(b)(6)(F)) is amended by inserting ``and excluding home
health services to which section 1895(f) applies'' after
``provided for in such section''.
(II) Exception to exclusion from coverage.--Section 1862(a)
(42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end of the second sentence the following: ``and
paragraph (21) shall not apply to home health services to
which section 1895(f) applies''.
(4) Return on equity.--Section 1861(v)(1)(P) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(v)(1)(P)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(P)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii)(I) Notwithstanding clause (i), subparagraph (S)(i),
and section 1886(g)(2), such regulations shall provide, in
determining the reasonable costs of the services described in
subclause (II) furnished by a rural community hospital on or
after October 1, 2002, for payment of a return on equity
capital at a rate of return equal to 150 percent of the
average specified in clause (i).
``(II) The services described in this subparagraph are
inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services,
home health services furnished by a qualified RCH-based home
health agency (as defined in section 1895(f)(2)), and
ambulance services.
``(III) Payment under this clause shall be made without
regard to whether a provider is a proprietary provider.''.
(5) Exemption from 30 percent reduction in reimbursement
for bad debt.--Section 1861(v)(1)(T) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(v)(1)(T)) is amended by inserting ``(other than a rural
community hospital)'' after ``In determining such reasonable
costs for hospitals''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Part a payment.--Section 1814(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395f(b))
is amended by inserting ``other than a rural community
hospital furnishing inpatient hospital services,'' after
``critical access hospital services,'' in the matter
preceding paragraph (1).
(2) Part b payment.--
(A) In general.--Section 1833(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)) is
amended--
(i) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``and (I)'' and inserting ``(I), and (K)'';
(ii) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) in the case of outpatient services furnished by a
rural community hospital, the amounts described in section
1834(n).''.
(B) Ambulance services.--Section 1834(l)(8) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(l)(8)), as added by section 205(a) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (Appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-463), as enacted into
law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``critical access
hospitals'' and inserting ``certain facilities'';
(ii) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph
(C);
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) by a rural community hospital (as defined in section
1861(ww)(1)), or''; and
(v) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, by inserting
``or a rural community hospital'' after ``critical access
hospital''.
(3) Technical amendments.--
(A) Consultation with state agencies.--Section 1863 (42
U.S.C. 1395z) is amended by striking ``and (dd)(2)'' and
inserting ``(dd)(2), (mm)(1), and (ww)(1)''.
(B) Provider agreements.--The first sentence of section
1866(a)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(2)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``section 1834(n)(2),'' after ``section 1833(b),''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after
October 1, 2002.
SEC. 9. REMOVING BARRIERS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTINCT PART
UNITS BY RCH AND CAH FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``a distinct part of
the hospital (as defined by the Secretary)'' and inserting
``a distinct part (as defined by the Secretary) of the
hospital, critical access hospital, or rural community
hospital'' in the matter following clause (v)(III).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to determinations with respect to distinct part
unit status that are made on or after October 1, 2002.
SEC. 10. IMPROVEMENTS TO MEDICARE CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL
(CAH) PROGRAM.
(a) Exclusion of Certain Beds From Bed Count.--Section
1820(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(c)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Exclusion of certain beds from bed count.--In
determining the number of beds of a facility for purposes of
applying the bed limitations referred to in subparagraph
(B)(iii) and subsection (f), the Secretary shall not take
into account any bed of a distinct part psychiatric or
rehabilitation unit (described in the matter following clause
(v) of section 1886(d)(1)(B)) of the facility, except that
the total number of beds that are not taken into account
pursuant to this subparagraph with respect to a facility
shall not exceed 10.''.
(b) Payments to Home Health Agencies Owned and Operated by
a CAH.--Section 1895(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395fff(f)(1)), as
added by this title, is further amended by inserting ``or by
a home health agency that is owned and operated by a critical
access hospital (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1))'' after
``as defined in paragraph (2))'' in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A).
(c) Payments to CAH-Owned SNFs.--
(1) In general.--Section 1888(e) (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (12)'' and
inserting ``(12), and (13)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) Exemption of cah facilities from pps.--In
determining payments under this part for covered skilled
nursing facility services furnished on or after October 1,
2002, by a skilled nursing facility that is a distinct part
unit of a critical access hospital (as defined in section
1861(mm)(1)) or is owned and operated by a critical access
hospital--
``(A) the prospective payment system established under this
subsection shall not apply; and
``(B) payment shall be made on the basis of the reasonable
costs incurred in furnishing such services as determined
under section 1861(v), but without regard to the amount of
the customary or other charges with respect to such services
or the limitations established under subsection (a).''.
[[Page S859]]
(2) Conforming changes.--
(A) In general.--Section 1814(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)), as
amended by section 8(c)(1), is further amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``other than a skilled nursing facility
providing covered skilled nursing facility services (as
defined in section 1888(e)(2)) or posthospital extended care
services to which section 1888(e)(13) applies,'' after
``inpatient critical access hospital services''; and
(ii) by striking ``1813 1886,'' and inserting ``1813, 1886,
1888,''.
(B) Consolidated billing.--
(i) Recipient of payment.--Section 1842(b)(6)(E) (42 U.S.C.
1395u(b)(6)(E)) is amended by inserting ``services to which
paragraph (7)(C) or (13) of section 1888(e) applies and''
after ``other than''.
(ii) Exception to exclusion from coverage.--Section
1862(a)(18) (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(18)) is amended by inserting
``(other than services to which paragraph (7)(C) or (13) of
section 1888(e) applies)'' after ``section
1888(e)(2)(A)(i)''.
(d) Payments to Distinct Part Psychiatric or Rehabilitation
Units of CAHs.--Section 1886(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, other than a
distinct part psychiatric or rehabilitation unit to which
paragraph (8) applies,'' after ``subsection (d)(1)(B)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Exemption of certain distinct part psychiatric or
rehabilitation units from cost limits.--In determining
payments under this part for inpatient hospital services
furnished on or after October 1, 2002, by a distinct part
psychiatric or rehabilitation unit (described in the matter
following clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B)) of a critical
access hospital (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1))--
``(A) the limits imposed under the preceding paragraphs of
this subsection shall not apply; and
``(B) payment shall be made on the basis of the reasonable
costs incurred in furnishing such services as determined
under section 1861(v), but without regard to the amount of
the customary or other charges with respect to such
services.''.
(e) Return on Equity.--Section 1861(v)(1)(P) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(v)(1)(P)), as amended by section 8(b)(4), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii)(I) Notwithstanding clause (i), subparagraph (S)(i),
and section 1886(g)(2), such regulations shall provide, in
determining the reasonable costs of the services described in
subclause (II) furnished by a rural community hospital on or
after October 1, 2002, for payment of a return on equity
capital at a rate of return equal to 150 percent of the
average specified in clause (i).
``(II) The services described in this subclause are
inpatient critical access hospital services (as defined in
section 1861(mm)(2)), outpatient critical access hospital
services (as defined in section 1861(mm)(3)), extended care
services provided pursuant to an agreement under section
1883, posthospital extended care services to which section
1888(e)(13) applies, home health services to which section
1895(f) applies, ambulance services to which section 1834(l)
applies, and inpatient hospital services to which section
1886(b)(8) applies.
``(III) Payment under this clause shall be made without
regard to whether a provider is a proprietary provider.''.
(f) Technical Corrections.--
(1) Section 403(b) of bbra 1999.--Section 1820(b)(2) (42
U.S.C. 1395i-4(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``nonprofit or
public hospitals'' and inserting ``hospitals''.
(2) Section 203(b) of bipa 2000.--Section 1883(a)(3) (42
U.S.C. 1395tt(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``section 1861(v)(1)(G) or'' after
``Notwithstanding''; and
(B) by striking ``covered skilled nursing facility''.
(g) Effective Dates.--
(1) Elimination of requirements.--The amendment made by
subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to services furnished on
or after October 1, 2002.
(2) Technical corrections.--
(A) BBRA.--The amendment made by subsection (f)(1) shall be
effective as if included in the enactment of section 403(b)
of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (Appendix F, 113 Stat. 1501A-321), as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106-113.
(B) BIPA.--The amendment made by subsection (f)(2) shall be
effective as if included in the enactment of section 203(b)
of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (Appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-463), as
enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554.
SEC. 11. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 1820(j) (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(j)) is amended by
striking ``through 2002'' and inserting ``through 2007''.
SEC. 12. GAO STUDY ON WAGE INDEXING AND PLACEMENT OF
HOSPITALS IN MSAS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the reformation of wage indexing and
the rules governing the placement of hospitals in
metropolitan statistical areas.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a) together with recommendations for such legislation or
administrative actions as the Comptroller General considers
appropriate.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 173. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the financing of the Superfund; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that
addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the clean-
up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up Polluter
Pays Renewal Act restores fees on oil, chemical and other industries to
ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters,
not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose
a threat to the health and safety of our communities.
I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee. In
the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the
Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the
Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing
that relationship.
The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every
corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four
miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans and that
includes 10 million children who are at risk of cancer and other health
problems.
My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund
sites in the country after New Jersey. And more that 40 percent of
Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site.
Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the
terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents
worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess
down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major
challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to
their responsibility.
Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund
law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law
worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this
program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four
years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups
occurred each year.
Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start
of the Bush administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl.
Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of
that are now being cleaned up. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up.
At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the
principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue
that my bill will address.
The Superfund Trust Fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees
previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone.
It will be depleted by 2004. These fees are not large in scope. For
example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents.
Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury
they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in
taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to
pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That
means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay
only $12.
These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small
price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.
Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton
repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do
so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in
the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of
Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters.
In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the
Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay
54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003.
This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean-
up
[[Page S860]]
Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be
protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated.
Polluter pays is fair. Polluter pays works. And polluter pays must
continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will
fight this Administration's attempt to turn it back on the health of
the American people.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Boxer, Chafee, and
others to introduce The Toxic Clean Up and Polluter Pays Renewal Act
for. For more than 20 years, the polluter pays principle has been a
cornerstone of environmental policy. The Superfund toxic waste cleanup
program, based on that principle, has made it possible to clean up
hundreds of toxic waste dumps across the country, and has led to better
management of industrial pollution and waste.
The polluter pays principle is now under attack. Last year, the Bush
administration announced that it would not seek reauthorization of the
taxes levied on oil and chemical companies that go into the Superfund
trust fund, which is used to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites.
The Superfund program established three ways to pay for the cost of
cleanups: 1) the company or individual responsible for creating the
site pays for its cleanup; 2) the Environmental Protection Agency
performs the cleanups and recoups the costs from the responsible party
or parties; and 3) for those ``orphan'' sites where no responsible
party can be found, or the party is insolvent or no longer in business,
the cleanup is paid for out of the trust fund.
The Superfund trust fund was created primarily with revenue from a
corporate environmental income tax and excise taxes on petroleum and
certain chemicals. The trust fund received about $1.5 billion per year
before the legislative authority to collect the taxes expired at the
end of 1995. The trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2004,
having dwindled from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996 to $28 million this
year.
There are 1,234 sites on the EPA national priority list of toxic
waste sites that need to be cleaned up. One in four Americans live
within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites contain hazardous
pollutants like arsenic, cyanide, and agent orange. Last year, EPA
Administrator Christine Whitman told Congress that 75 sites on the
national priority list would be cleaned up in 2001 and 65 sites would
be cleaned up in 2002. The Bush administration then revised its plan,
requiring that only 47 site cleanups be completed in 2001 and 42 in
2002. For 2003, the Bush administration has proposed to further
decrease cleanups. On October 25, 2002, the EPA Inspector General found
that the Bush administration has cut funding at 55 Superfund sites in
25 states for which regional officials had requested cleanup. For
Fiscal Year 2002, EPA regional officials requested $510 million to
clean up waste sites. In response, EPA headquarters obligated only $280
million, resulting in a shortfall of $229 million, or 45 percent.
The program is insufficiently funded to allow sites that are already
scheduled to be cleaned up to move forward. This results in increased
risks to human health and the environment and increased cleanup costs
in the long term. Reinstating the Superfund fee would restore a source
of funding to the program at a time when the backlog of sites requires
more resources if the program is to be successful. The Bush
administration is the first administration since Superfund was enacted
in 1980 to oppose reinstating this tax on polluters--a policy that
either halts cleanup efforts or shifts the cost to rank-and-file
taxpayers. Either result is unacceptable.
The administration's plan to cut the Superfund program would
seriously compromise the health of our communities and amount to an
enormous windfall for the oil and chemical industries. Funding is the
key to cleaning up these sites and protecting communities from harm.
The ``polluter pays'' principle has worked well over the last two
decades, and the financial burden should not be shifted from polluters
to average taxpayers. The administration should change course and find
ways to restore the ``polluter pays'' principle to the program and
aggressively fund cleanups at contaminated sites.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 174. A bill to put a college education within reach, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as another semester begins, many college
students are worrying not only about their course loads and class work,
but about how they will pay for school. Today, the average cost of
room, board and tuition at a public four-year college has jumped to
over $9,000. Tuition and fees alone jumped 9.6 percent from last year.
The average cost of room, board and tuition at a private four-year
college has jumped to just over $25,000 with tuition and fees having
risen 5.8 percent.
What do the rising costs of attending a college or university mean
for American families? It means that despite their best efforts to save
and plan ahead, hard working families have to spend a larger percentage
of their income than ever before to send their children to school. To
attend my alma mater, the University of Delaware, it costs nearly 20
percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover costs. In
fact just a few months ago, tuition was increased from the Fall to
Spring semester by $120 to make up for an expected $3.1 cut in state
aid to the university. If a Delaware family wants to send their child
to a private university, approximately 50 percent of their income is
required.
To help counteract these spiraling costs, I come to the floor today
to reintroduce ``The Tuition Assistance for Families Act,'' a
comprehensive package of tax credits and deductions, grants and
scholarships that will assist American families in sending their
children to college. Building upon the previous efforts of mine and
others, this legislation will provide more families with much needed
assistance so that the decision to send one's child to school will not
be overshadowed by the decision of how to pay for it.
Specifically, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will raise
the current tuition tax deduction for higher education expenses from
$3,000 to $12,000. Based on legislation that I previously sponsored
with Senator Schumer, this $9,000 increase will go a long way in
helping middle class American families afford tuition.
The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' expands tuition tax
credits already in law, the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning
Tax Credit. Currently, the Lifetime Learning Credit allows a 20 percent
tax credit on the first $10,000 of one's higher education expenses.
Under my bill, this percentage jumps to 25 percent while the amount of
expenses subjected to the credit rises to $12,000. This means that a
student who files a return in tax year 2003 under my plan could get up
to $3,000 back in taxes. This is $1,000 more than the $2,000 maximum
allowable credit available under current law. That means that under my
plan, up to an additional $1,000 can go directly back into a student's
pocket to pay for books, a computer or tuition. To maximize the utility
of the tax credits, my bill also raises the income limits for both the
Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Credit to up to $130,000 per
family, per year. This will allow more families to access the help that
they need.
My bill reintroduces the idea of a $1,000 merit scholarship to be
awarded to each high school senior graduating in the top 5 percent of
his or her class. These types of scholarships not only reward student
achievement, they help to ensure that the best and brightest students
have the ability to go on to college thereby increasing the pool of
well-qualified Americans in the workforce.
Finally, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will increase
the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. During the 2001-
2002 school year, the maximum Pell Grant award covered approximately 42
percent of the average tuition, room and board at a public four-year
university. During the 1975-76 it covered 84 percent of these same
costs. Clearly, the purchasing power of these grants has declined
dramatically over the years. As such, the debt load of American
students and American families has increased as students have looked to
federal and private loans to finance their education. Shockingly but
not surprisingly, 64
[[Page S861]]
percent of today's college students graduate with student loan debt at
an average of $16,928, double the debt load of 1994.
It is the dream of every American parent to provide for their child a
better life than they had themselves. Part of doing this involves
sending your kids to college. This is why I have spent a great deal of
my time in the Senate fighting to provide tax relief for middle class
American families struggling with college costs. And while I was
pleased when some of the ideas I advocated were adopted in the 1997 tax
cut bill, it is clear that as tuition costs rise dramatically,
Americans need additional assistance. The ``Tuition Assistance for
Families Act'' will provide extra help so that more families can afford
to give their children a brighter and better future. The ``Tuition
Assistance for Families Act'' goes one step further in committing the
federal government to making college more affordable for Americans.
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. 174
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 ``Tuition Assistance for
Families Act''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF TUITION TAX DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
222(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
dollar limitation) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The applicable dollar limit shall be
equal to--
``(i) in the case of a taxpayer whose adjusted gross income
for the taxable year does not exceed $65,000 ($130,000 in the
case of a joint return), $12,000,
``(ii) with respect to any taxable year beginning in 2004
or 2005, in the case of a taxpayer not described in clause
(i) whose adjusted gross income for the taxable year does not
exceed $80,000 ($160,000 in the case of a joint return),
$2,000, and
``(iii) in the case of any other taxpayer, zero.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2003, each dollar amount referred to in
subparagraph (A)(i) shall be increased by an amount equal
to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2002' for `1992'.
``(ii) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under clause
(i) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded
to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
(b) Permanent Deduction.--Section 222 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified tuition and
related expenses) is amended by striking subsection (e).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2002.
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF LIFETIME LEARNING CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 25A(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to per taxpayer credit) is amended--
(1) by striking ``20 percent'' and inserting ``25
percent'', and
(2) by striking ``$10,000 ($5,000 in the case of taxable
years beginning before January 1, 2003)'' and inserting
``$12,000''.
(b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 25A(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to inflation adjustments) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Dollar limitation on amount of lifetime learning
credit.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2003, the dollar amount referred to in
subsection (c)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2002' for `1992'.
``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall
be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2002.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN INCOME LIMITS FOR HOPE AND LIFETIME
LEARNING CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Section 25A(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation based on
modified adjusted gross income) is amended by striking
``$40,000 ($80,000'' and inserting ``$55,000 ($110,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 25A(h)(2)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``2001'' in the matter preceding clause (i)
and inserting ``2003'',
(2) by striking ``the $40,000 and $80,000 amounts'' in such
matter and inserting ``the $55,000 and $110,000 amounts'',
and
(3) by striking ``2000'' in clause (ii) and inserting
``2002''..
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2002.
SEC. 5. MAXIMUM PELL GRANT AWARDS.
The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2002
(Public Law 107-116) is amended under the heading ``Student
Financial Assistance'' by striking ``$4,000'' and inserting
``$4,500''.
SEC. 6. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT SCHOLARSHIPS.
(a) Scholarships.--The Secretary of Education is authorized
to award a scholarship for academic year 2003-2004 and
succeeding academic years to each student in a State who
graduated in the top 5 percent of such student's graduating
class from an accredited secondary school in academic year
2002-2003 or a succeeding academic year to enable such
student to pay the cost of attendance at an institution of
higher education.
(b) Amount.--Each scholarship awarded under this section
shall be in the amount of $1,000.
(c) Use.--Each student awarded a scholarship under this
section shall use the funds to pay the cost of attendance at
an institution of higher education.
(d) Construction of Needs Provision.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section, or any other Act, shall be construed
to permit the receipt of a scholarship under this section to
be counted for any needs test in connection with the awarding
of any grant or the making of any loan under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) or any other
provision of Federal law relating to educational assistance.
(2) Exception.--In determining the need of a student for
Federal financial assistance, an institution of higher
education may take into consideration the amount of
scholarship assistance received under this section if the
total amount of scholarship assistance received under this
section plus the amount of other financial assistance
available to a student exceeds the student's cost of
attendance at the institution.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Education shall
promulgate regulations regarding how scholarships awarded
under this section will be allocated to both public and
private school students.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Cost of attendance.--The term `cost of attendance' has
the meaning given the term in section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll).
(2) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given the term in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001).
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 175. A bill to establish a direct line of authority for the Office
of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight to oversee the management
and reform of Indian trust funds and assets under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior, and to advance tribal management of
such funds and assets, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am proposing bipartisan
legislation to provide the basis for reform of the administration and
management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust
for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I am
pleased that my two colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and
Johnson, are once again joining me in this effort.
Last year, we introduced a similar bill to serve as a legislative
vehicle in the event a consensus agreement could be reached during an
extensive dialogue between a designated tribal task force and the U.S.
Department of Interior on administrative and legislative reforms to
federal management of trust funds and assets. Unfortunately, the
dialogue resulted in a stalemate. While we received many favorable
comments to move forward with this legislation, and conducted a full
committee hearing to consider it, a sufficient consensus did not exist
to approve the legislation prior to the adjournment of the 107th
session.
We are reintroducing this legislation again because we believe it is
important to continue to offer a legislative remedy to the management
problems plaguing the Interior Department and instill a meaningful role
for Indian tribes in the process. Indian trust funds management
continues to be mired in controversy and systemic mismanagement. Native
American beneficiaries
[[Page S862]]
continue to be denied a full reconciliation of money rightfully
belonging to them.
The history of Indian trust funds management is long, exhaustive and
fraught with controversy. It is a problem inherited by successive
Administrations yet only limited progress has been made. The major
structural changes called for in the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act have not been accomplished. Two Special Trustees
have resigned in frustration and high-level government officials have
twice been held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C. for breach of fiduciary duties.
No one is more frustrated about the lack of resolution to these long-
standing problems than the Native American beneficiaries. However,
recent reorganization plans submitted to the Court by the Interior
Department earlier this month have only raised more controversy and
concern among Indian tribes and beneficiaries as to the extent the
Department will fully account for lost and mismanaged trust accounts.
Significant questions have also been raised as to the impact of these
proposed plans on long-standing Federal policies of self-determination
and the function of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
I cannot speak as to the merits of the Department's recent plans. The
fact is, many in the Congress were not notified of the Department's
intended actions nor has there been an opportunity to evaluate these
plans through the respective legislative committees of jurisdiction. I
have sought a commitment from the incoming Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to hold
hearings as soon as possible on recent Department proposals that will
restructure trust funds management as well as to consider legislative
proposals such as the one we're proposing today.
The purpose of this legislation we are introducing is simple. It
focuses on two primary changes to the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act, the underlying law governing Indian trust funds
management. First, it creates a single line-of-authority in the
Interior Department by establishing a Deputy Secretary for Trust
Management and Reform; and second, the bill strengthens provisions for
Indian tribes and beneficiaries to directly manage or co-manage with
the Interior secretary trust funds and assets, based on successful
self-determination policies.
A fundamental objective of this legislation is to raise the profile
of Indian trust funds management within the Interior Department and
provide a statutory basis for Indian tribes to assume a greater
management role in future management of their trust funds and trust
assets. The structure of this legislation is similar to the bill
introduced last year, but it is modified to reflect comments received
from Indian tribes.
The legislation affirms the fiduciary standards to be applied to the
management of Indian trust funds and assets. The Office of Special
Trustee is abolished and replaced with the Office of Trust Reform under
the direction of a new Deputy Secretary. The existing Advisory
Committee to the Special Trustee is replaced with a Task Force composed
of representatives of the tribes and the Department who will work with
the new Deputy Secretary to develop appropriate standards and further
necessary changes.
Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson and I introduce this legislation as
a demonstration of our continuing commitment to seek a real and
meaningful trust reform solution that provides an active role for
tribal participation and consultation. We hope this legislation will
prompt the necessary dialogue to ensure reform to Indian trust funds
and trust assets management in a way that increases accountability of
the Interior Department and respects the fact that the tribes must be
involved as active participants without the threat of termination of
the trust responsibility.
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. 175
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 ``Indian Trust Asset and Trust
Fund Management and Reform Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds and affirms that the proper discharge of
trust responsibility of the United States requires, without
limitation, that the trustee, using a high degree of care,
skill, and loyalty--
(1) protect and preserve Indian trust assets from loss,
damage, unlawful alienation, waste, and depletion;
(2) ensure that any management of Indian trust assets
required to be carried out by the Secretary--
(A) promotes the interest of the beneficial owner; and
(B) supports, to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with the trust responsibility of the Secretary,
the beneficial owner's intended use of the assets;
(3)(A) enforce the terms of all leases or other agreements
that provide for the use of trust assets; and
(B) take appropriate steps to remedy trespass on trust or
restricted land;
(4) promote tribal control and self-determination over
tribal trust land and resources;
(5) select and oversee persons that manage Indian trust
assets;
(6) confirm that Indian tribes that manage Indian trust
assets pursuant to contracts and compacts authorized by the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450 et seq.) protect and prudently manage those Indian
trust assets;
(7) provide oversight and review of the performance of the
trust responsibility of the Secretary, including Indian trust
asset and investment management programs, operational
systems, and information systems;
(8) account for and identify, collect, deposit, invest, and
distribute, in a timely manner, income due or held on behalf
of tribal and individual Indian account holders;
(9) maintain a verifiable system of records that, at a
minimum, is capable of identifying, with respect to a trust
asset--
(A) the location of the trust asset;
(B) the beneficial owners of the trust asset;
(C) any legal encumbrances (such as leases or permits)
applicable to the trust asset;
(D) the user of the trust asset;
(E) any rent or other payments made;
(F) the value of trust or restricted land and resources
associated with the trust asset;
(G) dates of--
(i) collections;
(ii) deposits;
(iii) transfers;
(iv) disbursements;
(v) imposition of third-party obligations (such as court-
ordered child support or judgments);
(vi) statements of earnings;
(vii) investment instruments; and
(viii) closure of all trust fund accounts relating to the
trust fund asset;
(H) documents pertaining to actions taken to prevent or
compensate for any diminishment of the Indian trust asset;
and
(I) documents that evidence the actions of the Secretary
regarding the management and disposition of the Indian trust
asset;
(10) establish and maintain a system of records that--
(A) permits beneficial owners to obtain information
regarding Indian trust assets in a timely manner; and
(B) protects the privacy of that information;
(11) invest tribal and individual Indian trust funds to
ensure that the trust account remains reasonably productive
for the beneficial owner consistent with market conditions
existing at the time at which investment is made;
(12) communicate with beneficial owners regarding the
management and administration of Indian trust assets; and
(13) protect treaty-based fishing, hunting, gathering, and
similar rights-of-access and resource use on traditional
tribal land.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(5) Indian tribe.--The term'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(3) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(8) Secretary.--The term'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(4) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(6) Office.--The term'';
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(5) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Bureau.--The term'';
(6) in paragraph (6), by striking ``(6) The term'' and
inserting the following:
``(3) Department.--The term'';
(7) by moving paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6), and (8) (as
redesignated by this subsection) so as to appear in numerical
order;
(8) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (5)) the following:
``(1) Beneficial owner.--The term `beneficial owner' means
an Indian tribe or member of an Indian tribe that is the
beneficial owner of Indian trust assets.'';
(9) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by
paragraph (6)) the following:
``(4) Deputy secretary.--The term `Deputy Secretary' means
the Deputy Secretary
[[Page S863]]
for Trust Management and Reform appointed under section
307(a)(2).'';
(10) by inserting after paragraph (6) (as redesignated by
paragraph (4)) the following:
``(7) Reform office.--The term `Reform Office' means the
Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight
established by section 307(e).''; and
(11) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the Tribal
Task Force for Trust Reform established under section 307(a).
``(10) Trust assets.--The term `trust assets' means all
tangible property including land, minerals, coal, oil and
gas, forest resources, agricultural resources, water and
water sources, and fish and wildlife held by the Secretary
for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual member of
an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal law.
``(11) Trust funds.--The term `trust funds' means all funds
held by the Secretary for the benefit of an Indian tribe or
and individual member of an Indian tribe pursuant to Federal
law.
``(12) Trustee.--The term `trustee' means the Secretary or
any other person that is authorized to act as a trustee for
Indian trust assets and trust funds.''.
SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY.
Section 102 of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4011) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 4011. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY.
``(a) Accounting for Daily and Annual Balances of Indian
Trust Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall account for the
daily and annual balances of all trust funds that are
deposited or invested pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938
(25 U.S.C. 162a).
``(2) Periodic statement of performance.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 20 business days after
the close of a calendar quarter, the Secretary shall provide
a statement of performance to each Indian tribe and member of
Indian tribe with respect to which funds are deposited or
invested pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C.
162a).
``(B) Requirements.--Each statement under subparagraph (A)
shall identify, with respect to the period covered by the
statement--
``(i) the source, type, and status of the funds;
``(ii) the beginning balance of the funds;
``(iii) the gains and losses of the funds;
``(iv) receipts and disbursements of the funds; and
``(v) the ending balance of the funds.
``(3) Annual audit.--With respect to each account
containing trust funds in an amount in excess of $1,000, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) conduct, for each fiscal year, an audit of all trust
funds described in paragraph (1); and
``(B) include, in the first statement of performance
completed under paragraph (2) after completion of the audit,
a letter describing the results of the audit.
``(b) Additional Responsibilities.--In addition to the
responsibilities described in subsection (a), subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary, in carrying
out the trust responsibility of the United States, shall, at
a minimum--
``(1) provide for adequate systems for accounting for and
reporting trust fund balances;
``(2) provide for adequate controls over receipts and
disbursements;
``(3) provide for periodic, timely reconciliations of
financial records to ensure the accuracy of account
information;
``(4) determine accurate cash balances;
``(5) prepare and supply to account holders periodic
account statements;
``(6) establish and publish in the Federal Register
consistent policies and procedures for trust fund management
and accounting;
``(7) provide adequate staffing, supervision, and training
for trust fund management and accounting; and
``(8) manage natural resources located within the
boundaries of Indian reservations and trust land.''.
SEC. 5. INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND ACTIVITIES.
Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking sections 202 and 203; and
(2) by inserting after section 201 the following:
``SEC. 202. PARTICIPATION IN TRUST FUND AND TRUST ASSET
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY INDIAN TRIBES.
``(a) Planning Program.--To meet the purposes of this
title, an Indian Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and
Monitoring Plan (in this section referred to as the `Plan')
shall be developed and implemented as follows:
``(1) Pursuant to a self-determination contract or compact
under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25
U.S.C. 450f) or section 403 of the Indian Self Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc), an Indian
tribe may develop or implement a Plan to provide for
management of the trust funds and assets (or portions of
trust funds or assets) of which the Indian tribe is the
beneficial owner. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (3)
and (4), the tribe shall have broad discretion in designing
and carrying out the planning process.
``(2) To include in a Plan particular trust funds or assets
held by multiple individuals, an Indian tribe shall obtain
the approval of a majority of the individuals who hold an
interest in any such trust funds or assets.
``(3) The Plan shall be submitted to the Secretary for
approval pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act (25
U.S.C. 450f et seq.).
``(4) If an Indian tribe chooses not to develop or
implement a Plan, the Secretary shall, at the request of the
Indian tribe, develop or implement, as appropriate, a Plan in
close consultation with the affected Indian tribe.
``(5) Whether developed directly by the Indian tribe or by
the Secretary, the Plan shall--
``(A) determine the amount and source of funds held in
trust;
``(B) identify and include an inventory of trust assets
based on the information available to the Indian tribe and
the Secretary;
``(C) identify specific tribal goals and objectives;
``(D) establish management objectives for the funds and
assets held in trust;
``(E) define critical values of the Indian tribe and its
members and provide identified management objectives;
``(F) identify actions to be taken to reach established
objectives;
``(G) use existing survey documents, reports and other
research from Federal agencies, tribal community colleges,
and land grant universities; and
``(H)(i) be completed not later than 3 years after the date
of initiation of activity to establish the Plan; and
``(ii) be revised periodically thereafter as necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this Act.
``(b) Management and Administration.--Plans developed and
approved under subsection (a) shall govern the management and
administration of funds and assets (or portions of funds and
assets) held in trust by the Bureau and the Indian tribal
government.
``(c) Plan Does Not Terminate Trust.--Developing or
implementing a Plan shall not be construed or deemed to
constitute a termination of the trust status of the assets or
funds that are included in, or subject to, the Plan.
``(d) Liability.--An Indian tribe managing and
administering trust funds and trust assets in a manner that
is consistent with an approved Plan shall not be liable for
waste or loss of an asset or funds that are included in such
Plan.
``(e) Indian Participation in Management Activities.--
``(1) Tribal recognition.--The Secretary shall conduct all
management activities of funds and assets held in trust in
accordance with goals and objectives set forth in a Plan
approved pursuant to and in accordance with all tribal laws
and ordinances, except in specific instances where such
compliance would be contrary to the trust responsibility of
the United States.
``(2) Tribal laws.--
``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise prohibited by Federal
law, the Secretary shall comply with tribal law pertaining to
the management of funds and assets held in trust.
``(B) Duties.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) provide assistance in the enforcement of tribal laws
described in subparagraph (A);
``(ii) provide notice of such tribal laws to persons or
entities dealing with tribal funds and assets held in trust;
and
``(iii) upon the request of an Indian tribe, require
appropriate Federal officials to appear in tribal forums.
``(3) Waiver of regulations.--In any case in which a
regulation or administrative policy of the Department of the
Interior conflicts with the objectives of the Plan, or with a
tribal law, the Secretary shall waive the application of such
regulation or administrative policy unless such waiver would
constitute a violation of a Federal statute or judicial
decision or would conflict with the Secretary's trust
responsibility under Federal law.
``(4) Sovereign immunity.--This section does not constitute
a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor
does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of
the Secretary.
``(5) Trust responsibility.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to diminish or expand the trust responsibility
of the United States toward Indian funds and assets held in
trust, or any legal obligation or remedy resulting from such
funds and assets.
``(f) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Indian
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives.
``(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall detail the following:
``(A) The efforts of the Department to implement this
section.
``(B) The nature and extent of consultation between the
Department, Tribes, and individual Indians with respect to
implementation of this section.
``(C) Any recommendations of the Department for further
changes to this Act, accompanied by a record of consultation
with Tribes and individual Indians regarding such
recommendations.''.
SEC. 6. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.
(a) In General.--Section 302 of the American Indian Trust
Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4042) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 302. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRUST MANAGEMENT AND REFORM.
``(a) Establishment.--
[[Page S864]]
``(1) In general.--There is established within the
Department the position of Deputy Secretary for Trust
Management and Reform.
``(2) Appointment and removal.--
``(A) Appointment.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
``(B) Term.--The Deputy Secretary shall be appointed for a
term of 6 years.
``(C) Removal.--The Deputy Secretary may be removed only
for good cause.
``(3) Administrative authority.--The Deputy Secretary shall
report directly to the Secretary.
``(4) Compensation.--The Deputy Secretary shall be paid at
a rate determined by the Secretary to be appropriate for the
position, but not less than the rate of basic pay prescribed
for Level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Duties.--The Deputy Secretary shall--
``(1) oversee all trust fund and trust asset matters of the
Department, including--
``(A) administration and management of the Reform Office;
``(B) financial and human resource matters of the Reform
Office; and
``(C) all duties relating to trust fund and trust asset
matters; and
``(2) engage in appropriate government-to-government
relations and consultations with Indian tribes and individual
trust asset and trust fund account holders on matters
involving trust asset and trust fund management and reform
within the Department.
``(c) Staff.--In carrying out this section, the Deputy
Secretary may hire such staff having expertise in trust asset
and trust fund management, financial organization and
management, and tribal policy as the Deputy Secretary
determines is necessary to carry out this title.
``(d) Effect on Duties of Other Officials.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish any
responsibility or duty of the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Indian Affairs, or any other Federal official,
relating to any duty of the Assistant Secretary or official
established under this Act or any other provision of law.
``(2) Trust asset and trust fund management and reform.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Deputy
Secretary shall have overall management and oversight
authority on matters of the Department relating to trust
asset and trust fund management and reform (including matters
that, as of the day before the date of enactment of the
Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act
of 2003, were carried out by the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs).
``(e) Office of Trust Reform Implementation and
Oversight.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Office of the Secretary the Office of Trust Reform
Implementation and Oversight.
``(2) Reform office head.--The Reform Office shall be
headed by the Deputy Secretary.
``(3) Duties.--The Reform Office shall--
``(A) supervise and direct the day-to-day activities of the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the
Commissioner of Reclamation, the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management, and the Director of the Minerals Management
Service, to the extent they administer or manage any Indian
trust assets or funds;
``(B) administer, in accordance with title II, all trust
properties, funds, and other assets held by the United States
for the benefit of Indian tribes and individual members of
Indian tribes;
``(C) require the development and maintenance of an
accurate inventory of all trust funds and trust assets;
``(D) ensure the prompt posting of revenue derived from a
trust fund or trust asset for the benefit of each Indian
tribe (or individual member of each Indian tribe) that owns a
beneficial interest in the trust fund or trust asset;
``(E) ensure that all trust fund accounts are audited at
least annually, and more frequently as determined to be
necessary by the Deputy Secretary;
``(F) ensure that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Indian Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, the Commissioner of Reclamation, and the Director
of the Minerals Management Service provide to the Secretary
current and accurate information relating to the
administration and management of trust funds and trust
assets;
``(G) provide for regular consultation with trust fund
account holders on the administration of trust funds and
trust assets to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with applicable law and a Plan approved under
section 202, the greatest return on those funds and assets
for the trust fund account holders; and
``(H) enter into contracts and compacts under section 102
of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450f) or
section 403 of the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458cc) to provide for the
management of trust assets and trust funds by Indian tribes
pursuant to a Trust Fund and Trust Asset Management and
Monitoring Plan developed under section 202 of this Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4041 et seq.) is amended by
striking the title heading and inserting the following:
``TITLE III--REFORMS RELATING TO TRUST RESPONSIBILITY''.
(2) Section 301(1) of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4041(1)) is amended
by striking ``by establishing in the Department of this
Interior an Office of Special Trustee for American Indians''
and inserting ``by directing the Deputy Secretary''.
(3) Section 303 of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4043) is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 303. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE
DEPUTY SECRETARY.'';
(B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``section 302(b) of
this title'' and inserting ``section 302(a)(2)'';
(C) in subsection (e)--
(i) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the
following:
``(e) Access of Deputy Secretary.--''; and
(ii) by striking ``and his staff'' and inserting ``and
staff of the Deputy Secretary''; and
(D) by striking ``Special Trustee'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Deputy Secretary''.
(4) Sections 304 and 305 of the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4044, 4045) are
amended by striking ``Special Trustee'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Deputy Secretary''.
SEC. 7. ADVISORY BOARD AND TRIBAL TASK FORCE.
The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 is amended by striking section 306 (25 U.S.C. 4046) and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 306. TRIBAL TASK FORCE ON TRUST REFORM.
``(a) Establishment.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this section, the Deputy Secretary shall
establish a Tribal Task Force on Trust Reform.
``(b) Composition.--
``(1) In general.--The Task Force shall be composed of 18
members and 12 alternates, of which--
``(A) 6 members shall--
``(i) serve as primary members; and
``(ii) be selected by the Deputy Secretary;
``(B) 12 members shall--
``(i) serve as primary members; and
``(ii) be selected by members of federally-recognized
Indian tribes located within the regions of the Bureau
represented by the members; and
``(C) the 12 alternates shall--
``(i) serve as alternate members for the members described
in subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) be selected by members of federally-recognized
Indian tribes located within the regions of the Bureau
represented by the members.
``(2) Regional representation.--Each region of the Bureau
shall be represented by a primary member and alternate member
on the Task Force.
``(3) Term.--A member of the Task Force shall serve for a
term of 2 years.
``(c) Duties.--The Task Force, in cooperation with the
Deputy Secretary, shall--
``(1) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this section, conduct and submit to Congress a report on a
study of appropriate standards and procedures for
inventorying and management of trust assets; and
``(2) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this section, identify, and submit to Congress a report that
includes recommendations relating to, modifications to
existing law relating to trust reform, including
recommendations on matters such as--
``(A) the need for an independent commission to oversee the
administration of trust funds and assets; and
``(B) the most beneficial administrative structure and
procedures.
``(d) FACA.--The Task Force shall not be subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
``(f) Termination of Authority.--The Task Force and
authority of the Task Force under this section terminate on
the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of the
Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act
of 2003.''.
SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by
this Act.
(b) Active Participation.--
(1) In general.--All regulations promulgated under
subsection (a) shall be developed through a negotiated
rulemaking in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and
chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as
the ``Administrative Procedures Act'').
(2) Participants.--With the exception of the Secretary of
the Interior, each participant in the negotiated rulemaking
under
[[Page S865]]
paragraph (1) shall be a federally-recognized Indian tribe.
SEC. 9. NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISION.
Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act
limits or otherwise affects any finding, remedy,
jurisdiction, authority, or discretion of any court with
respect to Cobell v. Norton, Civ. No. 96-1285 (RCL).
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators John
McCain and Tim Johnson in reintroducing legislation that will focus
attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem
of mismanagement of the assets and funds held by the United States in
trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes and individual American
Indians.
This is a problem that has festered for far too long outside the
spotlight of public recognition. And it is a problem that is
undermining urgently needed efforts to improve the quality of life in
Indian Country.
Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few,
however, have been more important, or more vexing, than that of
restoring integrity to trust fund management.
For over a hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a
trust fund funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and
mineral rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund
may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.
To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in
South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of
trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets.
Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual
trust accounts.
How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being
litigated in Cobell v. Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will
have far-reaching implications throughout Indian Country. It is
foolhardly not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this
lawsuit.
There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current
administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question
has always been how to reform it.
In November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled her
controversial plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and
segregate the oversight and accounting of trust-related assets in a new
Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the
U.S. District Court, the Secretary acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly
do have some missing data, and we are all going to have to find a way
to deal with the fact that some information no longer exists.''
The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal, a hasty effort
to avoid being held in contempt of court, was presented with minimal
consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account holders, not
to mention Congress.
In South Dakota, tribal leaders communicated to Tim Johnson and me
their concern that the Secretary's solution appeared to be a fait
accompli, conceived without meaningful participation of the
stakeholders most directly affected by it. They felt strongly that this
proposal should not be implemented without further consultation with
the tribes. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant
Secretary on Indian Affairs, despite their reorganization plan, were
both subsequently found in contempt of court.
In the early months of 2002, in the face of Administration assurances
that its reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior
Department requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million
from the Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single
organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant
Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in
Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton
by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action
should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan
administratively. Notwithstanding this clear signal, just this last
December, while most members of Congress were out of town and with very
little fanfare, the Secretary submitted yet another smaller request to
reprogram BIA funds for trust fund reform activities.
Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson and I feel that
Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussion of what role
Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian
account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our
hope that this bill will promote more constructive dialogue among the
Congress, the Interior Department and Indian Country on this problem
and lead to a true consensus solution.
With that goal in mind, the bill was received by representatives of
the Great Plains tribes last Congress at a recent meeting in Rapid
City. And earlier today, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
urged me to re-introduce this legislation in the new Congress.
Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and member of
the Secretary's Trust Reform Task Force, has been an effective advocate
and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all
Indian people. He and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman and Great
Plains Tribal Chairman's Association President Tom Ranfranz led a very
impressive and productive working sessions with tribal leaders from
South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Mike and Tom have also worked
with tribal leaders from Montana and Wyoming to raise awareness of the
stakes of this issue and build support for the bill that regrettably
died at the end of the 107th Congress due to Administration opposition.
I commend the willingness of these participating Great Plains and
Rocky Mountain regional tribal leaders to be part of a public process
that will hopefully will not stop until Indian Country feels
comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-Johnson-
Daschle bill is intended to contribute to this result.
At this point, I would like to remind my colleagues some initial
observations on this proposal that were raised in the last Congress by
participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains
and Rocky Mountain regions that are still relevant in the 108th
Congress. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully Indian leaders
are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect that their
suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill moves
through the committee process.
The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains
Tribal Chairman's Association:
1. Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure
that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. They do
not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and
unified authority needed;
2. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management
purposes;
3. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of
Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of the
Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy
Secretary;
4. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereignty
by interfering with tribal involvement in the management of individual
trust assets or tribal assets, or both;
5. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affairs' role as an advocate for
tribe;
6. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment;
7. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by
the legislation;
8. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used
to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation;
9. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding to
allow reform to succeed;
10. Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding
needed for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and
regional levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
11. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resource
managers, from various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the advisory
board to the Office of Trust Reform.
The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian
Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some will
intentioned and some
[[Page S866]]
clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and
even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities.
These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic
administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful
involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal
Government's treaty obligation to tribes.
I would be remiss if I did not commend this Administration for taking
the time to travel to Indian Country to discuss this problem. Their
interest in promoting dialogue with tribal leaders was welcome and
appreciated. At the same time, however, talk must be supported by
action if the trust management problem is to be successfully resolved.
The recent unveiling last month of the Department of the Interior's
attempt to implement a trust reorganization plan without full tribal or
congressional consultation in response to the Cobell v. Norton case was
appalling and an egregious act by the federal government to Indian
stakeholders. One tribal task force member described Interior's latest
deceptive actions as ``a sham.'' That sentiment is widespread in Indian
Country and exacerbates an underlying frustration and disappointment
that is both understandable and disconcerting.
I share this frustration and disappointment. And I am concerned that
the progress made jointly last year could be wasted away by a rising
tide of disillusionment and mounting sense of betrayal.
The message I have heard from tribal leaders is clear. What is needed
to achieve true reform are clear trust standards, one clear line of
authority for trust management and the resources necessary to achieve
meaningful reform, respect for self-determination, and meaningful
consultation.
Meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status is the
critical starting point if we hope to find a workable solution to the
very real problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain,
Johnson and I are introducing today reflects this conviction.
There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their
representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and
efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the principles of self-
determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the
management and distribution of trust funds and assets.
I am disappointed that this problem was not solved to the
satisfaction of tribal leaders in the last Congress. Yet, that fight is
not over, and my commitment to my South Dakota tribal constituents and
Indian Country on this important issue has not diminished.
Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership introduced its priority
bills for the 108th Congress. I am proud that trust reform is included
as part of our civil rights legislation.
An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on
government-to-government dialogue. The McCain/Johnson/Daschle bill will
not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the
search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform.
I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, Administration
officials and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential
objective.
____________________