[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.

                          ____________________