[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2458-S2495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Dorgan, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bond, Mr. Nelson of 
        Nebraska, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
        Fitzgerald, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 385. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate methyl 
tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase 
production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the Nation's 
energy independence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environmental and Public Works.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, headlines in daily papers all across 
the country underscore our economy's vulnerability to foreign oil.
  Today, a new generation is learning what many Americans have known 
since the 1970s--our economic security and our national security depend 
on our energy security.
  Today I, along with a number of my colleagues, am introducing the 
Fuels Security Act of 2003.
  This bill responds directly to our Nation's unhealthy reliance on 
imported oil by establishing greater flexibility in our gasoline 
regulations, and by tripling the use of domestic, renewable fuels over 
the next 10 years.
  This legislation is identical to the fuels agreement included in last 
year's Senate-passed energy bill.
  Based on the experience we have gained over the last seven years with 
the reformulated gasoline program, the Fuel Security Act bill makes a 
number of important changes in Federal law.
  It bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to cleanup MTBE 
contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most 
polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and 
provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act 
to address air quality concerns.
  It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change 
that is very important to states that are planning to remove MTBE from 
their gasoline supplies in the near future.
  To preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from 
the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable 
fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like 
ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years.
  Finally, the bill also provides special encouragement to biomass-
based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of 
organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through 
American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier has to 
fight overseas to protect it. And no international cartel could turn 
off the spigot.
  For years, we talked about those benefits with a sense of 
resignation. After all, these aren't new arguments, and yet there were 
a lot of people who still saw ethanol as a boutique fuel, not a real 
answer to our energy problems.
  With this legislation, we intend to change that preception--and get 
America moving toward energy independence.
  The renewable fuels standard will be a win-win-win. It will help the 
environment, it will help the rural economies which are hurting right 
now, and it will help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign 
oil.
  I believe we can make it law. During consideration of the Energy Bill 
last summer, the Senate endorsed the Renewable Fuels Standard package 
by a vote of 69 to 30.
  Overall, this legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and 
competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the 
U.S. Senate.
  Just look at some of the organizations whose active support is 
helping to make this legislation possible: The Northeast States 
Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the American Petroleum 
Institute, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, the American Lung 
Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels 
Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers 
Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, 
and the American Corn Growers Association.

[[Page S2459]]

  That support across the political and ideological spectrum is 
reflected within the Senate as well.
  I particularly want to thank Senator Lugar. The seeds for this 
comprehensive legislation were planted a few years ago when he and I 
first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard 
and provide flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator 
Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped 
lay the groundwork for agreement on this legislation last year.
  In addition, Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous 
credit for legislation they introduced last year to establish a very 
ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their work in promoting 
this concept.
  And there are many others--Senators Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck 
Grassley, Byron Dorgan, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, Kit Bond, 
George Voinovich, and others--who all deserve recognition for the 
progress we have made on this issue.
  Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high, 
farm income is low and America is importing close to 60 percent of the 
oil we use.
  At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to 
grow every year. Over the next ten years, the United States is expected 
to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, 
we hold only three percent of the known world oil reserves.
  It has been said that ``we are all continually faced with a series of 
great opportunities, brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems.''
  Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also 
a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength, and American 
ingenuity.
  By increasing the use of renewable fuels, preserving clean air gains 
and moving us toward energy independence, that is what I believe this 
bill does.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, 
Senator Daschle, in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act. I am 
thankful for this opportunity to remind my colleagues about the 
importance of this legislation, and the benefits it brings to the 
American people.
  In the 107th Congress, the Senate voted in favor of a comprehensive 
energy bill establishing a renewable fuels standard. This provision 
would triple the amount of renewable fuel America consumes, displacing 
nearly 600,000 barrels of oil per day. The bipartisan renewable fuels 
agreement is a culmination of years of effort and enjoys strong support 
from a broad spectrum. Regrettably, disagreements on other provisions 
in the comprehensive energy legislation stranded the renewable fuels 
provision in a House-Senate conference committee last year.
  Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable 
fuels standard three years ago. Like that earlier bill, this bill 
represents an important first step toward reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil and improving our nation's energy security. At the same 
time, this proposal goes far toward protecting the environment, 
stimulating rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility 
of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price 
spikes.
  This bill will also forms the basis for a solution to the MTBE 
problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. MTBE, a 
carcinogen that contaminates drinking water, is on its way out. This 
proposal addresses public concerns regarding water pollution while 
considering all of the environmental and energy security issues 
involved. It requires the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE 
within four years in order to protect public health and the 
environment. And it establishes strict ``anti-backsliding'' provisions 
to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE 
is phased down and then phased out.
  Those of us who recall the energy crises of the 1970s--and recognize 
the current political instability in oil-rich regions around the 
world--remain committed to the development of cheap, plentiful 
renewable sources of energy. For years, tax incentives supporting 
ethanol production have helped foster the creation of a strong domestic 
ethanol industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of 
ethanol and make this plant-based commodity more competitive with 
fossil fuels.
  Energy and agriculture are closely tied topics that have been of 
interest to me for several years. Since 1996, I have chaired five 
hearings in the Agriculture Committee regarding energy security and 
renewable fuels. These hearings were designed to inform the public that 
our reliance on imported oil is growing, making the U.S. and the world 
increasingly dependent on the unstable nations of the Persian Gulf and 
the Caspian Sea. At the same time, the hearings convinced many in 
Washington that a greater reliance on renewable fuels like ethanol 
could have major energy security, air quality and rural development 
benefits.
  As we look to the future, major new scientific and technical 
breakthroughs are making ethanol more economical. As a result of the 
Biomass Research and Development Act, federal agencies are now 
coordinating research activities focused on making ethanol out of 
virtually any plant in the world. New biocatalysts--genetically 
engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria--are reducing the cost of so-
called cellulosic ethanol to the point where petroleum products may one 
day face vigorous competition.
  The legislation we are introducing today will build on these efforts 
by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol. Like our 
previous proposals, this bill gives a special credit to users of 
cellulosic ethanol for the purpose of fulfilling requirements of the 
renewable fuels standard.
  This legislation will go far toward strengthening our national 
security, improving our rural communities, protecting our natural 
environment and, ultimately, substituting carbohydrates for 
hydrocarbons.
  Thank you for joining me in supporting ethanol, a domestic form of 
clean, renewable energy.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak 
briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will 
introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson, 
Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and 
water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the 
gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of 
clean, domestically produced renewable fuels.
  Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon 
Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and 
phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable 
Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the 
nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All 
of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the 
reformulated gasoline program.
  This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last 
year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This 
year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of 
cosponsors.
  Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year. 
The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing 
demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10 
additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants 
are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol 
production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In 
December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion 
gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001.
  Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from 
blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market--
making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the 
switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's 
federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May 
2003.
  We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and 
still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now 
used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20-
percent blend or higher.
  Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will 
come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national 
phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these 
challenges.

[[Page S2460]]

And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading 
program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the 
most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this 
fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon 
compared to current law.
  The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new 
crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum 
Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors, 
agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped 
facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels 
agreement--the same language in this bill.
  This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level 
of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult.
  Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio. 
Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes 
from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use 
would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation 
fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use.
  Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it 
consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002. 
Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. 
Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of 
oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States 
more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit.
  This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a 
year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel. 
Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of 
that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting 
this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude 
oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more 
than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than 
$6 billion a year.
  As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new 
national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this 
legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's 
transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and 
security concerns for today and tomorrow.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senator Daschle, as well as Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator 
Johnson and others in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation 
today.
  This bill is extremely important--from an environmental perspective 
and from an energy security perspective.
  This bill increase the use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline. 
That means that we will be increasing the use of renewable sources in 
the fuel that we pump into our gas tanks. Transportation is the sector 
that uses the greatest amount of imported oil. By replacing some of the 
petroleum products in gasoline, we will help reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. The White House recognizes that: ``America imports 55 
percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent 
by 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline, and they 
are the main reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20 
million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for 
transportation.''
  Let me point out the top countries from whom we import crude oil: our 
top supplier is Saudi Arabia. Almost one-third of our oil comes from 
the Middle East--and Iraq is our fifth largest supplier. Venezuela is 
our fourth largest supplier. Their country has been rocked by crisis 
for the last couple of years. So, it is in our best interest to reduce 
the amount of oil we import from these nations.
  This bill is also important because it will phase-out MTBE 
nationally. MTBE has been shown to contaminate water supplies and to 
have the ability to cause potentially harmful side effects. This is 
important. We have attempted to do this here in Congress for several 
years. We should not be exposing ourselves and our children to such 
harmful contaminants. Now is the time to act to remove this from our 
gasoline and from our water supplies. No more delays. I urge may 
colleagues to work with me to move this important legislation in a 
timely manner.
  Today, ethanol reduces the demand for oil and MTBE imports by 98,000 
barrels per day. To me, this just makes good sense: take starch from 
corn or wheat, break it down into simple sugars, then ferment it to 
produce ethanol that can be used for energy. The byproducts can be 
used, too.


                 renewable fuels provision in the bill

  The renewable fuels provision has been carefully negotiated over a 
period of months and years. Now, 20 groups, including the Nation Corn 
Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau 
Federation, and the National Farmers Union, have sent a letter 
expressing their support for this legislation. 1.8 billion gallons of 
pure ethanol are currently produced each year. This provision would add 
3.2 billion new gallons over a period of years for a total of 5 billion 
gallons by 2012. And, this provision will ensure that the ethanol 
industry continues to grow.
  This translates to a new market for 1.19 billion bushels of corn and 
other agricultural products. This also means new opportunities for 
farmers to invest in value-added processing of a product they're 
already growing. While we are seeing mergers and acquisitions in the 
petroleum and other industries, the ethanol industry is diversifying, 
as farmers invest in local processing.


                              north dakota

  I am excited about the wide range of opportunities ethanol presents. 
One unique opportunity is being created in my home state of North 
Dakota. The aerospace program at the University of North Dakota and the 
Environment and Energy Research Center (EERC) are researching the 
potential for using ethanol as aviation fuel.
  Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the U.S. that still contains lead. 
UND is now teaming up with South Dakota State University and the 
Federal Aviation Administration on a program to get ethanol approved 
and certified to help replace this lead-based aviation fuel.
  And we are working on building E85 (blended ethanol fuel) stations in 
North Dakota.


                           economic benefits

  According to some estimates, the ethanol industry is responsible for 
more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 
billion in increased household income annually, and more than $12.6 
billion over the next five years.
  During the past year, industry has built 12 new facilities. Ten new 
facilities are under construction, and dozens more are in the planning 
stages. The ethanol industry adds--directly and indirectly--more than 
than $6 billion to our economy each year.
  I am excited by the opportunities this sector presents for my State, 
the region, and the entire Nation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased that we are reintroducing 
renewable fuels legislation and that we are taking time today to talk 
about the benefits and importance of this bill.
  I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Daschle 
and also Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who was on the floor to 
speak to this issue but was called away for another critical 
responsibility and will not be able to be in the Chamber this morning.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about the nation's energy 
situation. The increasing volatility in gasoline and diesel prices, the 
growing tension in the world from the terrorist attacks, and the 
possibility of war with Iraq have affected all of us. The more we 
depend on oil from the Middle East, the more our stability is 
inextricably tied to governments and factions in that region. There is 
a critical need for finding new sources of energy that will move the 
country away from dependence of a natural resource available in 
increasingly volatile regions of the world. Dependence on foreign oil 
in the unstable Middle East and South America makes us less stable. The 
use of domestic, clean, renewable energy sources can increase our 
energy security and increase the nation's security. It must be a 
critical part of our nation's energy strategy.
  To this end, last year I introduced a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel of 
Nebraska that would ensure future

[[Page S2461]]

growth for ethanol and biodiesel. The bill would create a new, 
renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in 
the United States. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive energy 
bill which included the framework of our legislation. Today, ethanol 
and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel 
in the U.S. This consensus language would require that five billion 
gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012--
nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production.
  The consensus language was agreed to last year after productive 
negotiations between the renewable fuels industry, farmers' groups, the 
oil industry and environmentalists. Unlike many of the disputes during 
consideration of the energy bill last year, this issue had a relatively 
wide range of agreement. The basis for this agreement is still viable, 
and it is under this framework that we are reintroducing the bill 
today.
  The people of South Dakota and the neighboring states understand the 
benefits of ethanol to the economies of rural communities. Increased 
renewable fuel production lowers our dependence upon foreign oil, 
strengthens energy security, increases farm income and creates jobs. 
The growth of farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota demonstrates 
the hard work and commitment needed to serve a growing market for clean 
domestic fuels.
  Based on current projections, construction of new plants will 
generate $900 million in capital investment and tens of thousands of 
construction jobs to rural communities. For corn farmers, the price of 
corn would rise 20-30 cents per bushel.
  Combine this with the provisions of the bill and the potential 
economic impact for rural states is tremendous. In South Dakota, seven 
ethanol plants are operating to produce approximately 156 million 
gallons per year. Three other ethanol projects are under construction, 
with a combined capacity to produce an additional 180 million gallons 
of ethanol annually. With the enactment of a renewable fuels standard, 
the production in South Dakota now could grow substantially, with at 
least 5000 farmers owning ethanol plants and producing over 500 million 
gallons of ethanol per year.
  An important but under-emphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly 
produced from excess soybean oil. Soybean prices are hovering near 
historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been growing 
steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase the 
prospects for biodiesel production, benefitting soybean farmers from 
South Dakota and other states.
  While the energy bill was not enacted last year, two-thirds of the 
Senate voted against amendments that would have weakened or eliminated 
the renewable fuels provision. For the first time in recent memory, 
Congress's actions reflect the knowledge that value-added agriculture 
and ethanol production are critical to the nation's energy needs and to 
the future of family-farm agriculture and rural America. The prospects 
for farmers in South Dakota and other rural states have brightened 
considerably. Moreover, we have a unique opportunity to help reduce our 
use of foreign oil and make our nation more stable. I am pleased that 
we are reintroducing the bill and urge its swift passage.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank you for the 
opportunity to speak about what is clearly a bipartisan issue. I would 
like to add to what my colleague from Minnesota said about the Fuels 
Security Act offered by Senators Daschle and Lugar on a bipartisan 
basis.
  I am here today to support the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This 
important renewable fuels legislation is one of the pillars for 
economic development for rural--America one segment of the population 
that has lagged behind during the economic surge of the 1990's and is 
suffering under the combined effects of the current economic slowdown 
and a two-year devastating drought which I had the audacity to name 
``Drought David.''
  This legislation is important for rural America. Last year, we 
completed the farm bill--the first part of the economic revitalization 
plan for rural America. For the last several months, we have been 
struggling over the most important short-term economic stimulus plan 
for rural America--comprehensive drought assistance. Though I believe 
what the Senate passed and what we hear will be included in the omnibus 
is insufficient to adequately compensate for the drought, it might 
provide some initial assistance to farmers and ranchers.
  In addition to the farm bill and disaster assistance, I believe we 
need to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur 
investment in agri-business and promote economic activity in the 
agriculture center. We need to consider opening new markets like Cuba--
to ensure American products can be sold and farmers and ranchers can 
earn a living.
  The Fuels Security Act of 2003, is the latest piece of the puzzle.
  It is clear that use of ethanol, as part of a renewable fuels 
standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for 
consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why I rise as an 
original co-sponsor and strong supporter this renewable fuels 
legislation.
  If passed, the Fuels Security Act will establish a 2.3 billion gallon 
renewable fuels standard in 2004, growing every year until it reaches 5 
billion gallons by 2012. There are many benefits to this legislation.
  It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade; 
reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in 
rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed 
grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next 
decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy; 
and it will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over 
the next decade
  It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to 
boost a struggling U.S. agriculture economy, and will help establish a 
more sound national energy policy.
  The greater production of ethanol will also be beneficial to the 
environment. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide 
and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates by 40 percent in 1990 
and newer vehicles. In 2001 ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 
3.6 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles 
from the road.
  A choice for ethanol is a choice for America, and its energy 
consumers, its farmers, and its environment.
  Enactment of the Fuel Security Act will help us to reverse our 100-
year-old near total reliance on fossil fuels; a more pressing concern 
than ever given the possibility of military conflict in the Mid East 
and the continuing economic turmoil in Venezuela.
  It was recently reported we are currently exporting about 80,000 
gallons of fuel to Venezuela right now to help in their shortfall 
because of the turmoil in that part of our world.
  I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this 
area. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991 to 
2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these 
facilities were expanded more than once during the decade.
  Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15 
billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. They 
include 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115 
induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and 
maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual payroll of $44 
million. And more than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is 
processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others 
have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, 
employment increases, and additional capital investment.
  If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable 
fuel, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from 
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  And it is possible because ethanol and biodiesel can be made from 
biomass from other than corn or sorghum or other row crops. It can be 
produced from garbage. It can be produced from switch grass and all 
kinds of other biomass.
  When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this 
legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security 
Act is balanced,

[[Page S2462]]

comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many, 
especially Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar.
  So now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities 
for the technologies that will put our Nation and the world's 
transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, and environmentally 
enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now--and to future 
generations--to pass this legislation without any further delay.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, if I may, in contrast to the very 
partisan tone of the Estrada filibuster and this partisan divide that 
is stopping us from moving forward, I want to spend a few minutes 
talking about an issue in which we come together and perhaps which 
should be a model.
  I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Hagel and 
minority leader Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this landmark 
renewable fuels legislation.
  Senator Daschle is from our neighboring State. We have mutual 
interests. We understand the needs of our farmers.
  We are looking at working together, which I think is such a good 
thing.
  The Minnesota AgriGrowth Council points out renewable fuels like 
ethanol and biodiesel promote the 3 E's: economic development, 
environmental protection, and energy independence.
  Let me talk briefly about the economic development benefit first. I 
ran for the Senate on jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best 
housing program is a job--creating jobs--and economic development. That 
is what mayors do. That is what they understand is important to moms 
and dads. We get results. There were 18,000 more jobs in St. Paul when 
I left than when I began.
  The legislation we introduce today means economic development--it 
means jobs, revitalization, and new businesses--particularly for rural 
Minnesota.
  Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels. Not only do the people of 
my State make Minnesota the top 10 among States of nearly every 
agriculture commodity that can be produced in our climate, but 
Minnesota leads the way in renewable fuels, and I am proud of that.
  Today, Minnesota has 14 ethanol plants in production--more than any 
other State in the Nation. Preliminary planning is underway for at 
least a couple of biodiesel production facilities in my State as well. 
So the importance of this legislation to my State and to the health of 
the people in my State and to the lives of our farmers and their 
economic opportunity is clear.
  But, let's take a look nationally to see what every American has to 
gain through this legislation. According to at least one economic 
analysis, the renewable fuels standard we propose today would, over the 
next decade:
  Reduce America's trade deficit by more than $34 billion;
  increase America's Gross Domestic Product by $156 billion;
  create more than 214,000 jobs throughout the entire economy, 
including places important to me like Little Falls and Winnebago, MN; 
and
  increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year.
  That the renewable fuels standard legislation we introduce today 
promotes the first ``E'' of the 3 ``Es''--economic development--is 
evident.
  The second ``E'' I want to talk a little about is energy 
independence.
  As a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity, in my first 
month in the Senate, to hear from a number of experts on homeland 
security and on conditions around the world that affect our security. 
And, with this experience as a backdrop, I can say I am not comfortable 
at all with America's level of reliance on oil imports--now at 56 
percent of our supply, and expected to be about 70 percent by 2020 
unless something is done to turn things around.
  Back on September 19, 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, and former 
National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane all wrote the Senate on this 
very issue, stating:

       One of the critical actions that must be taken now is to 
     advance America's energy security through transportation 
     fuels like ethanol [and] slow the dollars to the Middle East, 
     where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapon 
     and fund terrorist activities.

  The legislation we offer today takes to heart the admonition of 
Director Woolsey, Admiral Moorer, and Mr. McFarlane by advancing 
renewable fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  And, finally, but not least, is the ``E'' for environmental 
protection that got the whole reformulated gasoline ball rolling in the 
first place.
  Ethanol is an important tool for improving air quality in America's 
cities by reducing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOX, 
toxics, and particulates.
  Proof of ethanol's clear air benefits was seen in Chicago last year 
where exclusive use of ethanol reformulated gasoline helped the city 
attain federal ozone standards--the only area under such standards to 
see this kind of improvement.
  What is more, ethanol continues to be the only liquid transportation 
fuel that can help to reduce global warming. In 2002 alone, ethanol use 
in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million 
tons--the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the 
road.
  These are the 3 ``Es''; economic development, energy independence, 
and environmental protection--all three worthy objectives furthered by 
the legislation we offer today.
  Naturally, there are places here and there where this bill can and 
should be improved, and we can work on it. But, this is a good starting 
place. It is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Sarbanes, and 
        Mr. Akaka):
  S. 386. A bill to establish a grant program to enhance the financial 
and retirement literacy of mid-life and older Americans and to reduce 
financial abuse and fraud among such Americans, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators 
Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for 
Retirement Security Act of 2003. This bill will provide access to badly 
needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and 
older Americans whose retirement security is at stake.
  Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in 
Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of 
all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach 
retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal 
and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing 
retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to 
be doing well, nearly one-out-of-five, 18 percent, were living below 
125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous 
economic prosperity in our Nation. And, only 53 percent of working 
Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial 
exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older 
individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all 
telemarketing victims in the United States.
  While education along cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes, 
financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and 
bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that 
they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial 
decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the 
more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which 
to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from 
bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial 
practices makes this education all the more critical. Financial 
literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more 
likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security.
  The Education for Retirement Security act would create a competitive 
grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies 
on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide 
financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal 
of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and 
retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial

[[Page S2463]]

abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud.
  My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical 
assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit 
organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial 
education to provide training and make available instructional 
materials and information that promotes financial education.
  Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and 
older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million. 
Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and 
are more informed about the economic decisions they face during 
retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and 
social well-being of our Nation.
  I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my 
colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this 
legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and 
the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of 
millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more 
clear.
  In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance 
that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for 
a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 386

       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 ``Education for Retirement 
     Security Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Improving financial literacy is a critical and complex 
     task for Americans of all ages.
       (2) Low levels of savings and high levels of personal and 
     real estate debt are serious problems for many households 
     nearing retirement.
       (3) Only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of 
     pension coverage. Three out of four women aged 65 or over 
     receive no income from employer-provided pensions.
       (4) The more limited timeframe that mid-life and older 
     individuals and families have to assess the realities of 
     their individual circumstances, to recover from counter-
     productive choices and decisionmaking processes, and to 
     benefit from more informed financial practices, has immediate 
     impact and near term consequences for Americans nearing or of 
     retirement age.
       (5) Research indicates that there are now 4 basic sources 
     of retirement income security. Those sources are social 
     security benefits, pensions and savings, healthcare insurance 
     coverage, and, for an increasing number of older individuals, 
     necessary earnings from working during one's ``retirement'' 
     years.
       (6) The $5,000,000,000,000 loss in stock market equity 
     values since 2000 has had a significantly negative effect on 
     mid-life and older individuals and on their pension plans and 
     retirement accounts, affecting both individuals with plans to 
     retire and those who are already in retirement.
       (7) Although today's older individuals are generally 
     thought to be doing well, nearly \1/4\ (24 percent) of such 
     individuals had annual incomes of less than 14,000 (or 150 
     percent of the Federal poverty line) between 1998 and 2000.
       (8) Over the next 30 years, the number of older individuals 
     in the United States is expected to double, from 35,000,000 
     to nearly 75,000,000, and long-term care costs are expected 
     to skyrocket.
       (9) Financial exploitation is the largest single category 
     of abuse against older individuals and this population 
     comprises more than \1/2\ of all telemarketing victims in the 
     United States.
       (10) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Identity Theft Data 
     Clearinghouse has reported that incidents of identity theft 
     targeting individuals over the age of 60 increased from 1,821 
     victims in 2000 to 5,802 victims in 2001, a threefold 
     increase.

     SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE FINANCIAL AND RETIREMENT 
                   LITERACY AND REDUCE FINANCIAL ABUSE AND FRAUD 
                   AMONG MID-LIFE AND OLDER AMERICANS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award grants 
     to eligible entities to provide financial education programs 
     to mid-life and older individuals who reside in local 
     communities in order to--
       (1) enhance financial and retirement knowledge among such 
     individuals; and
       (2) reduce financial abuse and fraud, including 
     telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud, among such 
     individuals.
       (b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is--
       (1) a State agency or area agency on aging; or
       (2) a nonprofit organization with a proven record of 
     providing--
       (A) services to mid-life and older individuals;
       (B) consumer awareness programs; or
       (C) supportive services to low-income families.
       (c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary in 
     such form and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require, including a plan for continuing the programs 
     provided with grant funds under this section after the grant 
     expires.
       (d) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--A recipient of a 
     grant under this section may not use more than 4 percent of 
     the total amount of the grant in each fiscal year for the 
     administrative costs of carrying out the programs provided 
     with grant funds under this section.
       (e) Evaluation and Report.--
       (1) Establishment of performance measures.--The Secretary 
     shall develop measures to evaluate the programs provided with 
     grant funds under this section.
       (2) Evaluation according to performance measures.--Applying 
     the performance measures developed under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall evaluate the programs provided with grant 
     funds under this section in order to--
       (A) judge the performance and effectiveness of such 
     programs;
       (B) identify which programs represent the best practices of 
     entities developing such programs for mid-life and older 
     individuals; and
       (C) identify which programs may be replicated.
       (3) Annual reports.--For each fiscal year in which a grant 
     is awarded under this section, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress containing a description of the status of 
     the grant program under this section, a description of the 
     programs provided with grant funds under this section, and 
     the results of the evaluation of such programs under 
     paragraph (2).

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award a 
     grant to 1 or more eligible entities to--
       (1) create and make available instructional materials and 
     information that promote financial education; and
       (2) provide training and other related assistance regarding 
     the establishment of financial education programs to eligible 
     entities awarded a grant under section 3.
       (b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a national 
     nonprofit organization with substantial experience in the 
     field of financial education.
       (c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary in 
     such form and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (d) Basis and Term.--The Secretary shall award a grant 
     under this section on a competitive, merit basis for a term 
     of 5 years.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Financial education.--The term ``financial education'' 
     means education that promotes an understanding of consumer, 
     economic, and personal finance concepts, including saving for 
     retirement, long-term care, and estate planning and education 
     on predatory lending and financial abuse schemes.
       (2) Mid-life individual.--The term ``mid-life individual'' 
     means an individual aged 45 to 64 years.
       (3) Older individual.--The term ``older individual'' means 
     an individual aged 65 or older.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act, $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008.
       (b) Limitation on Funds for Evaluation and Report.--The 
     Secretary may not use more than $200,000 of the amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to 
     carry out section 3(e).
       (c) Limitation on Funds for Training and Technical 
     Assistance.--The Secretary may not use less than 5 percent or 
     more than 10 percent of amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (a) for each fiscal year to carry out section 4.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 387. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
extend the eligibility periods for geriatric graduate medical 
education, to permit the expansion of medical residency training 
programs in geriatric medicine, to provide for reimbursement of care 
coordination and assessment services

[[Page S2464]]

provided under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Geriatric Care Act of 2003, a bill to increase the number of 
geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare 
reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this 
effort today by Senators Reid, Snowe, Breaux, Graham, Bingaman, 
Landrieu, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Reed, Kennedy, and Collins.
  Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change 
as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.
  As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on 
Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and 
Medicare for the inevitable ``aging of America.'' By improving access 
to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2003 takes an important 
first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.
  By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65 and older. The 
elderly will soon represent one-fifth of the United States population, 
the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our 
Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our 
population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies 
ahead.
  Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians 
who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably 
brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risks of disease 
and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, 
diabetes and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age.
  The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of 
physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are 
physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal 
medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics.
  Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for 
our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and 
preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life 
by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and 
costly trips to the hospital or other institutions.
  Geriatricians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of 
prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on 
prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, 
when, and in what dosages to prescribe medicines for seniors. That's 
because frequently, older patients respond to medications in different 
ways than younger patients.
  In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience 
adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for 
Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 
percent of all hospitalizations of seniors annually.
  Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide 
better health care for our seniors, but will also save costs to 
Medicare in the long term by eliminating more costly medical care in 
hospitals and nursing homes.
  Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our 
health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic 
changes.
  Yet today, there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the 
United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and 
fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in 
geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools 
in the country, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS, 
being one of them, has a Department of Geriatrics. This is incredible 
considering that all 125 medical schools in our country have 
departments of pediatrics.
  As if that weren't alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is 
expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, 
most of these doctors will retire just as the Baby Boomer generation 
becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide 
incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.
  Unfortunately, there are barriers preventing physicians from entering 
geriatrics. These include insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the 
provision of geriatric care, inadequate training dollars, and too few 
positions for geriatricians.
  Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus 
their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient 
Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, 
geriatricians depend almost entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent 
MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major 
stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians.
  Currently, the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it 
is for regular physicians. But the services geriatricians provide are 
fundamentally different.
  Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest 
the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex 
needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple 
medications make medical decision-making more complex and time 
consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more 
complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and 
caregivers in the process.
  We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the 
importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing 
health care for seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these 
trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the 
realities of senior health care.
  The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these 
shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin 
foundations of geriatric practice--geriatric assessment and care 
coordination.
  The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for 
seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications 
effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to 
provide necessary support for caregivers.
  The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by 
the Graduate Medical Education cap established by the 1997 Balanced 
Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or 
reduced their geriatric training programs.
  The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing for 
additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals 
to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help 
increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs.
  Finally, the Geriatric Care Act contains a new provision that ensures 
Graduate Medical Education payments for the second year of geriatric 
fellowship training. A one-year fellowship may be adequate for training 
clinical geriatricans but a two-year fellowship is essential for 
training academic geriatricans who will teach geriatrics to primary 
care and specialty physicians-in-training. Academic geriatricians are 
critical in preparing the next generation of doctors to care for our 
growing elderly population.
  My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of 
population 65 years and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many 
ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the 
United States will look like in the near future.
  We are blessed in Arkansas to have the Donald W. Reynolds Department 
of Geriatrics and the Center on Aging at the University of Arkansas for 
Medical Sciences. It is my hope that the Geriatric Care Act will make 
it easier for our medical school and others across the country to train 
more physicians in geriatrics.
  As our parents, grandparents, friends, and loved ones cope with the 
challenges that aging brings, we must ensure that physicians skilled in 
caring for their special needs are there to help them. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of this effort to modernize Medicare 
to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's seniors.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be a 
printed list of organizations that support the Geriatric Care Act of 
2003.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

        Organizations Supporting the Geriatric Care Act of 2003

       Alzheimer's Association.

[[Page S2465]]

       American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
       American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
       American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal 
     Medicine.
       American Geriatrics Society.
       Association of Professors of Medicine.
       Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine.
       Association of Subspecialty Professors.
       Catholic Health Association.
       International Longevity Center--USA.
       National Chronic Care Consortium.
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare.
       National Council on the Aging.
       National PACE Association.
       National Family Caregivers Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 388. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the dependent car tax credit, to accelerate the child tax credit, and 
to promote dependent care assistance programs; to the Committee on 
Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 389. A bill to increase the supply of quality child care; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my 
colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the 
child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills 
entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care 
Act'', or the ABC's Act.
  Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both 
parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. 
Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the 
most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. 
It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than 
college tuition in some areas.
  The ``Caring for Children Act'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act'' 
take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible 
approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without 
increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation 
builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or 
mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working 
parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation 
will help to increase the supply of quality child care.
  First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased 
affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care 
Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families 
become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also 
raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can 
deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit 
more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. 
Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child 
tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease 
the financial burden on families.
  Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses 
that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we 
must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain 
at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation 
extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with 
a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families 
and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In 
order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet 
our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income 
wage earners.
  The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play 
a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working 
parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the 
resources required to start up and support a child care center. This 
legislation includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage 
small businesses to work together to provide child care services for 
employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will 
sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses 
will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training 
scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to 
meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to 
match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into 
the future.
  Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to 
child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply 
of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant 
program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child 
care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive 
the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of 
child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of 
Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art 
information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well 
as early childhood development. This information could be distributed 
through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or 
resource and referral organizations.

  Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While 
parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and 
family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options 
and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look 
forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Caring for Children 
Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 388

       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 ``A Boost for Child Care 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by 
     Taxpayer Status.--Paragraph (2) of section 21(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for 
     expenses for household and dependent care services necessary 
     for gainful employment) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50 
     percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point 
     for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the taxpayer's 
     adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds 
     $30,000.''.
       (b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
     Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer 
     with 1 or more qualifying individuals described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during the taxable 
     year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have employment-
     related expenses with respect to such qualifying individuals 
     in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred 
     for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year 
     (determined under this section without regard to this 
     paragraph), or
       ``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which 
     such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. 3. ACCELERATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
     taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the 
     taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal of Amendment.--Section 201(a) of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is repealed.
       (2) Repeal of Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and 
     Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of 
     provisions of such Act) shall not apply to section 201 (other 
     than subsection (a) of such section) of such Act.

     SEC. 4. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish a 
     program to promote awareness of the use of dependent care 
     assistance programs (as described in section 129(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) by employers.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to

[[Page S2466]]

     carry out the program under subsection (a) $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
                                  ____


                                 S. 389

       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 ``Caring for Children Act''.

     TITLE I--DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT QUALITY CHILD CARE

     SEC. 101. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or 
     through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a 
     qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
       (1) information concerning health and safety in various 
     child care settings that would assist in--
       (A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by 
     child care providers; and
       (B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
       (2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood 
     learning and development.
       (b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
       (1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall make the information and findings 
     described in subsection (a) generally available to States, 
     units of local governments, private nonprofit child care 
     organizations (including resource and referral agencies), 
     employers, child care providers, and parents.
       (2) Definition of generally available.--In paragraph (1), 
     the term ``generally available'' means that the information 
     and findings shall be distributed through resources that are 
     used by, and available to, the public, including such 
     resources as brochures, Internet web sites, toll-free 
     telephone information lines, and public and private resource 
     and referral organizations.

     SEC. 102. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to 
     develop distance learning child care training technology 
     infrastructures and to develop model technology-based 
     training courses for child care providers and child care 
     workers, to be provided through distance learning programs 
     made available through the infrastructure. The Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent possible, ensure that such 
     grants are awarded in those regions of the United States with 
     the fewest training opportunities for child care providers.
       (b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
       (1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the 
     infrastructure described in this section and have the 
     capability of implementing and maintaining the 
     infrastructure;
       (2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships 
     with secondary schools, institutions of higher education, 
     State and local government agencies, and private child care 
     organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical 
     assistance, and other technological resources, including--
       (A) developing sites from which individuals may access the 
     training;
       (B) converting standard child care training courses to 
     programs for distance learning; and
       (C) promoting ongoing networking among program 
     participants; and
       (3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
       (A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure, 
     including the availability and affordability of the 
     infrastructure, and the training offered through the 
     infrastructure; and
       (B) make recommendations for improvements to the 
     infrastructure.
       (c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require, and that includes--
       (1) a description of the partnership organizations through 
     which the distance learning programs will be made available;
       (2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the 
     number and type of distance learning programs that will be 
     made available;
       (3) the expected number of individuals to participate in 
     the distance learning programs; and
       (4) such additional information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under 
     this section may collect fees from an individual for 
     participation in a distance learning program funded in whole 
     or in part under this section that exceed the pro rata share 
     of the amount expended by the entity to provide materials for 
     the program and to develop, implement, and maintain the 
     infrastructure (minus the amount of the grant awarded under 
     this section).
       (e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to 
     or complete a distance learning program made available under 
     this section.

     SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

TITLE II--REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF QUALITY CHILD 
                                  CARE

     SEC. 201. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish a program to award grants to States, on a 
     competitive basis, to assist States in providing funds to 
     encourage the establishment and operation of employer 
     operated child care programs.
       (b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including an assurance that the funds required under 
     subsection (e) will be provided.
       (c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the 
     population of the State as compared to the population of all 
     States receiving grants under this section.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a 
     grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to 
     small businesses located in the State to enable the small 
     businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such 
     assistance may include--
       (A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child 
     care program;
       (B) assistance for the startup costs related to a child 
     care program;
       (C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
       (D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
       (E) the provision of services to care for sick children or 
     to provide care to school aged children;
       (F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and 
     referral or local health departments;
       (G) assistance for care for children with disabilities; or
       (H) assistance for any other activity determined 
     appropriate by the State.
       (2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from 
     a State under this section, a small business shall prepare 
     and submit to the State an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the State may 
     require.
       (3) Preference.--
       (A) In general.--In providing assistance under this 
     section, a State shall give priority to applicants that 
     desire to form a consortium to provide child care in a 
     geographic area within the State where such care is not 
     generally available or accessible.
       (B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a 
     consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities that may 
     include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations, 
     local governments, or other appropriate entities.
       (4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under 
     this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000 
     in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
       (e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to 
     the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred 
     by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities 
     under this section, the entity will make available (directly 
     or through donations from public or private entities) non-
     Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
       (1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives 
     such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1 
     for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the 
     grant);
       (2) for the second fiscal year in which the entity receives 
     such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs 
     ($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under 
     the grant); and
       (3) for the third fiscal year in which the entity receives 
     such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3 
     for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the 
     grant).
       (f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive 
     assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child 
     care provider shall comply with all applicable State and 
     local licensing and regulatory requirements and all 
     applicable health and safety standards in effect in the 
     State.
       (g) Administration.--
       (1) State responsibility.--A State shall have 
     responsibility for administering a grant awarded for the 
     State under this section and for monitoring entities that 
     receive assistance under such grant.
       (2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving 
     assistance under the grant awarded under this section to 
     conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the 
     entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
       (3) Misuse of funds.--
       (A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit 
     or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a 
     grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance, 
     the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The 
     Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an 
     entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of 
     any such misused assistance plus interest.

[[Page S2467]]

       (B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments 
     under this paragraph.
       (h) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) 2-year study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
       (i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs 
     of communities within States;
       (ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with 
     respect to child care at the local level to carry out 
     programs funded under this section; and
       (iii) who is using the programs funded under this section 
     and the income levels of such individuals.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
       (2) 4-year study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number 
     of child care facilities funded through entities that 
     received assistance through a grant awarded under this 
     section that remain in operation and the extent to which such 
     facilities are meeting the child care needs of the 
     individuals served by such facilities.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
       (i) Definition.--In this section, the term ``small 
     business'' means an employer who employed an average of at 
     least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days 
     during the preceding calendar year.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, $60,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2006.
       (2) Evaluations and administration.--With respect to the 
     total amount appropriated for such period in accordance with 
     this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount may 
     be used for expenditures related to conducting evaluations 
     required under, and the administration of, this section.
       (k) Termination of Program.--The program established under 
     subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 390. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 
retroactive effect to a sentencing safety valve provision; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 390

       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 ``Safety Valve Fairness Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ON STATUTORY 
                   MINIMUMS IN CERTAIN CASES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3553(f) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``whether or not the sentence 
     for that offense was imposed before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection,'' before ``the court shall 
     impose a sentence''.
       (b) Effect on Existing Convictions.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall apply with respect to sentences imposed 
     before the date of enactment of this Act but not yet 
     completed. A prisoner may who was so sentenced may petition 
     for reconsideration of that sentence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, 
        Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Campbell, 
        Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 392. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected 
disability to receive both military retired pay by reason of their 
years of military service and disability compensation from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability; to the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, over the last several years, I have tried 
to correct a long-standing injustice impacting our Nation's veterans. 
Under a law that is now over 110 years old, most veterans who retire 
with 20 years of honorable service, and who also have a service-related 
disability, cannot collect both their retirement and their disability 
pay.
  In 2001, I was joined by 82 cosponsors in introducing S. 170, the 
``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.'' Our bill sought to lift the 
restrictions to allow veterans the ``concurrent receipt'' of both 
retirement compensation and disability benefits. Although we were 
successful in getting the language approved in the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2002, now codified at 10 U.S.C. 1414, the 
authorization was made contingent upon the passage of further 
appropriations. No funds were ever appropriated and concurrent receipt 
remained another unfulfilled promise to our veterans.
  In 2002, I introduced S. 2051, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 
2002'' to repeal the contingency language and make concurrent receipt a 
reality. The Senate again overwhelmingly passed this measure. 
Unfortunately, the White House threatened a veto of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2003, and therefore, the Conference 
Committee conceded to a compromise proposal, see Section 636 of 
Conference Report 107-772. This compromise was a much scaled-back 
version of concurrent receipt. Senator Warner correctly referred to it 
as a ``beachhead'', but we all acknowledged there was much work 
remaining.
  Under last year's compromise, only a small number of veterans--
estimated to be between 15 to 30 thousand--would stand to benefit. The 
compromise left the contingency language for full concurrent receipt in 
place, but created a new category of special compensation, now codified 
at 10 U.S.C. 1413(a). In this new category, retirees that had at least 
a 60 percent disability rating that was a direct result of armed 
conflict, hazardous service, performance of duty under conditions 
simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, would be eligible 
to collect both retirement compensation and disability benefits. Thus, 
the current law excludes approximately 500,000 disabled veterans who 
have served their country honorably. To exclude these veterans assumes 
that they are less deserving of fair compensation because they did not 
incur their injury in combat. The law also creates an unnecessary 
bureaucracy for the VA and the Department of Defense, which currently 
do not make distinctions based on the specific cause of a service-
connected disability.
  Therefore, I rise today with Mr. McCain, to introduce the ``Retired 
Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. 
Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. 
Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, 
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this 
inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a 
service-connected disability.
  Our bill removes the contingency language for full concurrent receipt 
currently found at 10 U.S.C 1414(a) and (f), and repeals the Special 
Compensation programs codified at 10 U.S.C. 1413 and 1413(a). The 
effect would be to finally implement full concurrent receipt, thereby 
ending the 110 year inequity.
  Passage and implementation of this bill is long overdue. I am sure 
many of my colleagues would be interested to learn that Congress 
imposed these restrictions on concurrent receipt just after the Civil 
War, when the standing army of the United States was extremely limited. 
At that time, only a small portion of our armed forces consisted of 
career soldiers.
  Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives 
to the

[[Page S2468]]

defense of our Nation. The United States' military force is unmatched 
in terms of power, training and ability. Our Nation's status as the 
world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans 
made during the last century. Rather than honoring their commitment and 
bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal government has 
chosen instead to perpetuate a longstanding injustice. Quite simply, 
this is disgraceful, and we must correct it.
  Once again our Nation is calling upon the members of the Armed Forces 
to defend democracy and freedom in Afghanistan, in the Persian Gulf and 
throughout the world. We must send a signal to the men and women 
currently in uniform that our government takes care of those that make 
sacrifices for our Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we are 
thankful for their dedicated service.
  Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned and 
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the 
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retired pay is 
earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices 
inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two 
decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable. 
Veterans' disability compensation, on the other hand, is paid to 
recompense pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a 
service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on 
their retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem 
worse by limiting or denying any post-service working life.
  Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal 
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to 
receive VA disability benefits. All other Federal employees receive 
both their civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. 
Simply put, the law discriminates against career military men and 
women. It assumes, in effect, that disabled military retirees neither 
need nor deserve the full compensation they earned for their 20 or more 
years served in uniform.
  This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women 
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great nation? How do we 
explain this inequity to those members currently risking their lives to 
defeat terror?
  We are currently losing over one thousand World War II veterans each 
day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing to 
deny fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will 
never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
  This bill represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that 
has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans to receive 
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently 
will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
  This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reservists Association, the 
Military Officer's Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and 
the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
  Passing this bill will finally eliminate a grossly inequitable 19th 
century law and ensure fairness within the Federal retirement policy. 
Our veterans have heard enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear 
our gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation to finally end this disservice to our retired military men 
and women.
  Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their 
service to our Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 392

       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 ``Retired Pay Restoration Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FULL PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO 
                   DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--Section 1414 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have 
       service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and 
       veterans' disability compensation

       ``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of 
     the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other 
     than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled 
     to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid 
     both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
       ``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
     retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
     title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable 
     under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
     retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 
     5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of 
     the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
     exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would 
     have been entitled under any other provision of law based 
     upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the 
     member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title at the time of the member's retirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
       ``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the 
     meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of 
     title 38.''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413 
     and 1413a of such title are repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items 
     relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the 
     following:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
              disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
              disability compensation.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
       (b) Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may be paid to any 
     person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2(a), for any period before the 
     effective date applicable under subsection (a).
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this 
issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994, 
then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as 
a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely 
disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. 
Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem 
that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for 
all military retirees who have become disabled during their military 
service.
  I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to 
defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I 
know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, 
that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces 
devotion to duty.
  Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women 
who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States 
has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World 
Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and 
hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces.
  Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms 
way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great 
Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans 
for their actions above and beyond the call of duty.
  We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to 
these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who 
continue to serve in this time of trial.

[[Page S2469]]

  The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong. 
``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present 
law simply discriminates against career military people who have been 
injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense 
of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal 
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to 
receive VA disability compensation.
  In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for 
loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or 
mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country.
  The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan 
support in Congress for several years.
  The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and 
retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other 
veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans.
  For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in 
the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they 
will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive 
their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for 
their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.
  It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring 
disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. 
Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military 
retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who 
have sacrificed so much for our great Nation.
  Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the 
``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. 
Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. 
Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms. 
Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our 
Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
  I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue 
today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this 
legislative provision through Conference and final passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN:
  S. 393. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers a credit against income tax with respect to employees who 
participate in the military reserve components and to allow a 
comparable credit for participating reserve component self-employed 
individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ALLEN. 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. 393

       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 ``____ Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45G. RESERVE COMPONENT EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the 
     reserve component employment credit determined under this 
     section is an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) the employment credit with respect to all qualified 
     employees of the taxpayer, plus
       ``(2) the self-employment credit of a qualified self-
     employed taxpayer.
       ``(b) Employment Credit.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a 
     qualified employee of the taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 100 percent of the excess, if any, of--
       ``(A) the qualified employee's average daily qualified 
     compensation for the taxable year, over
       ``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances 
     received by the qualified employee during the taxable year,

     while participating in qualified reserve component duty to 
     the exclusion of the qualified employee's normal employment 
     duties for the number of days the qualified employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty during the 
     taxable year, including time spent in a travel status. The 
     employment credit, with respect to all qualified employees, 
     is equal to the sum of the employment credits for each 
     qualified employee under this subsection.
       ``(2) Average daily qualified compensation and average 
     daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a 
     qualified employee--
       ``(A) the term `average daily qualified compensation' means 
     the qualified compensation of the qualified employee for the 
     taxable year divided by the difference between--
       ``(i) 365, and
       ``(ii) the number of days the qualified employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty during the 
     taxable year, including time spent in a travel status, and
       ``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances' 
     means--
       ``(i) the amount paid to the qualified employee during the 
     taxable year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     qualified employee's participation in qualified reserve 
     component duty, divided by
       ``(ii) the total number of days the qualified employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty, including 
     time spent in travel status.
       ``(3) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to 
     the compensation paid or that would have been paid to a 
     qualified employee for any period during which the qualified 
     employee participates in qualified reserve component duty, 
     the term `qualified compensation' means--
       ``(A) compensation which is normally contingent on the 
     qualified employee's presence for work and which would be 
     deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1) if the qualified employee were present and 
     receiving such compensation,
       ``(B) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, 
     or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of 
     absence, and with respect to which the number of days the 
     qualified employee participates in qualified reserve 
     component duty does not result in any reduction in the amount 
     of vacation time, sick leave, or other nonspecific leave 
     previously credited to or earned by the qualified employee, 
     and
       ``(C) group health plan costs (if any) with respect to the 
     qualified employee.
       ``(4) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee' 
     means a person who--
       ``(A) has been an employee of the taxpayer for the 21-day 
     period immediately preceding the period during which the 
     employee participates in qualified reserve component duty, 
     and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States as defined 
     in sections 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(c) Self-Employment Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The self-employment credit of a 
     qualified self-employed taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 100 percent of the excess, if any, of--
       ``(A) the self-employed taxpayer's average daily self-
     employment income for the taxable year over
       ``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances 
     received by the taxpayer during the taxable year, while 
     participating in qualified reserve component duty to the 
     exclusion of the taxpayer's normal self-employment duties for 
     the number of days the taxpayer participates in qualified 
     reserve component duty during the taxable year, including 
     time spent in a travel status.
       ``(2) Average daily self-employment income and average 
     daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a 
     self-employed taxpayer--
       ``(A) the term `average daily self-employment income' means 
     the self-employment income (as defined in section 1402) of 
     the taxpayer for the taxable year plus the amount paid for 
     insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer for 
     such year (within the meaning of section 162(l)) divided by 
     the difference between--
       ``(i) 365, and
       ``(ii) the number of days the taxpayer participates in 
     qualified reserve component duty during the taxable year, 
     including time spent in a travel status, and
       ``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances' 
     means--
       ``(i) the amount paid to the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     taxpayer's participation in qualified reserve component duty, 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the total number of days the taxpayer participates 
     in qualified reserve component duty, including time spent in 
     travel status.
       ``(3) Qualified self-employed taxpayer.--The term 
     `qualified self-employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in 
     section 1402) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States.

[[Page S2470]]

       ``(d) Credit in Addition to Deduction.--The employment 
     credit provided in this section is in addition to any 
     deduction otherwise allowable with respect to compensation 
     actually paid to a qualified employee during any period the 
     qualified employee participates in qualified reserve 
     component duty to the exclusion of normal employment duties.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or 
     reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
       ``(A) any taxable year in which the taxpayer is under a 
     final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by 
     a district court of the United States under section 4323 of 
     title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a 
     violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
       ``(B) the 2 succeeding taxable years.
       ``(2) Disallowance with respect to persons ordered to 
     active duty for training.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to any period for 
     which the person on whose behalf the credit would otherwise 
     be allowable is called or ordered to active duty for any of 
     the following types of duty:
       ``(A) active duty for training under any provision of title 
     10, United States Code,
       ``(B) training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target 
     practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32, 
     United States Code, or
       ``(C) full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay' 
     means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title 
     37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the 
     allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States under chapter 7 of that title.
       ``(2) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term 
     `qualified reserve component duty' includes only active duty 
     performed, as designated in the reservist's military orders, 
     in support of a contingency operation as defined in section 
     101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(3) Normal employment and self-employment duties.--A 
     person shall be deemed to be participating in qualified 
     reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment 
     or self-employment duties if the person does not engage in or 
     undertake any substantial activity related to the person's 
     normal employment or self-employment duties while 
     participating in qualified reserve component duty unless in 
     an authorized leave status or other authorized absence from 
     military duties. If a person engages in or undertakes any 
     substantial activity related to the person's normal 
     employment or self-employment duties at any time while 
     participating in a period of qualified reserve component 
     duty, unless during a period of authorized leave or other 
     authorized absence from military duties, the person shall be 
     deemed to have engaged in or undertaken such activity for the 
     entire period of qualified reserve component duty.
       ``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply 
     for purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general business credit) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(16) the reserve component employment credit determined 
     under section 45G(a).''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 45F the following new item:

``Sec. 45G. Reserve component employment credit.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN:
  S. 394. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the combat zone income tax exclusion to include income for the period 
of transit to the combat zone and to remove the limitation on such 
exclusion for commissioned officers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ALLEN. 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. 394

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR COMBAT ZONE 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) Combat Zone Service To Include Transit to Zone.--
     Section 112(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such service shall include any 
     period of transit to the combat zone.''.
       (b) Removal of Limitation on Exclusion for Commissioned 
     Officers.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 112 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain combat 
     zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 112(a) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``below the grade of commissioned 
     officer'', and
       (ii) by striking ``Enlisted Personnel'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``In General''.
       (B) Section 112(c) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1) and (5) and by redesignating paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 395. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a 3-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax 
legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Conrad, Crapo, 
Breaux, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, Craig, Johnson, Chafee, Snowe, and 
Kerry.
  This bill, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient Energy with 
Zero Effluent, BREEZE, Act,'' extends the production tax credit for 
electricity generated by wind for three years. The current tax credit 
is set to expire on January 1, 2004.
  As the author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to 
give this alternative energy source the ability to compete against 
traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the 
expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this 
production tax credit.
  Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally 
safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable 
contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. 
Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can 
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing 
the combustion of fossil fuels.
  Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993, 
more than 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online. 
This generating capacity powers nearly 900,000 homes.
  Just last year, over 400 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was 
installed, bringing total capacity to more than 4,500 megawatts. Wind 
energy is currently serving the equivalent of more than 1.3 million 
average American homes in 27 states across the country.
  During the past two decades, the price of wind energy has been 
reduced more than 80 percent, making it one of the least expensive 
sources of renewable energy. In order to continue this investment and 
development in America's energy future, we must extend the production 
tax credit.
  From 1999 to 2001, wind energy capacity in Iowa grew by 33 percent, 
and while Iowa ranks tenth in the nation in terms of wind energy 
potential, Iowa currently ranks third nationally in wind development, 
with over 400 megawatts of generating capacity. Only California and 
Texas generate more electricity from wind than Iowa. And, the Iowa 
Department of Natural Resources estimates that Iowa has the potential 
to produce nearly 5 times its own annual electrical needs through wind 
power.
  Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each 
wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year 
for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already 
pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners.

  Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence, 
thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply 
dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently 
threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.

[[Page S2471]]

  Unfortunately, due to the structure of the current tax incentive, a 
significant portion of the electricity industry is unable to take 
advantage of the credit. Rural electric cooperatives and municipal 
utilities provide power to nearly 25 percent of the Nation's consumers. 
To encourage a unified national energy plan, it's only fair to give 
cooperatives and other not-for-profit utilities the ability to use 
renewable tax incentives.
  REC's and municipal utilities should be given a mechanism to utilize 
the tax incentives for renewable electricity generation. And, while the 
legislation I'm introducing today does not address this issue, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to 
include such a mechanism in a comprehensive energy tax package.
  Extending the wind energy tad credit would allow for even greater 
expansion and planning stability in the wind energy field. Wind is a 
domestically produced natural resource, found abundantly across the 
country. Because wind energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by 
any foreign power.
  Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind 
is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable. 
This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside 
as a productive alternative energy source.
  The Senate needs to extend this important incentive and I encourage 
my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  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. 395

       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 ``Bipartisan Renewable, 
     Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent (BREEZE) Act''.

     SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY 
                   FROM WIND.

       Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to wind facility) is amended by striking ``January 
     1, 2004'' and inserting ``January 1, 2007''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY):
  S. 396. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
small manufacturers from the firearms excise tax; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith 
Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding 
for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying 
administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the 
assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths.
  The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund is one 
of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen 
and women, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods 
industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the 
outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and 
ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife 
restoration, and habitat conservation.
  Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise 
tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the 
type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to 
clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many 
custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or 
refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from 
the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year.
  This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd 
Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a 
sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated 
from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his 
community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers. 
It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his. 
The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes.
  In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would 
accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate 
the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair. 
Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on 
small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who 
is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild 
and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the 
Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease 
revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal 
reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The 
Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 396

       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 ``Gunsmith Excise Tax 
     Simplification Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CUSTOM GUNSMITHS.

       (a) Small Manufacturers Exempt From Firearms Excise Tax.--
     Section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to exemptions) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as 
     subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Small Manufacturers, Etc.--
       ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by section 4181 shall 
     not apply to any article described in such section if 
     manufactured, produced, or imported by a person who 
     manufactures, produces, and imports less than 50 of such 
     articles during the calendar year.
       ``(2) Controlled groups.--All persons treated as a single 
     employer for purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 
     shall be treated as one person for purposes of paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or 
     importer on or after the date which is the first day of the 
     month beginning at least 2 weeks after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) No inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this 
     section shall be construed to create any inference with 
     respect to the proper tax treatment of any sales before the 
     effective date of such amendments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mrs. HUTCHISON):
  S. 397. A bill to amend the internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance taxes 
paid by employees and self-employed individuals, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 194 years ago this week, a son was born to 
Nancy and Thomas Lincoln in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. That son, Abraham, 
would go on to become President of the United States at one of the most 
defining times in our Nation's history.
  President Lincoln is still revered today for his leadership and 
vision of a country in which all citizens have the opportunity to 
succeed. In 1864, when the outcomes of the war and his re-election were 
in question, he asked soldiers from Ohio's 66th regiment to stop at the 
White House on their way home so he could express his appreciation. 
President Lincoln shared with them the following:
  ``I beg you to remember this . . . I happen temporarily to occupy 
this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your 
children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order 
that each of you may have through this free government which we have 
enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise 
and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of 
life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the 
struggle would be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright . . . 
The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable 
jewel.''
  That jewel--the American dream that should be within reach of all who 
grasp for it--has been the hope of generations in this nation. This 
Nation that elected Abraham Lincoln--born in a one-room log cabin and 
once a farmhand . . . This Nation that harvests in its children a 
yearning to soar beyond the earth's atmosphere . . . This Nation that 
preaches that education, hard work, and family bring success.
  Unfortunately, making a living, raising a family, and educating 
ourselves and our children is becoming more and more difficult in 
America. And it's the

[[Page S2472]]

leaders of this nation that have made the obstacles to success higher 
to get over and wider to get around.
  Here in Washington, we've built a wall of obstacles with one tax 
burden after another. Our Founding Fathers outlined exactly the powers 
they wanted Congress to have in Article I, Section 8 of the 
Constitution. Just because the first thing listed is the power to lay 
and collect taxes, doesn't mean it's the power we need to exercise the 
most.
  Not only should we take the responsibility of stopping the building 
of this wall of tax burdens, we need to step up and start removing 
these burdens. We need to alleviate the tremendous stress that comes 
with having to work to pay so much of what we earn to the government.
  Last year, the average taxpayer in my home State of Nevada did not 
finish paying taxes until April 27, which was also the average across 
the United States. Everything earned for the first 117 days of the year 
went to a government entity. In comparison, the average American spends 
only 106 days paying for food, clothing, and shelter combined.
  That doesn't leave enough days to pay for a family vacation or to 
save for education or to pay medical bills or to save for retirement or 
to take a class to improve skills or to do whatever you want with your 
money--after all, it is your money.
  In itself, our tax system is unfair because American families have to 
work harder to make more money only to pay greater taxes, and workers 
bear the burden of a government that continues to find ways to tax them 
into working even harder.
  Whatever our individual thoughts are on tax relief, we must agree 
that, although being taxed has become a challenging part of life, the 
idea of being double taxed is truly the government stealing from 
working Americans. Double taxation is immoral. Think about it in terms 
of a parent teaching a child. I am a parent of three young children. 
Just as I would explain to my children that it is not all right to take 
a piece of candy that they have not paid for, I would also tell them it 
is absolutely not okay to charge someone for something they aren't 
getting. But that is exactly what our government is doing with the 
Social Security tax.
  Time magazine recently called it ``The Really Unfair Tax.'' I call it 
the Social Security double dip. The take-home pay of 100 million 
Americans is fodder for this gutsy government scam. In very simple 
terms, this means that when a family pays income tax, the portion that 
is withheld for Social Security--money that they never see--is 
calculated into their personal income. The first dip is the tax that 
workers pay on wage income. The second dip is the icing on the cake for 
the government--taxing money that they are already taking anyway. 
Working Americans are forced to pay income tax on their Social Security 
tax. It is textbook double taxation, and if a business concocted such a 
scheme it would be shut down. How can we continue this policy if we 
would teach our children that it is wrong? This is only one reason why 
the tax is unfair.
  Another example of the outrageousness of this tax is that while 
working families are double taxed, American businesses are not. You 
see, half the Social Security tax is paid by workers, but employers pay 
the other half. Businesses and corporations get to deduct what they pay 
in Social Security taxes--a savings that working families are not 
afforded. This tax discrimination is unacceptable.
  We must eliminate this absolutely wrong tax policy that mocks our 
Constitution's goal to ``promote the general Welfare.'' I propose an 
above-the-line deduction for Social Security taxes so that an 
individual's Social Security taxes are not included in the calculation 
of income for income tax purposes. It's the right thing to do if we 
want to lead this Nation by example. Providing a Social Security tax 
deduction makes sense and will make a real difference to working 
families. About 100 million individuals and families would feel the 
savings--to the tune of around $2,000 each. Such savings translate into 
real growth and opportunity. Scholars predict that the Payroll Tax 
Deduction Act would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country, and it also 
means a Nation of workers who get to keep more of their hard-earned 
money.
  When government takes money away from working families, it stifles 
growth and builds obstacles to success. Let's take this chance to 
provide relief to America's families, open the doors to opportunity, 
and let future generations know that the American dream--the jewel that 
inspired Abraham Lincoln--is well within the reach of all who truly 
desire it.
  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. 397

       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 ``Payroll Tax Deduction Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY 
                   INSURANCE TAXES OF EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Taxes of Employees.--
       (1) Deduction allowed in arriving at adjusted gross 
     income.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining adjusted gross income) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (18) the following new paragraph:
       ``(19) Employees' oasdi taxes.--The deduction allowed by 
     section 164(g).''.
       (2) Determination of deduction.--Section 164 of such Code 
     (relating to deduction for taxes) is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after 
     subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Employees' OASDI Taxes.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, in 
     addition to the taxes described in subsection (a), there 
     shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) for the taxable 
     year, and
       ``(B) the taxes imposed by section 3201(a) for the taxable 
     year but only to the extent attributable to the percentage in 
     effect under section 3101(a).
       ``(2) Special rule for certain agreements.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), taxes imposed by section 3101(a) shall include 
     amounts equivalent to such taxes imposed with respect to 
     remuneration covered by--
       ``(A) an agreement under section 218 of the Social Security 
     Act, or
       ``(B) an agreement under section 3121(l) (relating to 
     agreements entered into by American employers with respect to 
     foreign affiliates).
       ``(3) Coordination with special refund of social security 
     taxes.--Taxes shall not be taken into account under paragraph 
     (1) to the extent the taxpayer is entitled to a special 
     refund of such taxes under section 6413(c).
       ``(4) Coordination with earned income credit.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed under paragraph (1) for any taxable year if 
     the individual elects to claim the earned income credit under 
     section 32 for the taxable year.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 275 of 
     such Code is amended in the matter following paragraph (6) by 
     inserting ``or 164(g)'' after ``164(f)''.
       (b) Deduction for Self-Employed Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 164(f) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for one-
     half of self-employment taxes) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, in 
     addition to the taxes described in subsection (a), there 
     shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the taxes imposed by section 1401(a) for such taxable 
     year, plus
       ``(B) 50 percent of the taxes imposed by section 1401(b) 
     for such taxable year.
     In the case of an individual who elects to claim the earned 
     income credit under section 32 for the taxable year, only 50 
     percent of the taxes described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     taken into account.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 32(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``who elects the application of this section'' after 
     ``eligible individual''.
       (B) The heading for section 164(f) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``One-Half'' and inserting ``Portion''.
       (C) Section 1402(a)(12) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``one-half'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``portion'', and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting:
       ``(B) a percentage equal to the sum for such year of the 
     rate of tax under section 1401(a) and one-half of the rate of 
     tax under section 1401(b);''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN:

[[Page S2473]]

  S. 398. A bill to provide that members of the Armed Forces performing 
services at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, and in the Horn of 
Africa in support of Operation Enduring Freedom shall be entitled to 
tax benefits in the same manner as if such services were performed in a 
combat zone, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ALLEN. 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. 398

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

     SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS 
                   OF THE ARMED FORCES PERFORMING SERVICES AT 
                   GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, CUBA, AND IN THE 
                   HORN OF AFRICA.

       (a) General Rule.--In the case of a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States who is entitled to special pay 
     under section 310 of title 37, United States Code (relating 
     to special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent 
     danger), for services performed at Guantanamo Bay Naval 
     Station, Cuba, or in any country located in the region known 
     as the Horn of Africa as part of Operation Enduring Freedom 
     (or any successor operation), such member shall be treated in 
     the same manner as if such services were in a combat zone (as 
     determined under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) for purposes of the following provisions of such Code:
       (1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where 
     deceased spouse was in missing status).
       (2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain 
     combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
       (3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of 
     Armed Forces on death).
       (4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces 
     dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred 
     wounds, etc.).
       (5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat 
     pay for members of the Armed Forces).
       (6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone 
     service originating from a combat zone from members of the 
     Armed Forces).
       (7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where 
     individual is in missing status).
       (8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain 
     acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Withholding.--Subsection (a)(5) shall apply to 
     remuneration paid on or after such date of enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 399. A bill to authorize grants for the establishment of quasi-
judicial campus drug courts at colleges and universities modeled after 
State drug courts programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today I introduce the ``Campus 
Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act of 2003.''
  The legislation I am introducing today is based on legislation I 
previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.
  The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act, 
which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the 
Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide 
grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges 
establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering 
the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking 
such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the 
students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be 
administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, 
would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered 
from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system.
  Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize 
the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years 
2004 through 2007. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs 
to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to 
help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and 
running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the 
Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant-
making program, including providing an Internet-based application 
process.
  There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish 
a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first 
appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the 
Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in 
prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the 
alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing, 
drug courts help get people clean.
  Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan 
support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration. 
For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the 
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug 
Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave 
speeches in support of drug courts and the benefits they provide.
  According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of 
Justice's Office of Justice Programs, as of November 2002, 946 Drug 
Courts are operating all across the United States. This is an 
impressive increase of approximately 250 Drug Courts over the past 
year. This 946 Drug Courts includes 547 Adult Drug Courts, 245 Juvenile 
Drug Courts, 59 Family Drug Courts and 14 Combination Courts. Over 400 
additional new Drug Courts are in the planning process.
  The report goes on to state that approximately 300,000 adults and 
12,000 juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system to date. 
Of those participants, 73,000 adults and 4,500 juveniles have 
successfully graduated from Drug Courts.
  The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide, 
drug courts have been instrumental in enabling more than 1,000 children 
to be born drug free, more than 3,500 parents to regain custody of 
their children, and 4,500 parents to resume making their child-support 
payments. The retention rate is over 70 percent with 73 percent of the 
participants managing to keep their jobs or successfully find new work. 
These are encouraging statistics, and not just for the individuals 
involved, but for society as a whole.
  While it is not as easy to measure, we know that Drug Courts play a 
beneficial role in reducing criminal behavior since so much crime these 
days is drug related.
  Drug Courts also help save up money. It is estimated that every 
dollar spent on Drug Courts saves our country and communities 
approximately ten dollars in reduced prison and other criminal justice 
costs.
  These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the 
drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we 
work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse 
challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities.
  Just as drugs are deeply interconnected with crime on our streets, 
drugs and serious substance abuse are also interconnected with much of 
the academic failure that damages so many of our Nation's institutions 
of higher learning and their aspiring students seeking college degrees.
  Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where 
offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court 
supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time. 
Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get 
supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and 
watch their futures get squandered away.
  Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems 
directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities 
and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help 
provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to 
help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the 
existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not 
respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the 
fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have 
been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act.

[[Page S2474]]

  Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and 
universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs, 
or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for 
disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to 
participate in the new Federal program.
  Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions 
of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU, 
has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply 
the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as 
it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep 
students clean and in school.
  Our Drug Court system is making a difference all across our Nation. 
In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious 
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``Drug 
Courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more 
frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other 
forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug 
use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are 
participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower 
after participation, especially for graduates.''
  Our Nation's Drug Court system is a good example of a viable and 
productive partnership between the Federal Government our State 
governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a 
positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to 
thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of 
Drug Court Professionals and the state and local judges, prosecutors, 
law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to 
establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court 
system.
  I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, 
Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court 
Professionals for her letter of support for the Campus CORT legislation 
I am introducing today. It is appreciated.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support and the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                     Drug Court Professionals,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 15, 2003.
     Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As the representative of the 
     National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and 
     of drug court professionals throughout the country, I am 
     writing this letter of support for the Campus Classmate 
     Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment (CORT) Act'' which 
     I understand you will be introducing in the Senate in the 
     near future. Not only are campus drug courts a natural 
     progression of the traditional drug court system which has 
     proliferated successfully throughout the country for more 
     than a decade, but they also will serve as yet another 
     mechanism to reduce drug abuse and its concomitant crime.
       Drug court professionals throughout the country truly 
     appreciate your tenacious support and are eager to work 
     collectively with you and other legislators to ensure that 
     substance-abusing students are reached early and do not 
     continuously cycle through the revolving door of the criminal 
     justice system.
       Because of your in depth knowledge of the substance abuse 
     and its concomitant crime, you are already aware that drug 
     and alcohol abuse is not limited to a specific age, gender or 
     race. However, according to the 2001 National Household 
     Survey on Drug Abuse, approximately 15.9 million Americans 
     aged 12 or older were current users of an illicit drug in 
     2001, representing 7.1% of the population. The highest rate 
     of use was found among young adults (ages 18-25) with 18.8% 
     reporting current use and among youth (ages 12-17) with 
     10.8%. Current use of any illicit drug in the population aged 
     12 and older increased significantly from 6.3% in 2000 to 
     7.1% in 2001. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration reported an equally alarming statistic in its 
     fact sheet entitled ``Consequences of Underage Alcohol Use'' 
     as it stated in 1998, there were 8,844 arrests for drug law 
     violations on 487 college campuses.
       Unfortunately, the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug 
     Abuse and other studies clearly indicate that the need still 
     exists to invest more attention to the rising problem of drug 
     abuse, specifically on college campuses, throughout the 
     country. Drug courts have already proven that an early 
     investment in treatment obviates the need for repeated 
     investments in incarceration and allow previously addicted 
     offenders to lead healthy, productive lives within their 
     communities. Campus drug courts are the natural extension of 
     drug courts and will combat campus drug and alcohol abuse 
     head on, thereby preventing accidents and crimes at colleges 
     and universities throughout the nation.
       Thank you once again for you stanch support of the drug 
     court field and for introducing the ``Campus CORT Act.'' I 
     look forward to providing support to this and similar 
     legislation and to working with you and your staff in the 
     future.
           Very truly yours,
                                Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.),
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


                                 S. 399

       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 ``Campus Classmate Offenders 
     in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or the ``Campus CORT 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPUS DRUG COURTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Office of Justice Programs, is authorized to make 
     demonstration grants to accredited universities and colleges 
     to establish not to exceed 5 campus classmate offenders in 
     rehabilitation and treatment programs (referred to as 
     ``Campus CORTS'') each fiscal year modeled after the 
     statewide local drug court programs throughout the United 
     States.
       (b) Campus CORTS.--Campus CORTS shall--
       (1) be established at accredited colleges or universities;
       (2) have jurisdiction over substance abuse related 
     disciplinary cases involving students that may or may not be 
     criminal in nature, including illegal drug use, abuse of 
     prescription drugs, alcohol abuse, and other issues, but no 
     student who is deemed to be a danger to the community may be 
     involved;
       (3) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney 
     General, establish appropriate quasi-judicial standards and 
     procedures for disciplinary cases; and
       (4) impose as the ultimate sanction expulsion from school.
       (c) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with 
     the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., 
     the National Drug Court Institute, universities and colleges, 
     including the Campus Drug Court program at Colorado State 
     University, and other experts in establishing quasi-judicial 
     standards required by this Act.
       (d) Assistance.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     qualified universities and colleges, the National Association 
     of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., the National Drug Court 
     Institute, and other associations and experts to assist in 
     establishing campus drug courts and provide training and 
     technical assistance in support of the program.
       (e) Grant Making Considerations.--In awarding grants to 
     qualified colleges or universities, the Office of Justice 
     Programs should--
       (1) endeavor to include colleges and universities of 
     different sizes across the United States; and
       (2) enable colleges and universities to apply for grants 
     through the Internet site of the Office of Justice Programs.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 401. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase to 
parity with other surviving spouses the basic annuity that is provided 
under the uniformed services Survivor Benefit Plan for surviving 
spouses who are at least 62 years of age; and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of 
great importance to our military retirees. This issue I want to address 
is the Survivor's Benefit Plan and the need to eliminate the Social 
Security offset.
  The Survivor's Benefit Plan, SBP, has been in existence for nearly 30 
years. Under this plan, military retirees may contribute part of their 
monthly retirement pay to the SBP, with the knowledge that after their 
death, their spouses can continue to receive 55 percent of their 
monthly retirement pay. But, when the surviving spouse reaches the age 
of 62, something disturbing happens. At the age of 62, the widow or 
widower of a military retiree sees his or her payments under the SBP 
shrink to 35 percent. This reduction is an offset for the Social 
Security payments that the survivor has begun to collect.
  The survivors of military retirees find this to be unjust, and 
rightly so. The SBP is a fund that their spouses payed into, with the 
expectation that their survivors would be taken care of

[[Page S2475]]

after they pass away. The SBP is not a lavish monthly payment, but 
reflects the low salaries that men and women on active duty receive. In 
a recent article in the Shreveport Times, Billie Combs, who is 73, and 
is the widow of an Air Force Master Sergeant commented on the strain 
that the Social Security Offset imposes on their budget. She said: ``It 
curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the things that I need; I 
just cut back and make sure that I have enough to carry me through to 
the next month.''
  The legislation that I introduce today would slowly phase out the 
social security offset to Survivor Benefit Plan, reducing it 
significantly by 2007, and completely erasing it by 2013.
  Those who choose the military as their profession don't do it for the 
money. They do it because they have a love for country. They have a 
love for country that runs so deep, they would gladly sacrifice their 
lives in defense of the homeland. Despite the extreme sacrifice our 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are willing to make, they are 
not well compensated. And we don't just ask the servicemen to 
sacrifice, we ask their families to make a sacrifice. They endure long 
periods of separation, they live in military housing which in many 
cases is substandard, and we ask them to get by on low pay. The least 
we can do for our servicemen is to given them a decent retirement 
system. The very least we can do for their widows, is to restore the 
funds that are unjustly removed from their survivor's benefit plan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article and the text 
of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Military Widows Lose Chunk of Benefits at 62

                           (By Dennis Camire)

       Washington.--Some survivors of military retirees have a 
     rude awakening when they turn 62 and find their income from a 
     Defense Department pension plan slashed.
       Many who enrolled in the survivor annuity plan in the 1970s 
     say they understood their surviving spouses would receive 55 
     percent of their retirement pay for life.
       But that's not the case. The benefit droops to as low as 35 
     percent when survivors reach 62. Retires who have paid 
     decades of premiums say they feel betrayed.
       ``I like to have dropped dead right there,'' Marion 
     Charles, 78, said in finding out about the reduction after 
     her husband, Edward, died last year, ``In fact, I wondered 
     why God didn't take me with Ed.''
       Charles of Plant City, Fla., was left struggling with 
     funeral expenses, credit card debts and house maintenance 
     bills after she saw her income drop by $1,200 a month upon 
     the death of her husband, who retired in 1966 as a Navy chief 
     petty officer. She now lives in a damaged 28-foot travel 
     trailer and gets by with help from the Navy-Marine Corps 
     Relief Society.
       Though the annuity covers all spouses of military service 
     members who don't opt out, women overwhelmingly are affected 
     because most who have chosen the military as a career through 
     the years have been men.
       ``It curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the 
     things I want and need,'' said Billie Combs, 73, of Bossier 
     City, widow of an Air Force master sergeant who died in 1995. 
     ``I just cut back and make sure I have enough to carry me 
     over to the next month.''
       Lee Lange of the Military Officers Association of America 
     called the cutback wrong. ``It just seems counter-intuitive 
     that we would be cutting their benefit as they get older.''
       Benefits for elderly widows and widowers at the 35 percent 
     level are modest even for relatively senior officers, Lange 
     said. For many widows of enlisted service members, the money 
     amounts to less than $5,000 a year.
       About 800,000 of the nation's 1.9 million retirees are 
     paying 6.5 percent of their retirement pay to participate 
     in the plan, and more than 250,000 survivors are 
     collecting the benefits.
       Service members automatically are enrolled in the program 
     when they retire but can opt out if they and their spouses 
     sign a form.
       The controversial drop is called a Social Security offset. 
     The theory behind the drop was that the plan should give a 
     survivor access to about 55 percent of the member's retired 
     pay--but from all sources related to military service, 
     including Social Security.
       The offset began as a dollar-for-dollar reduction but was 
     changed in 1985 to the current plan. Survivors whose spouses 
     were eligible to retire by Oct. 1, 1985, may have the offset 
     computed under the old system or the new to gain the best 
     benefit. The offset is computed only upon death of the 
     retiree.
       Veteran's organizations--including the Military Officers 
     Association, the Non-commissioned Offers Association, the 
     American Legion and the Fleet Reserve Association--want 
     Congress to eliminate the benefit reduction.
       The Military Coalition, a group of 33 military and veterans 
     groups, plans to push for elimination of the cutback as an 
     issue of fairness and equity for the survivors.
       That's how Combs of Bossier City sees it.
       ``I would tell Congress to worry about the widows. Worry 
     about the women that are left behind and don't have very much 
     money and are never really able to get on their feet,'' Combs 
     said.
       ``Imagine if all the wives told their husbands to get out 
     of the military, that they could make a better living on the 
     outside, then where would we be? But we didn't do that 
     because they made a promise to us. And now we are having to 
     fight for it.''
                                  ____


                                 S. 401

       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 ``SBP Benefits Improvement Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FULL AMOUNT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING 
                   SPOUSES WHO ARE 62 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER.

       (a) Phased Increased of Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)(i) of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and 
     inserting ``the product of the base amount and the percent 
     applicable for the month. The percent applicable for a month 
     is 35 percent for months beginning on or before the date of 
     the enactment of the SBP Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, 40 
     percent for months beginning after such date and before 
     October 2007, 45 percent for months beginning after September 
     2004, and 55 percent for months beginning after September 
     2013.''.
       (2) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of such section is amended 
     by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent 
     specified under paragraph (1)(B)(i) as being applicable for 
     the month''.
       (3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
       (A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable percent''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent 
     applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the 
     percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being 
     applicable for the month.''.
       (4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is 
     amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
       (b) Phased Elimination of Supplemental Annuity.--(1) 
     Section 1457(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting 
     ``the applicable percent''; and
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The percent used for the computation shall be an even 
     multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in 
     the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning 
     on or before the date of the enactment of the SBP Benefits 
     Improvement Act of 2003, 15 percent for months beginning 
     after that date and before October 2007, and 10 percent for 
     months beginning after September 2007.''.
       (2) Effective on October 1, 2013, chapter 73 of such title 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking subchapter III; and
       (B) by striking the item relating to subchapter III in the 
     table of subchapters at the beginning of that chapter.
       (c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first 
     day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
       (A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United 
     States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed 
     under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by 
     subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be 
     recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in 
     effect if the percent applicable for that month under that 
     provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial 
     computation of the annuity; and
       (B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457 
     of such title that commenced before that month and is payable 
     for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the 
     amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for 
     that month under that section, as amended by this section, 
     had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental 
     survivor annuity.
       (2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under 
     paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
       (A) The first month that begins after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) October 2007.
       (C) October 2013.
       (d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for 
     Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments 
     made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under 
     section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to 
     achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 402. A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death 
Penalty Abolition Act of 2003. This bill would abolish the death 
penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate

[[Page S2476]]

halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a 
sentence for violations of Federal law.
  Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme 
Court, there have been 830 executions across the country, including two 
at the Federal level. At the same time, 103 people on death row were 
later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates 
are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from 
prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been 
convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that 
the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains 
that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at 
least 103 very grave mistakes.
  Eight hundred and thirty executions, and 103 exonerations. Those are 
not good odds. It is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us 
all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country.
  Since January 25, 2001, when I last introduced this bill, the Federal 
Government resumed executions for the first time in almost 40 years, 
and 138 people have been executed nationwide. In this new year, we have 
begun our use of capital punishment at an alarming pace. We are only in 
the second week of February, and there have already been 10 executions 
this year. And yet this one-to-eight error rate looms. Is it possible 
that those 10 people are representative of the one-to-eight error rate 
that has plagued the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1976? Is 
it possible that in the last six weeks, as we have debated a war in 
Iraq, funding levels for Federal programs, and judicial nominations, 
our nation has killed an innocent person?
  It is a difficult question to ask, but an even more difficult one to 
ignore.
  While executions continue and the death row population grows, the 
national debate on the death penalty continues and has become even more 
vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the 
use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the 
flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not 
escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of 
confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, 
and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and 
louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and 
podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing 
room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.
  That our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing 
enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that the States' and Federal 
Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with 
principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are 
the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is more clear than 
ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, 
statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more 
likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for 
killing black victims.
  After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Federal 
Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of 
a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in 
the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was 
then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill 
allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since 
1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now 
accelerated.
  A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000 
was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That 
report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the 
federal government's administration of the death penalty. In other 
words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate 
to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where 
the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so 
disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in-
depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to 
continue that study, but we still await the results of that further 
study. The Federal Government should do all that it can to ensure that 
no person is ever subject to harsher penalties, most importantly that 
of capital punishment, because of the color of the defendant's skin.
  I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a 
single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate 
punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal 
justice under law, and equal protection of the laws.
  While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws, 
there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of 
capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not 
free from error.
  Over three years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of 
placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an 
independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty 
system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death 
penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for 
reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the 
death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the 
innocent is alarming real. Governor Ryan recently pardoned four death 
row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death 
row inmates, after the State legislature failed to enact even one of 
the Commission's recommendations.
  Illinois is not alone. Two years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening 
learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the 
death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other 
way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most 
exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in 
history. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled 
execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to 
allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not 
yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions.
  That study was released in January and the findings should startle us 
all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply 
more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or 
than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill 
whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who 
kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who 
kill whites.
  Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in 
an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern 
death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have 
involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims 
are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are 
African Americans or Hispanic Americans.
  There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, 
prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death 
penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland 
and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States 
that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more 
frequently. Twenty-one of the 38 States that authorize capital 
punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 13 of those 
States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are 
closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the 
Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other states 
with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet, 
the killing continues.
  At the beginning of 2003, at the beginning of a new century and 
millennium with hopes for great progress, I cannot help but believe 
that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only 
continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation 
that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, 
equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human 
rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to 
speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We 
should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.
  Over the last two years, some prominent voices in our country have 
done

[[Page S2477]]

just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith 
community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend 
Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions, 
Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris 
Glending. The voices of those questioning our application of the death 
penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.
  And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot 
help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark 
contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death 
penalty in law or practice. There are now 111 countries that have 
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union 
denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death 
penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and 
unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it 
specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish 
the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the 
unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States 
enjoys the closest of relationships.
  On February 5, 2003, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruled 
unanimously that the United States must temporarily stay the execution 
of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. There are 
currently 112 foreign nationals on death row in this country. Under 
Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, local 
authorities are required to notify all detained foreigners ``without 
delay'' of their right to have their consulate informed of their 
detention. In most cases, this international law is not being followed. 
In fact, only seven cases of 152 reported death sentences have been 
identified as meeting complete compliance with Article 36 requirements. 
The purpose of this law is to ensure that foreign nationals are allowed 
time to secure adequate counsel during the critical stages of their 
cases. The February ruling of the ICJ was based on the need for an 
investigation into whether the foreign nationals on death row were ever 
given their right to legal assistance from their home governments.
  What is even more troubling in the international context is that the 
United States is now one of only seven countries that imposes the death 
penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup 
poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for 
those under the age of 18, we are one of only seven nations on this 
earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when 
they committed their crimes. The other are Iran, the Democratic 
Republican of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In 
the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders 
than all other nations combined, and in the last three years, only four 
nations have executed juvenile offenders: Iran, the Congo, Pakistan, 
and the United States.
  Iran, the Congo, and Pakistan are countries that are often criticized 
for human rights abuses. We should remove any grounds for charges that 
human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the 
execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the 
crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably 
argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice 
in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that 
the United States is the world leader in the execution of child 
offenders.
  As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far 
from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The 
penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is 
immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here. 
Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like 
whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our 
nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and 
ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in 
this new century. And it's not just a matter of morality. The continued 
viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we 
do so. And our Nation's striving to remain the leader and defender of 
freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.
  Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take 
patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a 
rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that 
authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us 
step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and 
integrity to our criminal justice system.
  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. 402

       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 ``Federal Death Penalty 
     Abolition Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH 
                   PENALTY.

       (a) Homicide-Related Offenses.--
       (1) Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.--Section 
     274(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``punished 
     by death or''.
       (2) Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related 
     facilities resulting in death.--Section 34 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death 
     penalty or''.
       (3) Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by 
     shooting.--Section 36(b)(2)(A) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (4) Murder committed at an airport serving international 
     civil aviation.--Section 37(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended, in the matter following paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``punished by death or''.
       (5) Civil rights offenses resulting in death.--Chapter 13 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 241, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (B) in section 242, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (C) in section 245(b), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (D) in section 247(d)(1), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (6) Murder of a member of congress, an important executive 
     official, or a supreme court justice.--Section 351 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
       (7) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation 
     of explosives, destruction of government property, or 
     destruction of property related to foreign or interstate 
     commerce.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``subject to the 
     death penalty, or'';
       (C) in subsection (i), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty''; and
       (D) in subsection (n), by striking ``(other than the 
     penalty of death)''.
       (8) Murder committed by use of a firearm during commission 
     of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.--Section 
     924(j)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``by death or''.
       (9) Genocide.--Section 1091(b)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (10) First degree murder.--Section 1111(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (11) Murder by a federal prisoner.--Section 1118 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the third undesignated 
     paragraph--
       (i) by inserting ``or'' before ``an indeterminate''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or an unexecuted sentence of death''.
       (12) Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or 
     other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a 
     state correctional officer.--Section 1121 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by sentence of death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or death''.
       (13) Murder during a kidnaping.--Section 1201(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (14) Murder during a hostage-taking.--Section 1203(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death 
     or''.
       (15) Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a 
     witness, victim, or informant.--Section 1512(a)(2)(A) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     death penalty or''.

[[Page S2478]]

       (16) Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or 
     resulting in death.--Section 1716(i) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death penalty 
     or''.
       (17) Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of 
     the president or vice president.--Section 1751 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
       (18) Murder for hire.--Section 1958(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (19) Murder involved in a racketeering offense.--Section 
     1959(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (20) Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.--
     Section 1992(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``to the death penalty or''.
       (21) Bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping.--Section 
     2113(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (22) Murder related to a carjacking.--Section 2119(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or 
     sentenced to death''.
       (23) Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse.--
     Section 2241(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``unless the death penalty is imposed,''.
       (24) Murder related to sexual abuse.--Section 2245 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (25) Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.--
     Section 2251(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (26) Murder committed during an offense against maritime 
     navigation.--Section 2280(a)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (27) Murder committed during an offense against a maritime 
     fixed platform.--Section 2281(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (28) Terrorist murder of a united states national in 
     another country.--Section 2332(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (29) Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.--
     Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``punished by death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``by death, or''.
       (30) Murder by act of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries.--Section 2332b(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``by death, or''.
       (31) Murder involving torture.--Section 2340A(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (32) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or 
     related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement 
     officer.--Section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 848) is amended--
       (A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (e)(1), by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death'';
       (B) by striking subsections (g) and (h) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) [Reserved.]
       ``(h) [Reserved.]'';
       (C) in subsection (j), by striking `` and as to 
     appropriateness in that case of imposing a sentence of 
     death'';
       (D) in subsection (k), by striking ``, other than death,'' 
     and all that follows before the period at the end and 
     inserting ``authorized by law''; and
       (E) by striking subsections (l) and (m) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(l) [Reserved.]
       ``(m) [Reserved.]''.
       (33) Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.--Section 
     46502 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``put to death or''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''.
       (b) Non-Homicide Related Offenses.--
       (1) Espionage.--Section 794(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or'' and all 
     that follows before the period and inserting ``imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life''.
       (2) Treason.--Section 2381 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``shall suffer death, or''.
       (c) Repeal of Criminal Procedures Relating To Imposition of 
     Death Sentence.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part II of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to chapter 228.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation 
     of Federal law .
       (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person 
     sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act 
     for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of 
     life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Conrad, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 403. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade 
with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step 
toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and 
opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the 
bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered 
under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central 
to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy 
since the end of the Second World War.
  The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components. 
First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the 
travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from 
Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory 
trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel 
between our two countries.
  This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the 
last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the 
Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on 
this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it.
  This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States 
embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of 
the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the 
years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating 
with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba.
  Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to 
make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have 
little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the 
embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time 
to try a new approach. It is time for engagement.
  Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the 
legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S. 
citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels 
us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point 
out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the 
most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are 
problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether 
these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not 
the issue. We all know that.
  The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have 
done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and 
40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions 
and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba.
  I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible 
shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform 
by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight 
of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is 
a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his 
citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words, 
while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do 
know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current 
policy is a failure.
  We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve 
these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am 
proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with 
the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed 
by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial 
issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply 
reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and 
Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban 
people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and 
neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years 
ago.
  What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We

[[Page S2479]]

engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's 
engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a 
country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things.
  We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not 
engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them, 
we are neglecting them.
  Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the 
Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this:

       Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global 
     prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom. 
     Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually 
     leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders.

  I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other 
country.
  Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The 
economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a 
market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out, 
denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba 
accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies 
by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the 
European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are 
busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are 
not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that.
  There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the 
American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our 
democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to 
Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in 
another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real 
about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and 
democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it 
is time to end the embargo.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 404. A bill to protect children from exploitive child modeling, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator 
Sam Brownback, the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act.
  Many Senators may not be aware of what I am talking about. I was not 
until recently, and I think it is important to raise awareness of the 
issue. Once my colleagues see what it is I am talking about, I am sure 
they will join in supporting my bill.
  The Internet sites we are talking about are disturbing and dangerous. 
I wanted to have some enlarged pictures to illustrate what I am talking 
about, but the images are indecent and would only be further exploiting 
these children.
  What I am talking about are websites with pictures and videos of 
children--mostly girls between the ages of 7 and 14, barely clothed and 
in revealing positions--being sold on the Internet. For $25 a month at 
one site, you can look at pictures of a sweet and tender child being 
turned into a prostitute. She hikes up her skirt and poses in a bikini 
on a bearskin rug.
  What is the point of this? It is not to sell a bearskin rug or an 
article of clothing or any other product. There is one thing being 
sold: A child as a sex object.
  But there's more to this site. For $50 you can purchase a video of 
this little girl dancing and running around in skimpy outfits that 
leave little to the imagination.
  Normal people do not visit these sites. The primary viewers of these 
Internet sites are grown men. Some are pedophiles. Some are even 
registered sex offenders.
  And what is more disturbing is that some of these children are put on 
display by their parents. It is absurd that a parent would do this to 
their own child for cash.
  Some parents even allow Internet viewers to interact with their 
children through e-mail. Some even make personal videos for subscribers 
and allow them to send in clothes for the girls to model.
  This is wrong. Any sane and logical person knows it is wrong. And 
that is why Congress should do something about it.
  I am not talking about children modeling clothes in a Sears catalog. 
I am not talking about kids advertising shoes or jackets.
  That is fine. And legitimate marketing of products is not illegal 
under my bill.
  This bill has been carefully crafted to protect legitimate modeling 
activities and to not trample on the First Amendment.
  Children are precious.
  I know firsthand because I have 9 of my own. I also have 35 
grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren. And I don't want any of 
them--or any other children--growing up in a world where we exploit 
children in a sexual way.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and end exploitive child 
modeling.
  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. 404

       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 ``Child Modeling Exploitation 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The use of children in the production of exploitive 
     child modeling, including on Internet websites, in 
     photographs, films, videos, and other visual depictions, is a 
     form of child abuse that can result in physical and 
     psychological harm to the children involved.
       (2) Exploitive child modeling is different from other, 
     legitimate, child modeling because exploitive child modeling 
     involves marketing the child himself or herself in lascivious 
     positions and acts, rather than actually marketing products 
     to average American consumers.
       (3) The purpose of exploitive child modeling is to satisfy 
     the demand of pedophiles.
       (4) Unlike legitimate child modeling, exploitive child 
     modeling may involve a direct and personal interaction 
     between the child model and the pedophile. The pedophile 
     often knows the child's name and has a way of communicating 
     with the child.
       (5) The interaction between the exploited child model and 
     the pedophile can lead the child to trust pedophiles and to 
     believe that it is acceptable and safe to meet with 
     pedophiles in private.
       (6) Over 70 percent of convicted pedophiles have used child 
     pornography or exploitive child modeling depictions to whet 
     their sexual appetites. Because children are used in its 
     production, exploitive child modeling can place the child in 
     danger of being abducted, abused, or murdered by the 
     pedophiles who view such depictions.
       (7) These exploitive exhibitions of children are 
     unacceptable by social standards and lead to a direct harm to 
     the children involved.

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYMENT IN EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING.

       (a) Prohibition on Employment.--Section 12 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) No employer may employ a child model in exploitive 
     child modeling.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 16(a), whoever violates 
     paragraph (1) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not 
     more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(3)(A) In this subsection, the term `exploitive child 
     modeling' means modeling involving the use of a child under 
     17 years old for financial gain without the purpose of 
     marketing a product or service other than the image of the 
     child.
       ``(B) Such term applies to any such use, regardless of 
     whether the employment relationship of the child is direct or 
     indirect, or contractual or noncontractual, or is termed that 
     of an independent contractor.
       ``(C) Such term does not apply to an image which, taken as 
     a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political, or 
     scientific value.''.
       (b) Oppressive Child Labor.--Section 3(l) of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) any'' and inserting ``(A) any'';
       (2) by striking ``(2) any'' and inserting ``(B) any'';
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(l)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Such term includes employment of a minor in violation 
     of section 12(e)(1).''.

     SEC. 4. EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING OFFENSE.

       (a) In General.--110 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:

     ``Sec. 2252B. Exploitive child modeling

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, with 
     the intent to make a financial gain thereby--displays or 
     offers to provide the image of an individual engaged in 
     exploitive child modeling (as defined in section 12(e) of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

[[Page S2480]]

       ``(b) Exception.--This section does not apply to an image 
     which, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, 
     political, or scientific value.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252A 
     the following:

``2252B. Exploitive child modeling.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 405. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve 
the loan forgiveness program for child care providers, including 
preschool teachers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 406. A bill to provide grants to States and outlying areas to 
encourage the States and outlying areas to encourage existing or 
establish new statewide coalitions among institutions of higher 
education, communities around the institutions, and other relevant 
organizations or groups, including anti-drug or anti-alcohol 
coalitions, to reduce underage drinking and illicit drug-use by 
students, both on and off campus; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 407. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
loan forgiveness for attorneys who represent low-income families or 
individuals involved in the family or domestic relations court systems; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 408. A bill to establish a grant program to enable institutions of 
higher education to improve schools of education; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 409. A bill to provide loan forgiveness to social workers who work 
for child protective agencies; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I join several of my colleagues today to 
introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act (HEA). These five bills emphasize a number of 
issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality; 
loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early 
childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking 
at our colleges and universities.
  The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the 
quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained 
teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well 
educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200 
million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local 
schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most 
extensive training available before they enter the classroom.
  The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality 
reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe 
that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared 
for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the 
responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. 
However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of 
education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new 
bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, 
which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to 
train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to 
make internal changes by working with other departments at the 
university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality 
education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the 
college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their 
schools of education by providing matching funds.
  Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high 
percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our 
bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education 
receiving these grants would be responsible for following their 
graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the 
classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially 
once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain 
in the classroom.
  Today, I also would like to introduce, along with Senator Dodd, the 
Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act. Our dear friend and 
colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had included this legislation in 
the last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on 
this legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared 
deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive 
a quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory, 
I would like to rename our bill the Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan 
Forgiveness Act.
  This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it 
benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood 
educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to 
keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time.
  Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in 
preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that 
children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were 
three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and 
social skills in early elementary school than children who attended 
poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning 
programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a bachelor's degree 
or an associate's degree or higher--do substantially better.
  When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education 
programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education 
and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined--
especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five 
spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and 
that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more 
mothers enter the workforce.
  Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working 
in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant 
strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young 
children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a 
twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their 
training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the 
profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the 
profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill 
would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience 
and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that 
truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind.
  I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan 
forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the 
realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child 
protective services, and family law experts.
  Currently, Mr. President, there aren't enough social workers to fill 
available jobs in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of 
social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the 
average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified 
social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis 
level.
  We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The 
wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that 
is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's 
transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family 
dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child 
getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family.
  Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations 
courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of 
my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive

[[Page S2481]]

investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 
percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about 
$80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford 
to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most 
dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low-
paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers.
  The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts 
juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to 
spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed 
when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or 
those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children 
involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure 
that the interests of these children are taken care of by making 
certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. 
By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the 
child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and 
dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family 
law.
  Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague 
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an 
epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug-
related problems on college and university campuses across the United 
States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide 
partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding 
communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and 
illicit drug use by students.
  According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged 
18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000 
students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were 
injured unintentionally while under the influence of alcohol. According 
to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are 
binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human 
Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age 
of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers.
  Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have 
coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug 
abuse on our nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding 
communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop 
owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the 
pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative 
alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not 
to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and 
drug-use.
  Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to 
promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the 
community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, 
there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also 
have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will 
help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of 
their time at college. Some of these regulations include the 
registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store 
and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, 
local communities, and organizations can take.
  To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would 
provide $50 million in grants. This is an important demonstration 
project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. 
It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by 
years of complacency and a dismissal tone of--``that's just the way it 
is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young 
people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this 
bill would do.
  Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these 
initiatives.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bills be printing in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 405

       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 ``Paul Wellstone Early 
     Educator Loan Forgiveness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1)(A) The first 5 years of a child's life are a time of 
     momentous change.
       (B) Research shows that a child's brain size doubles 
     between birth and age 3.
       (2) New scientific research shows that the electrical 
     activity of the brain cells actually changes the physical 
     structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating 
     environment, a baby's brain suffers.
       (3) Research also indicates that there is a connection 
     between the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical 
     stimulation young children receive from their early childhood 
     teachers and caregivers and success in learning, school 
     readiness, and intellectual growth. There are important 
     short- and long-term effects of that stimulation on cognition 
     and social development.
       (4) High quality early childhood education correlates with 
     better language development, mathematics abilities, and 
     social skills.
       (5) 11,900,000 children younger than age 5 spend part of 
     their time with a child care provider other than a parent. By 
     2000, 64 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds were enrolled in some 
     type of preschool program. Demand for child care is growing 
     as more mothers enter the workforce.
       (6) Good quality child care, in a healthy and safe 
     environment, with trained, caring providers who provide age-
     appropriate, developmentally appropriate, and effective 
     activities, helps children grow and thrive. Recent research 
     shows that most child care needs significant improvement.
       (7) Good quality child care depends largely on the 
     provider, yet providers of child care earn on average $7.86 
     per hour, or $16,350 per year. Such earnings cause high 
     annual turnover, up to 31 percent of the staff in some child 
     care programs. High turnover affects the overall quality of a 
     child care program and causes anxiety for children.
       (8) Children attending lower quality child care programs 
     and child care programs with high staff turnover are less 
     competent in language and social development than other 
     children.
       (9) The quality of child care is primarily related to high 
     staff-to-child ratios, staff education, professional 
     development, and administrators' prior experience. In 
     addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre, 
     and good quality child care programs, the most important of 
     which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training.
       (10) Each State requires kindergarten teachers to hold at 
     least a bachelor's degree and certificate in early childhood 
     education. Only 20 States and the District of Columbia 
     require teachers in prekindergarten programs to satisfy those 
     requirements. Thirty States allow caregivers with no previous 
     training to work in child care programs.

     SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS.

       Section 428K of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1078-11) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 428K. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the 
     early child care profession; and
       ``(2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in 
     the early child care field for longer periods of time.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' 
     means a facility, including a home, that--
       ``(A) provides child care services; and
       ``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing, 
     certification, approval, or registration requirements, if 
     any.
       ``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services' 
     means activities and services provided for the education and 
     care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual 
     who has a degree in early childhood education, including a 
     preschool teacher.
       ``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or 
     bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher 
     education.
       ``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood 
     education' means education in the area of early child 
     development and education, or any other educational area 
     related to early child development and education or child 
     care, that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(5) Eligible preschool program provider.--The term 
     `eligible preschool program provider' means a preschool 
     program provider serving children younger than the age of 
     compulsory school attendance in the State that is--
       ``(A) a public or private school;
       ``(B) a provider that is supported, sponsored, supervised, 
     or administered by a local educational agency;
       ``(C) a Head Start agency designated under the Head Start 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       ``(D) a nonprofit or community-based organization; or
       ``(E) a licensed child care center or family child care 
     provider.

[[Page S2482]]

       ``(6) Institution of higher education.--Notwithstanding 
     section 102, the term `institution of higher education' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 101.
       ``(7) Preschool teacher.--The term `preschool teacher' 
     means an individual--
       ``(A) who has received at least an associate's degree in 
     early childhood education and who is working toward or who 
     has already received a bachelor's degree in early childhood 
     education; and
       ``(B) who works for an eligible preschool program provider 
     supporting the children's cognitive, social, emotional, and 
     physical development to prepare the children for the 
     transition to kindergarten.
       ``(c) Loan Forgiveness.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a program of 
     assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (d), 
     a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under this part, part D 
     (excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C or 
     comparable loans made under part D), or part E for any new 
     borrower after the date of enactment of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1998, who--
       ``(A) receives a degree in early childhood education;
       ``(B) obtains employment in a child care facility, such as 
     employment as a preschool teacher; and
       ``(C) has been employed full time, for the 2 consecutive 
     years preceding the year for which the determination is made, 
     as a provider of child care services in a child care facility 
     in a low-income community.
       ``(2) Low-income community.--In this subsection, the term 
     `low-income community' means a community in which 70 percent 
     of households earn less than 85 percent of the State median 
     household income.
       ``(3) Award basis; priority.--
       ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan 
     repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first-
     served basis and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations.
       ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year 
     to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this 
     section for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Loan Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the 
     obligation to repay--
       ``(A) after the second consecutive year of employment 
     described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (c)(1), 
     20 percent of the total amount of all loans described in 
     subsection (c)(1) and made after the date of enactment of the 
     Higher Education Amendments of 1998, to a student;
       ``(B) after the third consecutive year of such employment, 
     20 percent of the total amount of all such loans; and
       ``(C) after each of the fourth and fifth consecutive years 
     of such employment, 30 percent of the total amount of all 
     such loans.
       ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan made, insured, or guaranteed under this part, part D, or 
     part E.
       ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the 
     Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate 
     amount of interest on such loan that accrues for such year 
     shall be repaid by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Special rule.--In the case in which a student 
     borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant 
     to this section returns to an institution of higher education 
     after graduation from an institution of higher education for 
     the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood 
     education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the 
     obligation to repay the total amount of loans described in 
     subsection (c)(1) and incurred for a maximum of 2 academic 
     years in returning to the institution of higher education for 
     the purpose of obtaining the degree in early childhood 
     education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who 
     qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this 
     section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the 
     provisions of paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
     No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a 
     benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12601 et seq.).
       ``(e) Repayment to Eligible Lenders and Holders.--The 
     Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for 
     each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of 
     the lender's or holder's loans that are subject to repayment 
     pursuant to this section for such year.
       ``(f) Application for Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan 
     repayment under this section shall submit a complete and 
     accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for 
     loan repayment under this section after completing each of 
     the second through the fifth consecutive years of qualifying 
     employment described in subsection (d)(1). The borrower shall 
     receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment 
     described in subsection (d)(1) unless the borrower is in 
     deferment while so engaged.
       ``(g) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or 
     contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of 
     the program assisted under this section on the field of early 
     childhood education.
       ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described 
     in paragraph (1) shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) determine the number of individuals who were 
     encouraged by the program assisted under this section to 
     pursue early childhood education;
       ``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain 
     employed in a child care facility as a result of 
     participation in the program;
       ``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the 
     program;
       ``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in 
     improving the quality of--
       ``(i) early childhood education; and
       ``(ii) child care services;
       ``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program 
     have chosen to take part in the program;
       ``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in 
     the program who received an associate's degree and the number 
     of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and
       ``(G) identify the number of years each individual 
     participated in the program.
       ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary 
     shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such 
     interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this 
     subsection as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, and 
     shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the 
     evaluation by January 1, 2007.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

                                 S. 406

       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 ``Communities Combating 
     College Drinking and Drug Use Act''.

     SEC 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Alcohol is by far the drug most widely used and abused 
     by young people in the United States.
       (2)(A) In 2003, it is illegal for youths under the age of 
     21 to purchase alcohol in all of the 50 States and the 
     District of Columbia, and illicit drugs remain illegal.
       (B) According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, on 
     average, young people begin drinking at about age 13. 
     However, some start even younger. By the time young people 
     are high school seniors, more than 80 percent have used 
     alcohol and approximately 64 percent have been drunk.
       (C) When adolescents move on to college, they bring their 
     drinking habits with them. According to a 1993-1997 Harvard 
     School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 40 percent of 
     college students are binge drinkers.
       (D) According to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, in 1998, 10,400,000 current drinkers were under 
     legal age (age 12-21) and of these, 5,100,000 were binge 
     drinkers, including 2,300,000 heavy drinkers.
       (E) Among 10th graders the perceived harmfulness of 
     regularly taking LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is 68.8 
     percent, and among 8th graders the perceived harmfulness is 
     52.9 percent, according to the 2001 Monitoring the Future 
     Study (MTF) funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
       (F) Only 45.7 percent of 12th graders perceived a great 
     risk in trying MDMA (ecstasy) once or twice.
       (G) The perceived availability of crack and cocaine among 
     10th graders was thought of as easy or fairly easy by 31 
     percent of 10th graders.
       (3)(A) Underage drinking particularly impacts institutions 
     of higher education.
       (B) In 1999, Harvard University's School of Public Health 
     College Alcohol Study surveyed 119 colleges and found that 
     students who were binge drinkers in high school were 3 times 
     more likely to binge drink in college.
       (C) According to a March 2002 article published in the 
     Journal of Studies on Alcohol, a study conducted by the 
     Social and Behavioral Sciences Department of the Boston 
     University School of Public Health reported that 1998 and 
     1999 studies show over 2,000,000 of the 8,000,000 college 
     students in the United States drove under the influence of 
     alcohol, over 500,000 were unintentionally injured while 
     under the influence of alcohol, and over 600,000 were hit or 
     assaulted by another student who had been drinking.
       (D) According to the same Boston University study, it is 
     estimated that over 1,400 students aged 18-24 and enrolled in 
     2-year and 4-year colleges died in 1998 from alcohol-related 
     unintentional injuries.
       (E) More than 600,000 students between the ages of 18 and 
     24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking, 
     and another 500,000 students are unintentionally injured 
     under the influence of alcohol.
       (F) More than 70,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 
     are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape, 
     more than 400,000 students reported having unprotected sex, 
     and more than 100,000 students reported having been too 
     intoxicated to know if they consented to having sex, 
     according to the Boston University study.

[[Page S2483]]

       (4)(A) Longstanding cultural influences perpetuate student 
     patterns of drinking.
       (B) Of frequent binge drinkers, 73 percent of males and 68 
     percent of females cited drinking to get drunk as an 
     important reason for drinking according to ``Binge Drinking 
     on Campus: Results of a National Study'', from Harvard School 
     of Public Health.
       (C) The proportion of college students who drink varies 
     depending on where they live. Drinking rates are highest in 
     fraternities and sororities, followed by on-campus housing. 
     Students who live independently offsite (e.g., in apartments) 
     drink less, while commuting students who live with their 
     families drink the least.
       (D) Institutions of higher education in places with strict 
     laws such as keg registration, prohibitions on happy hours, 
     and open container in public bans, which restrict the volume 
     of alcohol sold or consumed, displayed lower rates of 
     consumption and binge drinking among underage students.
       (E) A 2000 report by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, entitled ``Healthy People 2010'', observes that 
     ``The perception that alcohol use is socially acceptable 
     correlates with the fact that more than 80 percent of 
     American youth consume alcohol before their 21st birthday, 
     whereas the lack of social acceptance of other drugs 
     correlates with comparatively low rates of use. Similarly, 
     widespread societal expectations that young persons will 
     engage in binge drinking may encourage this highly dangerous 
     form of alcohol consumption.''.
       (F) Mutually reinforcing interventions between the college 
     and surrounding community can change the broader environment 
     and help reduce alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems 
     over the long term.
       (5)(A) The use of illicit drugs threatens the lives and 
     well-being of students at institutions of higher education.
       (B) According to the working paper, ``Alcohol and Marijuana 
     Use Among College Students: Economic Complements or 
     Substitutes'', for the National Bureau of Economic Research, 
     alcohol and marijuana are economic complements, meaning that 
     as the use of alcohol goes down on campuses, it is expected 
     that marijuana will as well, or that as marijuana usage 
     falls, so will alcohol usage.
       (C) The annual prevalence of the use of an illicit drug at 
     institutions of higher education is 36 percent. The annual 
     marijuana use is 34 percent. The annual use of cocaine and 
     LSD is 4.8 percent. The annual use of heroin is 4.5 percent.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Binge drinking.--The term ``binge drinking'' means the 
     consumption of 5 or more drinks on any 1 occasion.
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (3) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
       (6) Statewide coalition.--The term ``statewide coalition'' 
     means a coalition that--
       (A) includes--
       (i) the entity a State designates to apply for a grant 
     under this Act and to administer the grant funds; and
       (i)(I) institutions of higher education within that State; 
     and
       (II) a nonprofit group, a community anti-drug or anti-
     alcohol coalition, or another substance abuse prevention 
     group within the State; and
       (B) works toward lowering the drug and alcohol abuse rate 
     at not fewer than 50 percent of the institutions of higher 
     education throughout the State and in the communities 
     surrounding the campuses of the institutions.
       (7) Surrounding community.--The term ``surrounding 
     community'' means the community--
       (A) which surrounds an institution of higher education 
     participating in a statewide coalition;
       (B) where the students from the institution of higher 
     education take part in the community; and
       (C) where students from the institution of higher education 
     live in off-campus housing.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to encourage States, 
     institutions of higher education, local communities, 
     nonprofit groups, including community anti-drug or anti-
     alcohol coalitions, and other substance abuse groups within 
     the State to enhance existing or, where none exist, to 
     establish new statewide coalitions to reduce the usage of 
     drugs and alcohol by college students both on campus and in 
     the surrounding community at large.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $50,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
       (b) Grants to States.--
       (1) Allotments.--
       (A) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make grants 
     according to allotments under subparagraph (B) to States 
     having applications approved under subsection (c) to pay the 
     cost of carrying out the activities described in the 
     application.
       (B) Determination of allotments.--
       (i) Reservation of funds.--From the total amount 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve--

       (I) one-half of 1 percent for allotments to the outlying 
     areas, to be distributed among those outlying areas on the 
     basis of their relative need for assistance under this Act, 
     as determined by the Secretary, to carry out the purpose of 
     this Act; and
       (II) one-half of 1 percent for the Secretary of the 
     Interior for programs under this Act for schools operated or 
     funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

       (ii) State allotments.--From funds appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year that remain after reserving 
     funds under clause (i), the Secretary shall allot to each 
     State an amount that bears the same relation to such 
     remainder as the population of the State bears to the 
     population of all States, as determined by the 2000 decennial 
     census.
       (2) Matching funds required.--Each State receiving a grant 
     under this Act shall contribute matching funds, from non-
     Federal sources, toward the cost of the activities described 
     in the application, in an amount equal to--
       (A) 100 percent of the Federal funds received under the 
     grant, in the case of a State supporting a new statewide 
     coalition; and
       (B) 50 percent of the Federal funds received under the 
     grant, in the case of a State supporting a statewide 
     coalition that was in existence on the day preceding the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Administrative costs.--Each State receiving a grant 
     under this section may expend not more than 25 percent of the 
     grant funds for administrative costs.
       (c) State Applications.--
       (1) In general.--For a State to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this part, the State shall submit an application 
     to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary shall reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under this 
     section shall include the following:
       (A) A description of how the State will work to enhance 
     existing, or where none exists, to build a statewide 
     coalition in cooperation with--
       (i) not fewer than 50 percent of the institutions of higher 
     education within the State;
       (ii) local communities;
       (iii) nonprofit groups, community anti-drug or anti-alcohol 
     coalitions; and
       (iv) other substance abuse prevention groups within the 
     State.
       (B) A description of how the State intends to ensure that 
     the statewide coalition is actually implementing the purpose 
     of this Act and moving toward the achievement indicators 
     described in subsection (d).
       (C) A list of the members of the statewide coalition or 
     interested parties.
       (d) Accountability.--On the date on which the Secretary 
     first publishes a notice in the Federal Register soliciting 
     applications for grants under this section, the Secretary 
     shall include in the notice achievement indicators for the 
     program assisted under this section. The achievement 
     indicators shall be designed--
       (1) to measure the impact that the statewide coalitions 
     assisted under this Act are having on the institutions of 
     higher education and the surrounding communities, including 
     changes in the number of alcohol or drug-related incidents of 
     any kind (including violations, physical assaults, sexual 
     assaults, reports of intimidation, disruptions of school 
     functions, disruptions of student studies, illnesses, or 
     deaths);
       (2) to measure the quality and accessibility of the 
     programs or information offered by the statewide coalitions; 
     and
       (3) to provide such other measures of program impact as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.

                                 S. 407

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Across the United States, family, juvenile, and 
     domestic relations courts experience shortages of qualified 
     attorneys to represent the interests of men, women, and 
     children involved in their court systems.
       (2) The Constitution of the United States provides that 
     everyone charged with a crime is entitled to adequate 
     counsel.
       (3) In 1967, the Supreme Court held, for the first time, 
     that children were persons under the provisions of the 14th 
     amendment to the Constitution relating to due process, and 
     entitled to certain constitutional rights.
       (4) In the case of In re Gault (387 U.S. 1), the Supreme 
     Court held that juveniles are entitled to notice of the 
     charges against them, legal counsel, questioning of 
     witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination in a 
     hearing that could result in commitment to an institution.
       (5) Studies have indicated that many juveniles do not 
     receive the due process protections to which they are 
     entitled. More importantly, they frequently do not receive 
     effective assistance of legal counsel.
       (6) Lawyers who represent juveniles often labor under 
     enormous caseloads with little training or support staff.

[[Page S2484]]

       (7) Public defenders who represent juveniles have, on 
     average, more than 500 cases per year, with more than 300 of 
     those cases being juvenile cases.
       (8) Public defenders often lack specialized training in 
     representing juveniles. Approximately one-half of public 
     defender offices do not even have a section devoted to 
     juvenile delinquency practice in their office training 
     manuals.
       (9) Due to relatively low wages, there is a nationwide 
     shortage of family law attorneys willing to represent 
     juveniles.
       (10) The shortage of family law attorneys results in a 
     severe, disproportionate, and negative impact upon children, 
     impoverished parents, and victims of domestic violence.
       (11) Children involved in family court cases are assigned 
     attorneys to protect their interests. Adults are entitled to 
     representation by attorneys. The lack of available 
     representation by family law attorneys causes children to 
     spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or 
     postponed due to lack of appropriate representation. Victims 
     of domestic violence seeking protection from their abusers 
     often will remain in the abusive situation, choose to 
     represent themselves, or wait until an attorney becomes 
     available, all of which risk their personal safety.
       (12) In 1995, 3,100,000 children were reported to child 
     protection agencies as being abused or neglected, which is 
     about double the number reported in 1984. Of these, 996,000 
     children were confirmed after investigation to be abused or 
     neglected. A 1996 study by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services found that the number of children seriously injured 
     nearly quadrupled between 1986 and 1993 from 141,700 to 
     565,000.
       (13) As of 1995 year-end, about 494,000 children were in 
     foster care, a considerable rise from the estimated 280,000 
     children in foster care at the end of 1986. Most of these 
     children are in foster care because of abuse, neglect, or 
     abandonment by their parents. Many are also placed in foster 
     care due to a court order during a child protection case.
       (14) Some estimates suggest that in 70 percent of homes 
     where there is domestic violence, there is also child abuse.
       (15) Children who witness domestic violence can also 
     develop posttraumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, 
     anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and destructive 
     behavior that can last through adulthood, limiting an 
     individual's ability to achieve academically, socially, and 
     on the job. However, early intervention and education can 
     help prevent further danger to children.
       (16) Continued adjournment forces victims to repeatedly 
     confront their abusers in court. This not only increases the 
     risk of retribution, but also the chance that the victim will 
     abandon the process because of the burden.
       (17) Between 1984 and 1994 there was a 65 percent increase 
     in domestic relations cases and a 59 percent increase in the 
     number of juvenile cases.
       (18) The caseload for child abuse in New York State alone 
     has increased by more than 300 percent between 1984 and 1988.
       (19) Judges in Chicago hear on average 1,700 delinquency 
     cases per month, and in Los Angeles judges for juvenile cases 
     have about 10 minutes to devote to each case.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to encourage attorneys to enter the field of family 
     law, juvenile law, or domestic relations law;
       (2) to increase the number of attorneys who will represent 
     low-income families and individuals, and who are trained and 
     educated in such field; and
       (3) to keep more highly trained family law, juvenile law, 
     and domestic relations attorneys in this field of law for 
     longer periods of time.

     SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS.

       Part B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) the following:

     ``SEC. 428L. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR FAMILY LAW, JUVENILE LAW, 
                   AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS ATTORNEYS WHO WORK IN 
                   THE DEFENSE OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, 
                   INDIVIDUALS, OR CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible loan.--The term `eligible loan' means a loan 
     made, insured, or guaranteed under this part or part D 
     (excluding loans made under section 428B or 428C, or 
     comparable loans made under part D) for attendance at a law 
     school.
       ``(2) Family law or domestic relations attorney.--The term 
     `family law or domestic relations attorney' means an attorney 
     who works in the field of family law or domestic relations, 
     including juvenile justice, truancy, child abuse or neglect, 
     adoption, domestic relations, child support, paternity, and 
     other areas which fall under the field of family law or 
     domestic relations law as determined by State law.
       ``(3) Highly qualified attorney.--The term `highly 
     qualified attorney' means an attorney who has at least 2 
     consecutive years of experience in the field of family or 
     domestic relations law serving as a representative of low-
     income families or minors.
       ``(b) Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a 
     demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay 
     eligible loans for any new borrower after the date of 
     enactment of this section, who--
       ``(A) obtains a Juris Doctorate (JD), and takes at least 1 
     law school class in family law, juvenile law, domestic 
     relations law, or some other class that the Secretary 
     determines equivalent to any such class pursuant to 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) has worked full-time for a State or local government 
     entity, or a nonprofit private entity, as a family law or 
     domestic relations attorney on behalf of low-income 
     individuals in the family or domestic relations court system 
     for 2 consecutive years immediately preceding the year for 
     which the determination was made.
       ``(2) Award basis.--Loan repayment under this section shall 
     be on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.
       ``(3) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year 
     to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this 
     section for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(c) Loan Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the 
     obligation to repay--
       ``(A) after the third consecutive year of employment 
     described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(1), 20 
     percent of the total amount of all eligible loans;
       ``(B) after the fourth consecutive year of such employment, 
     30 percent of the total amount of all eligible loans; and
       ``(C) after the fifth consecutive year of such employment, 
     50 percent of the total amount of all eligible loans.
       ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan made under this part or part D.
       ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the 
     Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate 
     amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year 
     shall be repaid by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
     No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a 
     benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12601 et seq.).
       ``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall 
     pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an 
     amount equal to the aggregate amount of eligible loans which 
     are subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such 
     year.
       ``(e) Application for Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan 
     repayment under this section shall submit a complete and 
     accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for 
     loan repayment under this section after completing each year 
     of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive 
     forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the 
     borrower is in deferment while so engaged.
       ``(f) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or 
     contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of 
     the demonstration program assisted under this section on the 
     field of family and domestic relations law.
       ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described 
     in this section shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this 
     subsection shall determine whether the loan forgiveness 
     program assisted under this section--
       ``(A) has increased the number of highly qualified 
     attorneys;
       ``(B) has contributed to increased time on the job for 
     family law or domestic relations attorneys, as measured by--
       ``(i) the length of time family law or domestic relations 
     attorneys receiving loan forgiveness under this section have 
     worked in the family law or domestic relations field; and
       ``(ii) the length of time family law or domestic relations 
     attorneys continue to work in such field after the attorneys 
     meet the requirements for loan forgiveness under this 
     section;
       ``(C) has increased the experience and the quality of 
     family law and domestic relations attorneys; and
       ``(D) has contributed to better family outcomes, as 
     determined after consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services and the Attorney General.
       ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary 
     shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such 
     interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this 
     section as the Secretary determines appropriate, and shall 
     prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation 
     by September 30, 2005.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

                                 S. 408

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

[[Page S2485]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ready To Educate All 
     Children Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) An estimated 2,000,000 new teachers will be needed over 
     the next decade.
       (2) Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, States must 
     recruit highly qualified teachers by 2006, yet schools in 
     rural areas and high poverty schools have trouble attracting 
     and retaining such teachers.
       (3) A 2000 study by the Education Trust reports that high 
     poverty schools are twice as likely not to have teachers 
     certified in the fields in which they teach as schools that 
     are not high poverty schools, which highlights that high 
     poverty schools will need special help to meet the goals of 
     the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
       (4) If the Nation is to improve student achievement and 
     success in school, the United States must encourage and 
     support the training and development of our Nation's 
     teachers, who are the single most important in-school 
     influence on student learning.
       (5) A majority of graduates of schools of education believe 
     that traditional teacher preparation programs left them ill 
     prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom.
       (6) Fewer than 36 percent of new teachers feel very well 
     prepared to implement curriculum and performance standards.
       (7) Highly qualified teachers are more effective in 
     impacting student academic achievement because such teachers 
     have high verbal abilities, high content knowledge, and an 
     enhanced ability to know how to teach the content using 
     appropriate pedagogical strategies.
       (8) The difference in annual student achievement growth 
     between having an effective and ineffective teacher can be 
     more than 1 grade level of achievement in academic 
     performance.
       (9) Studies have consistently documented the important 
     connection between a teacher's verbal and cognitive abilities 
     and student achievement.
       (10) Research has shown that there is a positive effect on 
     student achievement when students are taught by teachers with 
     a strong subject-matter background.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide 
     grants to teacher preparation programs to better prepare 
     teachers to educate all children.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Beginning teacher.--The term ``beginning teacher'' 
     means a highly qualified teacher who has taught for not more 
     than 3 years.
       (2) Core academic subjects.--The term ``core academic 
     subjects'' means--
       (A) mathematics;
       (B) science;
       (C) reading (or language arts) and English;
       (D) social studies, including history, civics, political 
     science, government, geography, and economics;
       (E) foreign languages; and
       (F) fine arts, including music, dance, drama, and the 
     visual arts.
       (3) High poverty local educational agency.--The term ``high 
     poverty local educational agency'' means a local educational 
     agency for which the number of children who are served by the 
     agency, aged 5 though 17, and from families with incomes 
     below the poverty line--
       (A) is not less than 40 percent of the number of all 
     children served by the agency; or
       (B) is more than 15,000.
       (4) High poverty school.--The term ``high poverty school'' 
     means an elementary school or secondary school that serves a 
     high number or percentage of children from families with 
     incomes below the poverty line.
       (5) Highly qualified.--The term ``highly qualified'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term in section 101(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); and
       (B) if such an institution prepares teachers and receives 
     Federal funds, means such an institution that--
       (i) is in full compliance with the requirements of section 
     207 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1027); and
       (ii) does not have a teacher preparation program identified 
     by a State as low-performing.
       (7) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (8) Local partner.--The term ``local partner'' means a high 
     poverty local educational agency or a high poverty school.
       (9) Mentoring.--The term ``mentoring'' means activities 
     that consist of structured guidance and regular and ongoing 
     support for beginning teachers.
       (10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 
     States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants on a competitive basis to institutions of higher 
     education to establish a partnership with a local partner 
     to--
       (1) establish a clinically-based elementary school or 
     secondary school teacher training program; or
       (2) enhance such institution's clinically-based elementary 
     school or secondary school teacher training program.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--An institution of higher education that 
     desires to receive a grant under subsection (a) shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (2) Development.--The institution of higher education shall 
     develop the application in collaboration with 1 or more local 
     partners.
       (3) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) a description of any shortages in the State, where the 
     institution of higher education is located, of highly 
     qualified teachers in high poverty schools in core academic 
     subjects;
       (B) an assessment of the needs of beginning teachers in 
     high poverty schools to be effective in the classroom that 
     is--
       (i) developed with the involvement of the local partner; 
     and
       (ii) based on--

       (I) student achievement data in core academic subjects; and
       (II) other indicators of the need to fully prepare 
     beginning teachers;

       (C) a description of how the institution of higher 
     education will use funds made available pursuant to a grant 
     awarded under this Act to--
       (i) improve the quality of the teaching force; and
       (ii) decrease the use of out-of-field placement of 
     teachers;
       (D) a description of how the institution of higher 
     education will align activities assisted under this Act with 
     challenging State academic content standards and student 
     academic achievement standards, and State assessments, by 
     setting numerical, annual improvement goals;
       (E) a plan, developed with the extensive participation of 
     the local partner, for addressing long-term teacher 
     recruitment, retention, professional development, and 
     mentoring needs;
       (F) a description of how the institution of higher 
     education will assist local educational agencies in 
     implementing effective and sustained mentoring and other 
     professional development activities for beginning teachers;
       (G) a description of how the institution of higher 
     education will work with individuals who successfully 
     complete a teacher education program to become certified or 
     licensed; and
       (H) a description of how the institution of higher 
     education will prepare teachers to succeed in the classroom.
       (c) Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve an application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (a) if the application meets 
     the requirements of this section and holds reasonable promise 
     of achieving the purpose of this Act.
       (2) Equitable distribution.--To the extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall ensure an equitable geographic distribution 
     of grants under this section among the regions of the United 
     States.
       (3) Duration of grants.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants under this section for a period of 5 years. At 
     the end of the 5-year period, the grant recipient may apply 
     for an additional grant under this section.
       (d) Uses of Funds.--
       (1) Mandatory uses.--An institution of higher education 
     that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to--
       (A) establish a partnership with a local partner to 
     establish, or enhance an existing, clinically-based 
     elementary school or secondary school teacher training 
     program to better train teachers for challenges in the 
     classroom;
       (B) facilitate a partnership among departments of the 
     institution to ensure that future teachers are prepared to 
     teach; and
       (C) implement a project-based assessment that facilitates 
     the program evaluation developed under subsection (f) and 
     that assesses the impact of the activities undertaken with 
     grant funds awarded under this Act on achieving the purpose 
     of this Act, as well as on institutional policies and 
     practices.
       (2) Additional activities.--An institution of higher 
     education that receives a grant under this section shall use 
     the grant funds for not less than 3 of the following 
     activities:
       (A) The enhancement of high caliber teaching, including--
       (i) enabling faculty to spend additional time in smaller 
     class settings teaching students pursuing teaching degrees;
       (ii) providing--

       (I) summer school teaching opportunities for students 
     pursuing teaching degrees;
       (II) additional salary for faculty members who serve as 
     advisors to students pursuing teaching degrees; or
       (III) stipends for students pursuing teaching degrees.

       (B) Opportunities to develop new pedagogical approaches to 
     teaching, including a focus on content knowledge in academic 
     areas such as mathematics, science, foreign language 
     development, history, political science, and special 
     education.
       (C) Creation of multidisciplinary courses or programs that 
     formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student 
     instruction.

[[Page S2486]]

       (D) Expansion of innovative mentoring or tutoring programs 
     proven to enhance recruitment of students pursuing teaching 
     degrees or persistence in obtaining a teaching degree.
       (E) Improvement of undergraduate science, mathematics, 
     engineering, and technology education for nonmajors, 
     including teacher education majors.
       (e) Matching Funds.--Each institution of higher education 
     that receives a grant under this section shall demonstrate a 
     financial commitment to such institution's school of 
     education by contributing, either directly or through private 
     contributions, non-Federal matching funds equal to 20 percent 
     of the amount of the grant.
       (f) Assessment, Evaluation, and Dissemination of 
     Information.--
       (1) Program evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall award not 
     less than 1 grant or contract to an independent evaluative 
     organization to--
       (A) develop metrics for measuring the impact of the 
     activities authorized under this section on--
       (i) the number of students enrolled in education classes;
       (ii) academic achievement of students pursuing teaching 
     degrees, including quantifiable measurements of students' 
     mastery of content and skills, such as students' grade point 
     averages;
       (iii) persistence in completing a teaching degree, 
     including students who transfer from departments of education 
     to programs in other academic disciplines; and
       (iv) placement during the 2 years after degree completion 
     in public schools and an evaluation of the teachers' 
     performance;
       (B) conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the activities 
     authorized under this section, including a comparison of the 
     funded projects to identify best practices with respect to 
     achieving the purpose of this Act.
       (2) Dissemination of information.--The Secretary shall 
     disseminate, biannually, information on the activities and 
     the results of the projects assisted under this section, 
     including best practices, to institutions of higher education 
     that receive a grant under this section and other interested 
     institutions of higher education.
       (g) Student Loan Eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a student who participates in a clinically-
     based teacher training program funded under this Act shall be 
     eligible for student assistance under title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) during such 
     student's fifth year of a program of study for obtaining a 
     teaching degree, if the fifth year of the program of study is 
     required under such clinically-based program in order for 
     students to obtain the teaching degree.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.

                                 S. 409

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Approximately 3,000,000 reports of child abuse and 
     neglect must be investigated each year.
       (2) Approximately 1,000,000 of these reports are confirmed 
     and require ongoing intervention.
       (3) On any given day in the United States, more than 
     500,000 children are being served outside their homes by the 
     child welfare system.
       (4) These children are served in more than 150,000 foster 
     homes and more than 5,000 residential programs.
       (5) The child welfare workforce crisis has developed as the 
     result of the following 3 major factors:
       (A) Overall low levels of unemployment and the resulting 
     increase in competition for workers in all sectors of the 
     economy.
       (B) The increasing numbers of children and families needing 
     service coupled with the decreasing numbers of workers in the 
     employment pool.
       (C) The relatively low pay and difficult working conditions 
     that exist in many child welfare agencies.
       (6) The vacancy rate in State child welfare agencies is 8.1 
     percent, and 14.3 percent for private agencies.
       (7) The overall turnover rate in child welfare agencies has 
     doubled since 1991, to 13.9 percent in public agencies and to 
     46.5 percent in private agencies.
       (8) The child welfare workforce crisis is real and is 
     already compromising the ability of the child welfare system 
     to effectively provide essential services to its children and 
     families. In addition, analysis of trends indicates that the 
     situation will worsen over the next decade. It is clear that 
     steps must be taken now to encourage more workers to enter 
     the child welfare services field and to improve the salaries, 
     working conditions, and training of workers who provide these 
     critically important services.

     SEC. 2. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD WELFARE WORKERS.

       (a) Guaranteed Student Loans.--Part B of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after 
     section 428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) the following:

     ``SEC. 428L. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD WELFARE WORKERS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the 
     child welfare profession; and
       ``(2) to keep more highly trained child welfare workers in 
     the child welfare field for longer periods of time.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Child welfare services.--The term `child welfare 
     services' has the meaning given the term in section 425 of 
     the Social Security Act.
       ``(2) Child welfare agency.--The term `child welfare 
     agency' means the State agency responsible for administering 
     subpart 1 of part B of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     and any public or private agency under contract with the 
     State agency to provide child welfare services.
       ``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1101(a)(1) of the Social Security Act for 
     purposes of title IV of such Act, and includes an Indian 
     tribe.
       ``(c) Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a 
     demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay, 
     pursuant to subsection (d), a loan made, insured, or 
     guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made 
     under sections 428B and 428C, or comparable loans made under 
     part D) for any new borrower after the date of enactment of 
     this section, who--
       ``(A) obtains a bachelor's or master's degree in social 
     work;
       ``(B) obtains employment in public or private child welfare 
     services; and
       ``(C) has worked full time as a social worker for 2 
     consecutive years preceding the year for which the 
     determination is made.
       ``(2) Award basis; priority.--
       ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan 
     repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first-
     served basis and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations.
       ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year 
     to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this 
     section for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(3) Outreach.--The Secretary shall post a notice on a 
     Department Internet web site regarding the availability of 
     loan repayment under this section, and shall notify 
     institutions of higher education regarding the availability 
     of loan repayment under this section.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Loan Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the 
     obligation to repay--
       ``(A) after the third consecutive year of employment 
     described in subsection (c)(1)(C), 20 percent of the total 
     amount of all loans made under this part or part D (excluding 
     loans made under section 428B or 428C, or comparable loans 
     made under part D) for any new borrower after the date of 
     enactment of this section;
       ``(B) after the fourth consecutive year of such employment, 
     30 percent of the total amount of such loans; and
       ``(C) after the fifth consecutive year of such employment, 
     50 percent of the total amount of such loans.
       ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan made under this part or part D.
       ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the 
     Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate 
     amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year 
     shall be repaid by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Special rule.--In the case of a student borrower not 
     participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section who 
     returns to an institution of higher education after 
     graduation from an institution of higher education for the 
     purpose of obtaining a degree described in subsection 
     (c)(1)(A), the Secretary is authorized to assume the 
     obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this 
     part or part D incurred for a maximum of 2 academic years in 
     returning to an institution of higher education for the 
     purpose of obtaining such a degree. Such loans shall only be 
     repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant 
     to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in 
     accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
     No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a 
     benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12601 et seq.).
       ``(e) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall 
     pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an 
     amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are 
     subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such year.
       ``(f) Application for Repayment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan 
     repayment under this section shall submit a complete and 
     accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for 
     loan repayment under this

[[Page S2487]]

     section after completing each year of qualifying employment. 
     The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in 
     qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment 
     while so engaged.
       ``(g) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or 
     contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of 
     the demonstration program assisted under this section on the 
     field of child welfare services.
       ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described 
     in paragraph (1) shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this 
     subsection shall determine--
       ``(A) whether the loan forgiveness program has increased 
     child welfare workers' education in the areas covered by loan 
     forgiveness;
       ``(B) whether the loan forgiveness program has contributed 
     to increased time on the job for child welfare workers as 
     measured by--
       ``(i) the length of time child welfare workers receiving 
     loan forgiveness have worked in the child welfare field; and
       ``(ii) the length of time such workers continue to work in 
     such field after the workers meet the requirements for loan 
     forgiveness under this section; and
       ``(C) whether the loan forgiveness program has increased 
     the experience and the quality of child welfare workers and 
     has contributed to increased performance in the outcomes of 
     child welfare services in terms of child well-being, 
     permanency, and safety, as determined after consultation with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary 
     shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such 
     interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this 
     subsection as the Secretary determines appropriate, and shall 
     prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation 
     by September 30, 2005.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS:
  S. 410. A bill to establish the Homeland Intelligence Agency, and for 
other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have previously given a statement and a 
speech on the floor of the Senate with regard to Mr. Estrada's 
nomination. I voted against him in the Judiciary Committee. The 
concerns I had included his not answering questions that were put to 
him, serious questions, in my judgment--issues about his record and his 
temperament.
  Today, I wish to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk 
about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response, and 
then I will talk about six bills I have introduced in this Congress to 
improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the 
way we do intelligence work here at home.
  The first responsibility of any government is to protect its people. 
Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We 
are at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al-
Qaida is ``resuming the offensive.'' The FBI Director says there are 
``al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to 
identify.''
  In other words, al-Qaida cells are operating here, but we do not know 
who they are, where they are, or what they are doing.
  Americans are buying plastic sheeting and duct tape in record 
amounts. While they are doing everything they can to protect 
themselves, they have a right to know that those of us in Government 
are doing everything we can to protect them, their homes, their 
families, and their children. This is a dangerous time.
  But a dangerous time calls for an honest response: This President is 
failing the test on homeland security. Homeland security has yielded to 
chemical companies that are holding back commonsense steps to secure 
chemical plants against horrific explosions. Homeland security is 
yielding to bureaucratic inertia that is defending old and outworn ways 
of fighting terror.
  Today there are huge holes in our borders--one guard for every 5 
miles on the Canadian border. There are huge holes at our ports--we are 
still inspecting only a fraction of all shipments into the United 
States, shipments that could carry nuclear or biological weapons. There 
are huge holes in our hometowns--where cops and firefighters do not 
have the equipment or the training that they need.
  For all these holes, this President has vetoed billions for homeland 
security, he is withholding funds that first responders need today, and 
he has proposed funding homeland security this year at a level that 
even Republican experts like Warren Rudman say is totally inadequate.
  We cannot cover the holes in our borders with plastic sheeting. Our 
cops and firefighters need reinforcements and new gear, not canned 
goods.
  In 2000, the President's team talked about the dangers of a hollow 
military. At a time when the greatest dangers we face are here at home, 
this administration risks creating a hollow homeland defense.
  This is happening for a very simple reason. The bare minimum of 
homeland security improvements we need--$10 billion more this year--
costs less than half of President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000 
millionaires.
  I believe it is time to say to this President: Mr. President, please 
put our security first. Please set aside $20 billion in tax breaks for 
226,000 millionaires, and put homeland security for 290 million 
Americans first.
  Let me talk a little bit about my work on homeland security since 
Congress came back into session. Back in December, I laid out a 
comprehensive plan for strengthening our domestic security, from 
stopping ID fraud to sharing more information with local police to 
improving our cybersecurity. And in the 6 weeks Congress has been in 
session so far, I have introduced six bills to strengthen our homeland 
security. Each of these bills would make a concrete, tangible 
difference in people's lives.
  Two bills are focused on empowering people to play a greater role in 
homeland security.
  First, until this week, most Americans have no better idea how to 
respond to a terrorist attack than on September 11. Now the 
administration has begun giving out useful information, but we still 
don't have enough. We are not being told, for example, how to respond 
to chemical or biological attacks. In addition, there is still a 
serious question whether people will get the information they need when 
they need it, particularly when they are sleeping. Obviously TV and 
radio won't help if you are asleep. So I have a bill, which I wrote 
with Senator Fritz Hollings, that will create an emergency warning 
system to reach everyone--for example, using special phone rings that 
could wake people up in the middle of the night.
  Second, we want to encourage more people to contribute. People want 
to serve, but they feel like they haven't been asked. We should ask. 
One way is through the Neighborhood Watch program. Neighborhood Watches 
help prevent both terrorism and ordinary crime. We are going to 
increase support for these, encourage folks to get involved, with the 
goal--the realistic goal--of tripling the number of neighborhood 
watches.
  Next, I have introduced two bills focused on hardening vulnerable 
targets--in other words, taking those targets we know terrorists want 
to attack, and transforming them so they will be less vulnerable.
  One bill is to do research to enhance building security, to improve 
the quality of private security guards and make buildings more 
resistant to attack. We know that at the Oklahoma City bombing, 85 
percent of the lives might have been saved if the building had been 
built with better materials, in a better way. We are still learning 
about the World Trade Center collapse. We know we need better 
construction and better security around buildings across America.
  A fourth bill would require the Government to improve its 
cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, we had an attack that crippled a lot of 
Government computer systems. There are simple tests we could be doing 
to block computer attacks that we are not doing: to ``patch'' holes in 
the systems. We need to make that happen.
  Fifth, I have introduced a bill to help local law enforcement by 
requiring the Government to give security clearances to more police 
officers, firefighters, and health officials. They need information to 
keep us safe, but too often they are not getting it. This bill would 
help make sure they do.
  Finally, there is the bill I have introduced today, and that I want 
to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes 
in the way

[[Page S2488]]

we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within 
our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to 
collect intelligence on foreign terrorist groups operating in America. 
And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence 
Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our 
safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why.
  There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals 
who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction, 
who do all of us proud.
  But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes 
before September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum 
about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow 
up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its 
possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access 
the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew 
were threats but did not track and stop.
  It is true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director 
Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's 
reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to 
continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best 
wishes for his reform efforts.
  At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of 
the problems we have seen.
  This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to 
look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about 
the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's 
capacity to respond to terrorism.
  The Markle Task Force commented: ``. . . there is a resistance 
ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information . . 
. the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of 
counter-terrorism.''
  The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a ``history of 
repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic 
intelligence. . . .''
  The Brookings Institution went further, stating that ``there are 
strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to 
conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis.''
  And finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: ``the Bureau's 
long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, 
even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into 
an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather 
than one dedicated to punishing them.''
  I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion.
  Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is 
full of superb public servants. But the reality is that the FBI is also 
a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change. 
That is just the reality. It was only in November that the New York 
Times reported the FBI's No. 2 official was ``amazed and astounded'' by 
the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat.
  Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more 
fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the 
base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement 
and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions.
  Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people 
in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it is about 
gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture.
  The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an 
agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, 
trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for 
succeeding as law enforcement officers.
  Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central 
coordination that is essential to combat national networks of 
terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's 
walls rather than sharing it with other key players.
  Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the 
FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and 
because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough.
  That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, 
one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence 
inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it 
to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't 
in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly 
announced ``Terrorist Threat Integration Center.'' That's just about 
analysis. This is about collection, gathering the intelligence 
information to begin with.
  I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because 
its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict 
between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its 
work.
  I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil 
liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities, 
we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about 
innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration 
overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this 
proposal will help stop it.
  We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and 
invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will 
require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will 
establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the 
new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of 
innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill 
America's promise--that we are safe and free at the same time.
  I believe this bill is an important step to making America safer, and 
I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in getting this legislation passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 411. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a 
university transportation center to be known as the ``Southwest Bridge 
Research Center''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation that I 
believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and 
durability of the Nation's highway bridges. Today, with great pleasure 
I am introducing the Southwest Bridge Research Center Establishment Act 
of 2003.
  The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center 
focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new Southwest Bridge 
Research Center is a cooperative effort between New Mexico State 
University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center, comprising the 
University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The new center 
will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies 
for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge 
safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection.
  Our highway network is a central component of our economy and 
fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is 
the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, 
and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of 
the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and 
offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.
  One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges 
that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. 
Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over 
another.
  Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New 
England's covered bridges, the well-known Golden Gate Bridge, and the 
spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, New Mexico. The fact is, 
according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 
highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The 
total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 
square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits 
of Albuquerque, New Mexico, roughly twice the size of the entire 
District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan 
Island. The State of Texas leads

[[Page S2489]]

the Nation with over 48,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. 
Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.
  A little known, and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway 
bridges is that nearly 84,000, or 14 percent, are considered to be 
structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the 
FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among 
the 50 States. For example, this chart shows some of the States with 
some of the highest percentage of deficient bridges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent of
                                                Number of   structurally
             State                Number of   structurally    deficient
                                   bridges      deficient   bridges  (in
                                                 bridges      percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma                              22,708         7,605          33.5
Missouri                              23,604         6,083          25.8
Rhode Island                             749           187          25.0
Pennsylvania                          22,092         5,418          24.5
South Dakota                           6,001         1,398          23.3
Mississippi                           16,825         3,694          22.0
Iowa                                  25,030         5,036          20.1
North Dakota                           4,517           871          19.3
Michigan                              10,631         2,012          18.9
Louisiana                             13,426         2,425          18.1
Alabama                               15,641         2,677          17.1
North Carolina                        16,991         2,513          14.8
Kansas                                25,638         3,465          13.5
Ohio                                  27,952         3,304         11.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) System, December 2001.

  Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural 
areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its 
Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent of rural 
bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban 
bridges. The report estimates the average cost required to maintain the 
existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.
  Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their 
age. About one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, 
and an amazing 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,000 
of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally 
deficient.
  I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should 
be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local 
communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient 
bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. 
However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding 
to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to 
identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or 
rehabilitation.
  To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress 
should also address the need for new technologies to help States 
monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and 
determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring 
technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not 
damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State 
University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non-
destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway 
bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on 
their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing 
them.
  In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel 
bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces. This award-winning project was 
the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. More 
recently, in 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete 
bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the 
bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. 
NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to 
allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.
  I ask unanimous consent that two articles describing NMSU's 
accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record, 
exhibits one and two.
  NMSU is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. It has 
provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also 
developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a 
bridge's physical condition.
  At the same time, Oklahoma State University leads the Nation in the 
development of the Geothermal Smart Bridge System, which uses energy 
stored in the earth itself to help keep bridges free of ice and snow. 
OSU is also performing cutting edge research on high-performance 
structural materials frequently used in bridges including concrete, 
steel, and timber.
  At the University of Oklahoma, a multidisciplinary team of 
researchers is working to develop a ``smart'' vehicle-bridge system 
that is expected to reduce the impact of moving trucks on bridge 
structures, thereby increasing the lifespan of highway bridges. The UO 
team is also expert in the development of high-performance concrete and 
of sensors for non-destructive testing.
  Of course, the Oklahoma Transportation Center was also heavily 
involved last year in the rebuilding of the Interstate 40 bridge over 
the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, OK, after it collapsed when 
struck by a barge. The bridge was reopened to traffic only 64 days 
after the accident.
  This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at these 
three universities. All three institutions are widely recognized as 
national leaders in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I 
believe it is fully appropriate for these three nationally recognized 
universities to collaborate in operating the Southwest Bridge Research 
Center.
  The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish and operate the Southwest Bridge Research 
Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the 
Oklahoma Transportation Center. I do believe the three universities 
have earned this honor. In fact, in some ways, Congress has already 
recognized their fine work of the three centers. For example, the 
University of Oklahoma was allotted $3.5 million in TEA-21 for research 
work on intelligent stiffeners for bridge stress reduction and Oklahoma 
State received $3.5 million for work on the geothermal heat pump smart 
bridge program.
  I am pleased to have also played a part. At my request, Congress 
provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State 
University and an additional $250,000 in the current fiscal year.
  The specific purpose of the Southwest Bridge Research Center will be 
to contribute to improving the performance of the nation's highway 
bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number 
of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. 
improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 
3. developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of 
bridges; 4. developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge 
safety, reliability, and security; and 5. providing training in the 
methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.
  Building on the three universities' research work, the Southwest 
Bridge Research Center will develop a strong educational component, 
including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the 
undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a 
cooperative certificate program for training and professional 
development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning 
will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.
  The bill provides $3 million in funding from the Highway Trust Fund 
to operate the center.
  New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center 
have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving 
technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team 
is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members 
of the team are recognized and respected at the national and 
international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, 
monitoring, and evaluation.
  I ask all senators to support the designation of a new Southwest 
Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the 
Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, 
and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into 
the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the three 
universities and a letter from Rhonda Faught, the Secretary of New 
Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department be printed in the 
Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S2490]]

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, May 18, 1998]

         Sensors Bridge Gap in Communication About Repair Needs

                          (By Louis Jacobson)

       Las Cruces, NM.--Hardly anyone in this burgeoning 
     southwestern city realizes it, but right behind the Las 
     Cruces Days Inn is a state-of-the-art experimental bridge. It 
     isn't very exciting to look at--in fact, a motorist whizzing 
     under Interstate 10 probably wouldn't notice anything 
     unusual. But the experiment's sponsors--including the Federal 
     Highway Administration, the National Science Foundation and 
     state highway departments--hope that it will eventually 
     revolutionize the way the Untied States maintains its half-
     million aging highway bridges.
       Undergirding the Las Cruces ``smart bridge'' is a series of 
     special sensors. It's not unusual for a bridge to be strung 
     with mechanical sensors to measure structural stresses, 
     particularly when a bridge is older and at higher risk of 
     long-term fatigue. But the Las Cruces sensors are embedded in 
     fiber-optic cables that--once the experiment is fully 
     underway--will be able to transmit their readings to bridge 
     officials in real time. In other words, weary bridges will 
     soon be able to telephone their weakened conditions directly 
     to the highway authorities so that bridge engineers can be 
     dispatched to head off catastrophe.
       ``We're looking at a very large bridge stock in the U.S. 
     that's in need of maintenance,'' says Rola Idriss, the civil 
     engineer at New Mexico State University who is monitoring the 
     I-10 experiment. ``Our idea was, how can we better inspect 
     our bridges, how can we better evaluate them and how can we 
     save money and time? The basic idea was to monitor them from 
     far away.''
       The fiber-optic cables used in the experiment were designed 
     by the Naval Research Laboratory. First, laser beams etch the 
     cables' cores with five-millimeter-long internal gauges, 
     spaced about two to three meters apart. Once the cable is 
     strung under the bridge and attached with epoxy, engineers 
     program the system so that light beams careen down the cable 
     at regular intervals. The degree of the light beams' bend 
     directly correlates with the degree of bridge stress. If the 
     results exceed a pre-calibrated bench mark, officials will be 
     alerted to check for weakness exactly where they need to. The 
     gauges can also be used to report general traffic patters, 
     aiding transportation planners as well as bridge inspectors.
       So far, the fiber-optic gauges have remained fastened 
     better than normal wire gauges have, Idriss says. More 
     important, the fiber simultaneously serves as a data 
     collector and transmitter. ``It was a very elegant way to get 
     away from the traditional method of using wires and 
     installation,'' Idriss says. ``You just hook it to a computer 
     and then let it cell phone the information home. The beauty 
     of it is that you don't have to be on the bridge. I could 
     monitor a bridge in Washington if I wanted to.''
       Though the bridge in Las Cruces--which Idriss describes as 
     an ordinary interstate bridge--was built in the 1970s, it has 
     already displayed some metal fatigue (a fact that was known 
     even before the smart bridge experiment was concocted). 
     ``It's not unusual to have that kind of fatigue, but the 
     bridge is not very old, so you want to know much more about 
     what's happening,'' she says. ``Now, we need to expand the 
     capability of the system by collecting from many more 
     sensors. It currently has 30, but we'd like to double that at 
     least.''
       Idriss--who grew up in a family of engineers in Beirut and 
     later became the first woman to earn a civil engineering PhD 
     from New Mexico State--acknowledges that both technical and 
     economic challenges remain. Her sensors cost about $50 to 
     $100 each, including the cost of the cable itself. The 
     benefits, she says, would come from freeing bridge inspectors 
     from many of their routine and time-consuming duties. At the 
     same time, highway departments could use their new data to 
     repair bridges more precisely and cost-efficiently than 
     today's information sources allow. ``If a fiber-optic gauge 
     system costs $30,000,'' she says, ``that's still far less 
     than a typical new bridge, which costs millions.''
       Even if that price tag eventually drops, highway officials 
     who aren't involved in the experiment suggest that the system 
     will be most appropriate for the minority of bridges that 
     officials already fret about.
       ``It seems like this system would be best for bridges that 
     need special attention,'' says David Hensing, deputy 
     executive director of the American Association of State 
     Highway and Transportation Officials. ``It's probably more 
     expensive than is necessary for 90 percent of America's 
     bridges. But for the other 5 or 10 percent, that kind of 
     instrumentation will get more years of life out of the bridge 
     and lead to more timely corrective action.''
       Bob Reilly, director of cooperative research programs at 
     the federal Transportation Research Board, which is part of 
     the National Research Council, concurs. ``I could image it 
     would be a very useful thing in rare cases, but my guess is 
     that it's not worth it for all bridges,'' he says.
       Richard Livingston, the Federal Highway Administration 
     official who is supplying Idriss with equipment and grant 
     money, suggests three types of bridges that are likeliest to 
     benefit: bridges that are already thought to be structurally 
     deficient, critical urban bridges that carry economically 
     vital traffic flows and newer bridge designs with which 
     engineers have little long-term experience.
       California transportation officials have expressed interest 
     in installing fiber-optic gauges in critical seismic zones. 
     Closer to home, the Washington area's Woodrow Wilson Bridge--
     a clogged and vital drawbridge on the Capital Beltway--could 
     be among the first to serve as a test site, if Congress 
     authorizes funding to do so.
       ``It would be able to help us schedule maintenance 
     activities in a more cost-effective way,'' says Louis 
     Triandafilou, a Baltimore-based Federal Highway 
     Administration official who has been trying to broker the 
     Wilson Bridge deal. ``The Wilson Bridge is a good one to test 
     because it's a drawbridge and because it has a very high 
     traffic count, especially truck traffic, so you can get 
     information on how the bridge is affected by fatigue and 
     repetitive stress.''
       Given that it often takes four or five professionals a full 
     week to inspect just one bridge--and considering the big 
     back-log of bridges to inspect, including some whose crucial 
     parts aren't easy to reach--the experiment's advocates say 
     that the benefits of remote sensing can be substantial. ``The 
     real problem is that no one has ever done a cost-benefit 
     analysis,'' Livington says. ``It has increased cost, but it 
     may also have increased benefits.''
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

           [From the Public Roads magazine, Nov./Dec., 2002]

                        A Decade of Achievement

     (By Richard A. Livingston, Milton Mills, and Morton S. Oskard)

       Installation of sensor systems in bridges is increasingly 
     recognized as important for obtaining information on strains, 
     temperature, moisture, and other variables. The information 
     collected from such smart bridges can be used to confirm 
     design calculations, detect damage, and count traffic, among 
     other functions.
       An example of the sensor systems developed by the Advanced 
     Research program is the fiber-optic strain gauge based on 
     Bragg gratings. These gratings consist of alternating zones 
     of different indexes of refraction. The spacing of the layers 
     determines a specific wavelength of light that will be 
     reflected. The technology is the same as that used in the 
     broadband fiber-optic telecommunications systems now being 
     installed across the country.
       Since the fiber-optic sensor operates with light waves 
     rather than electrons, it has several advantages over 
     conventional electronic strain gauges: ruggedness, absence of 
     drift, and immunity to electromagnetic noise. It permits as 
     many as 100 gauges to be put on a single fiber as thin as a 
     human hair. The installation of the gauges is simplified, the 
     cabling requirement is reduced, and the cost-per-sensor is 
     lowered.
       Possible applications may require networks on the order of 
     1,000 sensors, or 1 kilosensor. Working under an interagency 
     agreement with the Naval Research Laboratory, which has 
     developed many fiber-optic sensors, the Advanced Research 
     program has demonstrated several applications of sensor 
     networks for structural monitoring.
       The first application, co-funded with the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF), resulted in the installation of a system of 
     67 calibrated fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge 
     on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces, NM. This work was carried 
     out by New Mexico State University, with Dr. Rola Idriss 
     as the principal investigator.
       ``The research has shown the fiber-optic sensors to be a 
     powerful nondestructive evaluation tool,'' says Idriss. 
     ``Whether retrofitted to an existing structure or built into 
     a new smart bridge, they can yield a wealth of information 
     about the structure and the traffic crossing it.''
       The installation has generated several types of information 
     under random traffic loading, including girder deflections, 
     fundamental vibration frequencies, vehicle speed data, and 
     traffic flow on an hourly basis. To date, the Las Cruces 
     project has achieved notable success in its primary purpose 
     of investigating practical issues in the full-scale 
     application and regular operation of fiber-optic sensors on 
     highway structures. The project has been widely covered in 
     the media and received several awards.
       New Mexico State University applied the sensors to the 
     construction of a new concrete bridge in a project co-funded 
     by Advanced Research, NSF, and the New Mexico State Highway 
     and Transportation Department (NMSHTD). The mix design and 
     curing conditions now being used to make high-performance 
     concrete structures may produce unexpectedly high 
     temperatures and stresses during the casting of girders, 
     possibly leading to cracking and major structural failure. 
     Obtaining information on the internal conditions is difficult 
     with conventional temperature or strain gauges because of 
     their fragility.
       Forty fiber-optic long-gauge deformation and temperature 
     sensors were embedded in the concrete girders of the Rio 
     Puerco Bridge during casting. These sensors monitored the 
     prestress forces applied to the steel strands in the precast 
     concrete components during and after the steam curing period. 
     One finding was that some design codes considerably 
     overestimate the actual losses. NMSHTD now is planning to use 
     sensors routinely in the construction of concrete bridges in 
     the future. ``Building the sensors into new bridges,'' says 
     Idriss, ``enables us to evaluate new high-performance 
     materials and new designs. It also establishes a baseline for 
     long-term monitoring.''

[[Page S2491]]

       Several companies now offer Bragg fiber-optic sensor 
     systems on a commercial basis. Two States (Hawaii and New 
     Mexico) have received funding from the FHWA Innovative Bridge 
     Research and Construction Program. In addition, several other 
     States are considering installation of these systems on new 
     or existing bridges. Fiber-optic systems also have been 
     chosen as the method for measuring expansion in concrete 
     girders under the lithium treatment evaluation program. All 
     these developments indicate that fiber-optic sensor systems 
     have been transferred successfully from Advanced Research to 
     other FHWA programs.
                                  ____

                                           College of Engineering,


              Office of the Dean, New Mexico State University,

                                  Las Cruces, NM, January 8, 2003.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: We are writing to express our 
     support for your bill to establish a bridge research center 
     (brc) as a cooperative effort of New Mexico State University 
     and the Oklahoma Transportation Center (Oklahoma State 
     University and the University of Oklahoma). NMSU and OTC 
     desire to work together in a spirit of cooperation as a 
     University Transportation Center. We are bonded together in a 
     desire to provide bridge research leadership for our 
     respective states and the nation.
       The purpose of the Bridge Research Center shall be to 
     contribute at a national level to a systems approach to 
     improving the overall performance of bridges. The BRC will 
     emphasize the following:
       1. Increase the number of highly skilled individuals 
     entering the field of transportation.
       2. Improve the monitoring of the structural health over the 
     life of bridges.
       3. Develop innovative technologies for bridge testing and 
     monitoring.
       4. Develop technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge 
     safety, reliability and security.
       5. Provide training in the methods for bridge inspection 
     and evaluation.
       The objective of the BRC is to carry out several programs 
     and activities. Included will be basic and applied research 
     with products judged by peers or other experts to advance the 
     body of knowledge for bridges. An educational program that 
     includes multidisciplinary course work and participation in 
     bridge research. Finally, an ongoing program of technology 
     transfer that makes research results available to potential 
     users in a form that can be implemented.
       NMSU and OTC have applied their talents, tools and 
     techniques to solving technological problems with bridges for 
     over 30 years. Our team is well established and maintains 
     cutting-edge expertise. Our team members are recognized and 
     respected at the national and international levels through 
     major accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring and 
     evaluation.
       New Mexico State University has agreed to provide the 
     administrative leadership for the BRC. The research activity 
     of the BRC will be approximately equally divided between New 
     Mexico and Oklahoma.
       By the signatures of the representatives of each 
     institution, we pledge our support and commitment to the 
     partnership known as the Bridge Research Center.
     Gorman Gilbert,
       Civil and Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma State 
     University.
     Thomas L. Landers,
       Associated Dean, University of Oklahoma.
     Kenneth R. White,
       Interim Dean of Engineering, New Mexico State University.
                                  ____

                                          New Mexico State Highway


                                and Transportation Department,

                                   Santa Fe, NM, January 27, 2003.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I am writing to express my support 
     for your bill to establish a Bridge Research Center as a 
     cooperative effort of New Mexico State University and the 
     Oklahoma Transportation Center (Oklahoma State University and 
     the University of Oklahoma). NMSU and OTC desire to provide 
     bridge research leadership for our Nation. The areas of 
     leadership include research and development of techniques and 
     technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures 
     for ensuring bridge safety and security, and curricula to 
     train persons in the methods for bridge inspection and 
     evaluation as one part of increasing the number of highly 
     skilled individuals entering the field of transportation.
       I believe it is important for the Bridge Research Center to 
     be established as a University Transportation Center. The New 
     Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department, through 
     our Research Bureau, will work with New Mexico State 
     University to ensure a match for the New Mexico portion of 
     the Bridge Research Center funds.
       I appreciate your continued leadership on behalf of 
     transportation in New Mexico and our Nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rhonda G. Faught,
     Cabinet Secretary.
                                  ____


                                 S. 411

       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 ``Southwest Bridge Research 
     Center Establishment Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. BRIDGE RESEARCH CENTER.

       Section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Southwest Bridge Research Center.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the university 
     transportation centers receiving grants under subsections (a) 
     and (b), the Secretary shall provide grants to New Mexico 
     State University, in collaboration with the Oklahoma 
     Transportation Center, to establish and operate a university 
     transportation center to be known as the `Southwest Bridge 
     Research Center' (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Center').
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Center shall be to 
     contribute at a national level to a systems approach to 
     improving the overall performance of bridges, with an 
     emphasis on--
       ``(A) increasing the number of highly skilled individuals 
     entering the field of transportation;
       ``(B) improving the monitoring of structural health over 
     the life of bridges;
       ``(C) developing innovative technologies for bridge testing 
     and assessment;
       ``(D) developing technologies and procedures for ensuring 
     bridge safety, reliability, and security; and
       ``(E) providing training in the methods for bridge 
     inspection and evaluation.
       ``(3) Objectives.--The Center shall carry out the following 
     programs and activities:
       ``(A) Basic and applied research, the products of which 
     shall be judged by peers or other experts in the field to 
     advance the body of knowledge in transportation.
       ``(B) An education program that includes multidisciplinary 
     course work and participation in research.
       ``(C) An ongoing program of technology transfer that makes 
     research results available to potential users in a form that 
     can be implemented.
       ``(4) Maintenance of effort.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, the institution specified in 
     paragraph (1) shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to ensure that, for each fiscal year after 
     establishment of the Center, the institution will fund 
     research activities relating to transportation in an amount 
     that is at least equal to the average annual amount of funds 
     expended for the activities for the 2 fiscal years preceding 
     the fiscal year in which the grant is received.
       ``(5) Cost sharing.--
       ``(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     activity carried out using funds from a grant provided under 
     this subsection shall be 50 percent.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of any activity carried out using funds from a grant provided 
     under this subsection may include funds provided to the 
     recipient under any of sections 503, 504(b), and 505 of title 
     23.
       ``(C) Ongoing programs.--After establishment of the Center, 
     the institution specified in paragraph (1) shall obligate for 
     each fiscal year not less than $200,000 in regularly budgeted 
     institutional funds to support ongoing transportation 
     research and education programs.
       ``(6) Program coordination.--
       ``(A) Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) coordinate the research, education, training, and 
     technology transfer activities carried out by the Center;
       ``(ii) disseminate the results of that research; and
       ``(iii) establish and operate a clearinghouse for 
     information derived from that research.
       ``(B) Annual review and evaluation.--At least annually, and 
     in accordance with the plan developed under section 508 of 
     title 23, the Secretary shall review and evaluate each 
     program carried out by the Center using funds from a grant 
     provided under this subsection.
       ``(7) Limitation on availability of funds.--Funds made 
     available to carry out this subsection shall remain available 
     for obligation for a period of 2 years after the last day of 
     the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized.
       ``(8) Amount of grant.--For each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2009, the Secretary shall provide a grant in the 
     amount of $3,000,000 to the institution specified in 
     paragraph (1) to carry out this subsection.
       ``(9) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection 
     $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 412. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to extend and 
modify the reimbursement of State and local funds expended for 
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page S2492]]

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

                                 S. 412

       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 ``Local Emergency Health 
     Services Reimbursement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES 
                   FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

       Section 4723 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (8 U.S.C. 
     1611 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4723. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH 
                   SERVICES FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

       ``(a) Total Amount Available for Allotment.--There is 
     appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $1,450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008, for the purpose of making allotments under this 
     section to States described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b). Funds appropriated under the preceding 
     sentence shall remain available until expended.
       ``(b) State Allotments.--
       ``(1) Based on percentage of undocumented aliens.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use 
     $957,000,000 of such amount to make allotments for each such 
     fiscal year in accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Formula.--The amount of the allotment for each State 
     for a fiscal year shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(i) the total amount available for allotments under this 
     paragraph for the fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) the percentage of undocumented aliens residing in 
     the State with respect to the total number of such aliens 
     residing in all States, as determined by the Statistics 
     Division of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as of 
     January 2003, based on the 2000 decennial census.
       ``(2) Based on number of undocumented alien apprehension 
     states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall use 
     $493,000,000 of such amount to make allotments for each such 
     fiscal year for each of the 6 States with the highest number 
     of undocumented alien apprehensions for such fiscal year.
       ``(B) Determination of allotments.--The amount of the 
     allotment for each State described in subparagraph (A) for a 
     fiscal year shall bear the same ratio to the total amount 
     available for allotments under this paragraph for the fiscal 
     year as the ratio of the number of undocumented alien 
     apprehensions in the State in the fiscal year bears to the 
     total of such numbers for all such States for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(C) Data.--For purposes of this paragraph, the highest 
     number of undocumented alien apprehensions for a fiscal year 
     shall be based on the 4 most recent quarterly apprehension 
     rates for undocumented aliens in such States, as reported by 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as prohibiting a State that is described in both 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) from receiving an allotment under 
     both paragraphs for a fiscal year.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Authority to make payments.--From the allotments made 
     for a State under subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall pay directly to local governments, hospitals, 
     or other providers located in the State (including providers 
     of services received through an Indian Health Service 
     facility whether operated by the Indian Health Service or by 
     an Indian tribe or tribal organization) that provide 
     uncompensated emergency health services furnished to 
     undocumented aliens during that fiscal year, and to the 
     State, such amounts (subject to the total amount available 
     from such allotments) as the local governments, hospitals, 
     providers, or State demonstrate were incurred for the 
     provision of such services during that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Limitation on state use of funds.--Funds paid to a 
     State from allotments made under subsection (b) for a fiscal 
     year may only be used for making payments to local 
     governments, hospitals, or other providers for costs incurred 
     in providing emergency health services to undocumented aliens 
     or for State costs incurred with respect to the provision of 
     emergency health services to such aliens.
       ``(3) Inclusion of costs incurred with respect to certain 
     aliens.--Uncompensated emergency health services furnished to 
     aliens who have been allowed to enter the United States for 
     the sole purpose of receiving emergency health services may 
     be included in the determination of costs incurred by a 
     State, local government, hospital, or other provider with 
     respect to the provision of such services.
       ``(d) Applications; Advance Payments; Reallotment of Unused 
     Funds.--
       ``(1) Deadline for establishment of application process.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2003, the 
     Secretary shall establish a process under which States, local 
     governments, hospitals, or other providers located in the 
     State may apply for payments from allotments made under 
     subsection (b) for a fiscal year for uncompensated emergency 
     health services furnished to undocumented aliens during that 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) Inclusion of measures to combat fraud.--The Secretary 
     shall include in the process established under subparagraph 
     (A) measures to ensure that fraudulent payments are not made 
     from the allotments determined under subsection (b) or from 
     amounts reallotted under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Advance payment; Retrospective adjustment.--The 
     process established under paragraph (1) shall allow for 
     making payments under this section for each quarter of a 
     fiscal year on the basis of advance estimates of expenditures 
     submitted by applicants for such payments and such other 
     investigation as the Secretary may find necessary, and for 
     making reductions or increases in the payments as necessary 
     to adjust for any overpayment or underpayment for prior 
     quarters.
       ``(3) Reallotment of Unused Funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to allotments made under 
     subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the amount of any allotment 
     to a State for a fiscal year that the Secretary determines 
     will not be expended during that fiscal year or the 
     succeeding fiscal year shall be available for reallotment 
     during the second succeeding fiscal year, on such date as the 
     Secretary may determine, to other States with allotments 
     under that subsection that the Secretary determines will use 
     such excess amounts during that second succeeding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(B) Determination of reallotments.--Reallotments under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as 
     allotments are determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (b) but only with respect to those States that the 
     Secretary determines qualify for a reallotment for a fiscal 
     year under that subparagraph.
       ``(C) Treatment.--Any amount reallotted under subparagraph 
     (A) to a State is deemed to be part of its allotment under 
     subsection (b) for the fiscal year in which the reallotment 
     occurs.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Hospital.--The term `hospital' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(e)).
       ``(2) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms `Indian 
     tribe' and `tribal organization' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
       ``(3) Provider.--The term `provider' includes a physician, 
     any other health care professional licensed under State law, 
     and any other entity that furnishes emergency health 
     services, including ambulance services.
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States and the 
     District of Columbia.
       ``(f) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment of amounts provided under this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By. Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 413. A bill to provide for the fair and efficient judicial 
consideration of personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out 
of asbestos exposure, to ensure that individuals who suffer harm, now 
or in the future, from illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos receive 
compensation for their injuries, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill and to 
speak about a litigation crisis affecting both the overall well-being 
of our nation and our ability to stimulate economic recovery. I'm 
speaking of the out-of-control explosion of asbestos litigation.
  Asbestos litigation has become a disease in our economy. It threatens 
to drive scores of companies into bankruptcy. It discourages investment 
in companies under suit. It drives stock value down. It diverts funds 
away from expansion and growth. It results in job loss and, in short, 
it has become an obstacle to economic recovery.
  The cost of asbestos litigation and burden on business has been 
devastating. Over 8,400 companies have been named as defendants in 
suits. At least $54 billion has been paid on more than 6000,000 claims. 
U.S. Insurers have paid over $22 billion. Insurers outside U.S. have 
paid $8-12. Defendant companies have already expended between $20-24 
billion in claims and transaction costs associated with asbestos 
litigation.
  The total cost of asbestos litigation could reach between $200-265 
billion. This is revenue not invested in the economy, not invested in 
new jobs.
  Some companies are hit with multiple suits involving thousands of 
plaintiffs. The weight of claims and settlements has resulted in an 
alarming increase in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Over sixty companies have

[[Page S2493]]

filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to asbestos claims. This trend toward 
bankruptcy has had an alarming domino effect. As companies declare 
Chapter 11 reorganization, the litigation burden shifts to other 
defendant companies only encouraging them to declare bankruptcy as 
well.
  At least 5 major companies have each spent more than $1 billion. 
Thirty-eight of the nations top 100 contractors to the DoD are now 
asbestos defendants. This crisis threatens to impact our national 
security industry at the worst possible time in our history. But it 
also prevents us from aggressively stimulating the economy. The bottom-
line is: the cost of litigation and/or bankruptcy siphons away critical 
business revenue needed for growth and the creation of new jobs. What 
is frightening, is that only about half the number of potential 
claimants have come forward thus far. If left unchecked, we have only 
seen the tip of this crisis.

  It's not only business that suffers. Employees of defendant companies 
suffer a great deal from a damaging ripple effect. The Rand Institute 
of Civil Justice estimates that 100,000 jobs were not created as a 
result of asbestos litigation. Bankruptcies related to asbestos 
litigation have led to 52,000-60,000 people losing their jobs, 
according to a SEBAGO study. It is estimated that each displaced worker 
will lose, on average, $25,000-$50,000 in wages before finding a job, 
or in reduced salary following finding a new job.
  It does not stop there. Approximately 42 percent of displaced 
manufacturing workers participate in retraining programs, costing about 
$2,000-$3,000 per worker. Local communities also bear the brunt of job 
reductions due to asbestos-related lay-offs. It is estimated that there 
have been between $.6 and $2.1 billion in additional indirect local 
costs and loss. On average, there are eight additional jobs lost 
locally for every initial job lost. Additional multiplier effects 
include lowered property values, population decline and lost Federal 
and State tax revenue.
  Those employees fortunate enough not to lose their jobs in asbestos-
related cut-backs, also suffer due to the weakened position of their 
employer. Studies show that reduced stock value in defendant companies 
results in a 25 percent reduction in employees' 401(k) plan value. The 
average worker loses, on average $8,300 in pension devaluation.
  This is a situation that has been exploited by the non-injured. Over 
65 percent of plaintiffs, estimates as high as 90 percent, have no 
medical injury, but have filed suit on the basis that they ``may'' 
develop illness in the future. To date, most claims have been paid to 
non-injured claimants. Some plaintiffs' attorneys are signing up 
thousands of individual plaintiffs onto suits where there may be no 
evidence of injury or no evidence of exposure to asbestos products. The 
effect is that the largest portion of the claim pool is being paid to 
non-injured claimants. As a result, this adversely affects the ability 
of truly injured plaintiffs to collect damages. Claimants with 
malignant injuries are being lost in the stampede of those not injured. 
There is not only less money for those who really need it, the courts 
are swamped with a flood of questionable claims. It is not surprising 
that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice called out for Congress to find a 
solution.
  Congress must indeed act. We must find a solution that both protects 
the economy and the legal rights of those truly injured by asbestos or 
who will develop asbestos-related injuries in the future. That is why 
today I introduce a bill that will not only introduce criteria to 
reassert some control over an out-of-control litigation process, but 
will come to the assistance of those truly injured and who need help. 
It is also intended to put a halt to the severe damage asbestos 
litigation has been wrecking on our economy, so that we can get on with 
the process of economic recovery.
  My bill, entitled the Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act 
of 2003, establishes medical criteria that a claimant must meet prior 
to filing a suit. It will also toll the statute of limitations, so that 
those who develop an asbestos-related disease years down the road will 
still retain their right of legal action. It also will limit abusive 
venue shopping, but provides an exception of venue choice for those 
terminally-ill and facing a shortened life expectancy.
  In conclusion, I believe this bill offers a reasonable approach to 
resolving this serious problem. I believe it offers a solid bipartisan 
approach that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
come to support. If ever we hope to stimulate our economy into recovery 
and achieve sustained growth, we must also address and eliminate those 
factors that tend to drag the economy in the opposite direction. 
Asbestos litigation is one of those inhibitors of the economy, and this 
bill is a good step toward recovery. I encourage my colleagues to lend 
their support to this bill and I thank you, 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. 413

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Asbestos 
     Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Physical impairment.
Sec. 5. Procedures; removal.
Sec. 6. Statute of limitations; two-disease rule.
Sec. 7. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 8. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) asbestos is a mineral that was widely used before the 
     1980s for insulation, fireproofing, and other purposes;
       (2) millions of American workers and others were 
     significantly exposed to asbestos, especially during and 
     after World War II and before the advent of regulation by the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the early 
     1970s;
       (3) exposure to asbestos has been associated with various 
     types of cancer, including mesothelioma and lung cancer, and 
     such nonmalignant conditions as asbestosis, pleural plaques, 
     and diffuse pleural thickening;
       (4) the diseases caused by asbestos have latency periods of 
     up to 40 years or more, but the most serious asbestos-related 
     disease, mesothelioma, is fatal within 1 to 2 years, and 
     other related cancers are often fatal;
       (5) although the use of asbestos has dramatically declined 
     since 1980 and workplace exposures have been regulated since 
     1971 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
     past exposures will continue to result in significant death 
     and disability from mesothelioma and other cancers well into 
     the 21st century;
       (6) exposure to asbestos has created a flood of litigation 
     targeting approximately 8,400 defendant companies in Federal 
     and State courts that the United States Supreme Court has 
     characterized as ``an elephantine mass'' of cases that 
     ``defies customary judicial administration and calls for 
     national legislation,'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation, 119 
     S. Ct. 2295, 2302 (1999);
       (7) the American Bar Association supports enactment of 
     Federal legislation that would--
       (A) allow persons alleging non-malignant asbestos-related 
     disease claims to file a cause of action in Federal or State 
     court only if those persons meet the medical criteria in the 
     ``ABA Standard for Non-Malignant Asbestos-Related Disease 
     Claims'' dated February 2003 or an appropriate similar 
     medical standard; and
       (B) toll all applicable statutes of limitations until such 
     time as the medical criteria in such standard are met;
       (8) asbestos personal injury litigation can be unfair and 
     inefficient, imposing a severe burden on litigants and 
     taxpayers alike, in most cases involving defendant companies 
     that were never involved in the production of asbestos;
       (9) the extraordinary volume of nonmalignant asbestos cases 
     continues to strain Federal and State courts, with over 
     200,000 cases pending and over 50,000 new cases filed each 
     year;
       (10) asbestos personal injury litigation has already 
     contributed to the bankruptcy of more than 60 companies and 
     the rate of asbestos-driven bankruptcies is accelerating;
       (11) the vast majority of asbestos claims are filed by 
     individuals who--
       (A) have been exposed to asbestos;
       (B) may have some physical sign of exposure; and
       (C) suffer no present asbestos-related impairment;
       (12) the cost of compensating exposed persons who are not 
     sick--
       (A) jeopardizes the ability of defendants to compensate 
     people with cancer and other serious asbestos-related 
     diseases, now and in the future; and
       (B) strains the ability of courts to manage the deluge of 
     cases involving nonimpaired plaintiffs;
       (13) an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 workers have lost their 
     jobs as a direct result of asbestos litigation and related 
     bankruptcies of

[[Page S2494]]

     defendant companies and each displaced worker will, on 
     average, lose between $25,000 and $50,000 in lost wages;
       (14) employees of defendant companies declaring bankruptcy 
     (who are often stockholders of those companies) will, on 
     average, lose 25 percent of the value of their retirement 
     investment under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 because of lost stock value;
       (15) concerns about statutes of limitations can force 
     claimants who have been exposed to asbestos but who have no 
     current injury to bring premature lawsuits in order to 
     protect against losing their rights to future compensation 
     should those claimants become impaired;
       (16) consolidations, joinder, and similar procedures, to 
     which some courts have resorted in order to deal with the 
     mass of asbestos cases, can undermine the appropriate 
     functioning of the judicial process and encourage the filing 
     of thousands of cases by exposed persons who are not yet sick 
     and who may never become sick;
       (17) the availability of sympathetic forums in States with 
     no connection to the plaintiff or to the exposures that form 
     the basis of a lawsuit has encouraged the filing of thousands 
     of cases on behalf of exposed persons who are not yet sick 
     and may never become sick;
       (18) asbestos litigation, if left unchecked by reasonable 
     congressional intervention, will--
       (A) continue to inhibit the economy and run counter to 
     plans to stimulate economic growth and the creation of new 
     jobs;
       (B) threaten the savings, retirement benefits, and 
     employment of defendants' current and retired employees;
       (C) affect adversely the communities in which these 
     defendants operate; and
       (D) impair interstate commerce and national initiatives, 
     including national security; and
       (19) the public interest and the interest of interstate 
     commerce requires deferring the claims of exposed persons who 
     are not sick in order to--
       (A) preserve, now and for the future, defendants' ability 
     to compensate people who develop cancer and other serious 
     asbestos-related injuries; and
       (B) safeguard the jobs, benefits, and savings of American 
     workers and the well-being of the national economy.
       (b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) give priority to those asbestos claimants who can 
     demonstrate actual physical harm or illness caused by 
     asbestos;
       (2) fully preserve the rights of claimants who were exposed 
     to asbestos to pursue compensation should those claimants 
     become sick in the future;
       (3) enhance the ability of the Federal and State judicial 
     systems to supervise and control asbestos litigation and 
     asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings; and
       (4) conserve the scarce resources of the defendants, and 
     marshal assets in bankruptcy, to allow compensation of cancer 
     victims and others who are physically harmed by exposure to 
     asbestos while securing the right to similar compensation for 
     those who may suffer physical harm in the future.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment.--
     The term ``AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 
     Impairment'' means the American Medical Association's Guides 
     to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Fifth Edition 
     2000).
       (2) Asbestos.--The term ``asbestos'' includes all minerals 
     defined as ``asbestos'' under section 1910 of title 29 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Asbestos claim.--The term ``asbestos claim''--
       (A) means any claim for damages or other relief presented 
     in a civil action or bankruptcy proceeding, arising out of, 
     based on, or related to the health effects of exposure to 
     asbestos, including loss of consortium and any other 
     derivative claim made by or on behalf of any exposed person 
     or any representative, spouse, parent, child or other 
     relative of any exposed person; and
       (B) does not include claims for benefits under a workers' 
     compensation law or veterans' benefits program, or claims 
     brought by any person as a subrogee by virtue of the payment 
     of benefits under a workers' compensation law.
       (4) Asbestosis.--The term ``asbestosis'' means bilateral 
     diffuse interstitial fibrosis of the lungs caused by 
     inhalation of asbestos fibers.
       (5) Certified b-reader.--The term ``certified B-reader'' 
     means an individual qualified as a ``final'' or ``B-reader'' 
     under section 37.51(b) of title 42 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (6) Civil action.--The term ``civil action''--
       (A) means all suits of a civil nature in Federal or State 
     court, whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in 
     admiralty; and
       (B) does not include an action relating to any workers' 
     compensation law, or a proceeding for benefits under any 
     veterans' benefits program.
       (7) Exposed person.--The term ``exposed person'' means any 
     person whose exposure to asbestos or to asbestos-containing 
     products is the basis for an asbestos claim.
       (8) FEV1.--The term ``FEV1'' means forced expiratory volume 
     in the first second, which is the maximal volume of air 
     expelled in 1 second during performance of simple spirometric 
     tests.
       (9) FVC.--The term ``FVC'' means forced vital capacity, 
     which is the maximal volume of air expired with maximum 
     effort from a position of full inspiration.
       (10) ILO scale.--The term ``ILO Scale'' means the system 
     for the classification of chest x-rays set forth in the 
     International Labour Office's Guidelines for the Use of ILO 
     International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses 
     (1980) as amended by the International Labour Office.
       (11) Nonmalignant condition.--The term ``nonmalignant 
     condition'' means any condition that is caused or may be 
     caused by asbestos other than a diagnosed cancer.
       (12) Pathological evidence of asbestosis.--The term 
     ``pathological evidence of asbestosis'' means a statement by 
     a Board-certified pathologist that--
       (A) more than 1 representative section of lung tissue 
     uninvolved with any other disease process demonstrates a 
     pattern of peribronchiolar or parenchymal scarring in the 
     presence of characteristic asbestos bodies; and
       (B) there is no other more likely explanation for the 
     presence of the fibrosis.
       (13) Predicted lower limit of normal.--The term ``predicted 
     lower limit of normal'' for any test means the fifth 
     percentile of healthy populations based on age, height, and 
     gender, as referenced in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of 
     Permanent Impairment.
       (14) Radiological evidence of asbestosis.--The term 
     ``radiological evidence of asbestosis'' means a chest x-ray 
     showing small, irregular opacities (s,t) graded by a 
     certified B-reader as at least 1/1 on the ILO scale.
       (15) Radiological evidence of diffuse pleural thickening.--
     The term ``radiological evidence of diffuse pleural 
     thickening'' means a chest x-ray showing bilateral pleural 
     thickening of at least B2 on the ILO scale and blunting of at 
     least 1 costophrenic angle.
       (16) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory or 
     possession of the United States or any political subdivision 
     of any of the entities under this paragraph.
       (17) Veterans' benefits program.--The term ``veterans' 
     benefits program'' means any program for benefits in 
     connection with military service administered by the 
     Veterans' Administration under title 38, United States Code.
       (18) Workers' compensation law.--The term ``workers' 
     compensation law''--
       (A) means a law respecting a program administered by a 
     State or the United States to provide benefits, funded by a 
     responsible employer or an insurance carrier of that 
     employer, for occupational diseases or injuries or for 
     disability or death caused by occupational diseases or 
     injuries;
       (B) includes the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) and chapter 81 of title 5, United 
     States Code; and
       (C) does not include the Federal Employer's Liability Act 
     (45 U.S.C. 51 et seq.).

     SEC. 4. PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT.

       (a) Impairment Essential Element of Claim.--Physical 
     impairment of the exposed person, to which asbestos exposure 
     was a substantial contributing factor, shall be an essential 
     element of an asbestos claim. For purposes of this section, 
     cancer shall be presumed to involve physical impairment.
       (b) Prima Facie Evidence of Physical Impairment.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall bring or maintain a civil 
     action alleging a nonmalignant asbestos claim in the absence 
     of a prima facie showing of physical impairment as a result 
     of a medical condition to which exposure to asbestos was a 
     substantial contributing factor.
       (2) Requirements of prima facie showing.--A prima facie 
     showing under this subsection shall include all of the 
     following minimum requirements:
       (A) Permanent respiratory impairment rating.--A 
     determination by a qualified physician, on the basis of a 
     medical examination and pulmonary function testing, that the 
     exposed person has a permanent respiratory impairment rating 
     of at least Class 2 as defined by and evaluated under the AMA 
     Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
       (B) Diagnosis.--A diagnosis by a qualified physician of 
     asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening, based at a minimum 
     on pathological evidence of asbestosis, radiological evidence 
     of asbestosis, or radiological evidence of diffuse pleural 
     thickening.
       (C) Substantial contributing factor.--A determination by a 
     qualified physician that asbestosis or diffuse pleural 
     thickening (rather than solely chronic obstructive pulmonary 
     disease) is a substantial contributing factor to the exposed 
     person's physical impairment, based at a minimum on a 
     determination that the exposed person has either--
       (i) a ratio of FEV1 to FVC that is equal to or greater than 
     the predicted lower limit of normal; or
       (ii) a chest x-ray showing small, irregular opacities (s,t) 
     graded by a certified B-reader at least 2/1 on the ILO scale.
       (c) Compliance With Technical Standards.--

[[Page S2495]]

       (1) In general.--Evidence relating to physical impairment 
     under this section, including pulmonary function testing and 
     diffusing studies, shall comply with--
       (A) the technical recommendations for examinations, testing 
     procedures, quality assurance and quality control, and 
     equipment of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 
     Impairment; or
       (B) if the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 
     Impairment are not applicable, other authoritative standards.
       (2) Adjustments.--No adjustments with respect to pulmonary 
     function testing shall be made on the basis of race.
       (d) No Presumption at Trial.--Presentation of prima facie 
     evidence of asbestos-related impairment meeting the 
     requirements of this section shall not result in any 
     presumption at trial that the exposed person is impaired by 
     an asbestos-related condition, and evidence that the exposed 
     person made a prima facie showing of impairment shall not be 
     admissible at trial.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURES; REMOVAL.

       (a) Consolidation.--A court may consolidate for trial any 
     number and type of asbestos claims with consent of all the 
     parties. In the absence of such consent, the court may 
     consolidate for trial only asbestos claims relating to the 
     same exposed person and members of the household of the 
     exposed person.
       (b) Venue.--
       (1) In general.--A civil action asserting an asbestos claim 
     may only be brought in the State of the plaintiff's domicile 
     or a State in which there occurred exposure to asbestos that 
     is a substantial contributing factor to the physical 
     impairment on which the claim is based.
       (2) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     claim that--
       (A) is based upon an exposed person's cancer; and
       (B) is filed by an exposed person who is diagnosed with 
     fatal mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancer by a 
     qualified physician, resulting in a short life expectancy of 
     less than 3 years after the date on which the claim is filed.
       (c) Preliminary Proceedings.--The plaintiff in any civil 
     action involving an asbestos claim shall file with the 
     complaint or other initial pleading a written report and 
     supporting test results constituting prima facie evidence of 
     the exposed person's asbestos-related impairment meeting the 
     requirements of section 4(b). The defendant shall be afforded 
     a reasonable opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the 
     proffered prima facie evidence of asbestos-related 
     impairment. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed without 
     prejudice upon a finding of failure to make the required 
     prima facie showing.
       (d) Removal.--
       (1) In general.--If a State court refuses or fails to apply 
     this section, any party in a civil action for an asbestos 
     claim may remove such action to a district court of the 
     United States in accordance with chapter 89 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Jurisdiction over removed actions.--The district courts 
     of the United States shall have jurisdiction of all civil 
     actions removed under this subsection, without regard to the 
     amount in controversy and without regard to the citizenship 
     or residence of the parties.
       (3) Removal by any defendant.--A civil action may be 
     removed to the district court of the United States under this 
     subsection by any defendant without the consent of all 
     defendants.
       (4) Remand.--The district court shall remand any civil 
     action removed solely under this subsection, unless the court 
     finds that--
       (A) the State court failed to comply with procedures 
     prescribed by law; or
       (B) the failure to dismiss by the State court lacked 
     substantial support in the record before the State court.

     SEC. 6. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; TWO-DISEASE RULE.

       (a) Statute of Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, with respect to any nonmalignant asbestos 
     claim not barred on the effective date of this Act, the 
     limitations period shall not begin to run until the exposed 
     person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable 
     diligence should have discovered, that the exposed person is 
     physically impaired by an asbestos-related nonmalignant 
     condition.
       (b) Two-Disease Rule.--An asbestos claim arising out of a 
     nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action 
     from an asbestos claim relating to the same exposed person 
     arising out of asbestos-related cancer. No damages shall be 
     awarded for fear or risk of cancer in any civil action 
     asserting only a nonmalignant asbestos claim.
       (c) General Releases From Liability Prohibited.--No 
     settlement of a nonmalignant asbestos claim concluded after 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall require, as a 
     condition of settlement, release of any future claim for 
     asbestos-related cancer.

     SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Construction With Other Laws.--This Act shall not be 
     construed to--
       (1) affect the scope or operation of any workers' 
     compensation law or veterans' benefit program;
       (2) affect the exclusive remedy or subrogation provisions 
     of any such law; or
       (3) authorize any lawsuit which is barred by any such 
     provision of law.
       (b) Constitutional Authority.--The Constitutional authority 
     for this Act is contained in Article I, section 8, clause 3 
     and Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and apply to any civil action asserting an asbestos claim 
     in which trial has not commenced as of that date.

                          ____________________