Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 41 (Thursday, March 13, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 41 (Thursday, March 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3732-S3749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Allard, Mr. Miller, and
Mr. Crapo):
S. 611. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
gold, silver, and platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same
manner as stocks and bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains
rate for individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Congress, I introduced the Fair
Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct a flawed capital
gains tax definition, which includes precious metals investments as
``collectibles.'' This simple flaw in the tax code has discouraged
investments in gold and other precious metals for nearly fifteen years.
I rise today to reintroduce the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals
Investors Act to correct this problem.
My State, Nevada, is the third largest producer of gold in the world
behind Australia and South Africa. Largely because of Nevada's exports,
America enjoys a good trade surplus of more than $1 billion. U.S. gold
is purchased around the world in financial markets from London to
Zurich to Hong Kong.
Historically, precious metals investments derived their value from
their rarity. Today, however, precious metals coins and bars are
specifically designed and produced by governments to be used as an
investment vehicle for those commodities similar to stocks and bonds.
My legislation will correct the outdated tax classification of precious
metal bullion and apply to precious metals holdings the same capital
gains tax treatment as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.
In 1997 and 1998, The Taxpayer Relief Act and the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act set two basic types of capital
gains tax rates: short-term capital gains, which are taxed at between
15 and 39.6 percent, and long-term capital gains which are taxed at a
maximum rate of 20 percent. Long-term capital gains attributable to
investments defined as ``collectibles'', (vintage wines, rare coins,
and the like), however, are taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent.
Although precious metal bullion coins are intended to be used as
investments in the precious metals they contain, they are still
classified as ``collectibles'', and are taxed at the 28 percent maximum
rate. The Taxpayer Relief Act allowed precious metal bullion coins held
in IRA accounts to be taxed at the same rate as stocks and other
capital assets. The bill I introduce today would treat all precious
metal investments with the same tax equity.
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. 611

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 ``Fair Treatment for Precious
Metals Investors Act''.

SEC. 2. GOLD, SILVER, AND PLATINUM TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER
AS STOCKS AND BONDS FOR MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS
RATE FOR INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of
collectibles gain and loss) is amended by striking ``without
regard to paragraph (3) thereof'' and inserting ``without
regard to so much of paragraph (3) thereof as relates to
palladium and the bullion requirement for physical possession
by a trustee''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
______

By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 612. A bill to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act.''
This legislation will revise the total acreage within the National
Recreation Area's, NRA, boundary to reflect the actual acreage within
the NRA, and it will also do much to protect the scenic view of Lake
Powell as seen by those traveling along U.S. Highway Route 89.
As enacted into law, the enabling legislation for the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area, inaccurately reflected the acreage within the
NRA boundary. This legislation would correct the acreage ceiling by
estimating the acreage within the NRA to be 1,256,000 instead of
1,236,880.
Secondly, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, to
exchange 320 NRA acres for 152 acres of privately owned land in Kane
County, UT. Currently, Page One L.L.C. owns 152 acres between U.S.
Highway 89 and the southwestern shore of Lake Powell. This private land
provides a breathtaking view of Lake Powell from Highway 89, which is
the main viewshed corridor between the highway and the lake. This land
also encompasses three highway access rights-of-way and a developed
culinary water well. In an effort to protect this viewshed and better
manage its boundaries along its most visited entrance, the National
Park

[[Page S3733]]

Service, NPS, has been negotiating with Page One to exchange 370 acres
of NRA lands for these 152 acres. The approximate value of the NRA
lands is $480,000 whereas the private land's appraised value is
$856,000. Page One has agreed to donate the balance of appraised value
to the NPS.
By authorizing this land exchange, this bill will allow the NPS to
preserve and better manage the corridor between the park and Highway
89, which affords such a scenic view of Lake Powell. This boundary
change would not add any facilities, increase operating costs, or
require additional staff and as such, it will not add to the NPS
maintenance backlog.
Because of the common interest in preserving this scenic corridor
from development, this legislation has garnered the support of the
administration, the Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission, the
National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Utah Planning
Advisory Council. In light of the benefits provided by and community
support for this proposal, I look forward to working with my Senate
colleagues and the administration to pass this legislation this year.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 613. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
construct, lease, or modify major medical facilities at the site of the
former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
facilitate the move of the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
DVAMC, from its present site in Denver to the former Fitzsimons Army
Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. I am pleased to be joined in this
effort by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-
sponsor.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
construct, lease or modify major medical facilities at the site of the
former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. It instructs the Secretary to
work with the Department of Defense in planning a joint Federal project
that would serve the health care needs of active duty Air Force and the
VA. It would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Veterans Affairs of
the Senate and the House of Representatives. This report would detail
the options selected by the Secretary and any information on further
planning needed to carry out the move.
The relocation of the DVAMC to the former Fitzsimons site offers a
unique opportunity to provide the highest quality medical care for our
veterans and certain members of our military. The University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center, UCHSC, is moving its facilities from
its overcrowded location near downtown Denver to the Fitzsimons site, a
decommissioned Army base. The UCHSC and the DVAMC have long operated on
adjacent campuses and have shared faculty, medical residents, and
access to equipment. A DVAMC move to the new location in conjunction
with the DOD would allow such cost-effective cooperation to continue,
for the benefit of our veterans, active duty Air Force members and all
taxpayers.
The need to move is pressing. A recent VA study concludes that the
Colorado State veterans' population will experience one of the highest
percent increases nationally in veterans age 65 and over between 1990
and 2020. The present VA hospital was built in the 1950's. While still
able to provide service, the core facilities are approaching the end of
their useful lives and many of the patient care units have fallen
horribly out of date. Studies indicate that co-location with the
University on a state-of-the-art medical campus would be a cost
effective way to give veterans and active duty Air Force members in the
region the highest quality of care. The move would also provide a
tremendous opportunity to showcase a nationwide model of cooperation
between the University, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the
Department of Defense.
The VA needs to move quickly. Assisting our veterans with their
medical needs is a promise we, as a country, made long ago.
The savings we can realize by approving the timely transfer of our
veterans' medical treatment facilities in the Denver region compels me
to urge my colleagues to act quickly on this bill. We must not miss out
on this opportunity to serve America's veterans and their families by
ensuring that they receive the excellent medical care they deserve.
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. 613

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 ``Veterans' New Fitzsimons
Health Care Facilities Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS,
FORMER FITZSIMONS ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, AURORA,
COLORADO.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
carry out major medical facility projects under section 8104
of title 38, United States Code, at the site of the former
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. Projects to
be carried out at such site shall be selected by the
Secretary and may include inpatient and outpatient facilities
providing acute, sub-acute, primary, and long-term care
services. Project costs shall be limited to an amount not to
exceed a total of $300,000,000 if a combination of direct
construction by the Department of Veterans Affairs and
capital leasing is selected under subsection (b) and no more
than $30,000,000 per year in capital leasing costs if a
leasing option is selected as the sole option under
subsection (b).
(b) Selection of Capital Option.--The Secretary of Veterans
shall select the capital option to carry out the authority
provided in subsection (a) of either--
(1) direct construction by the Department of Veterans
Affairs or a combination of direct construction and capital
leasing; or
(2) capital leasing alone.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for
fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 for ``Construction,
Major Projects'' for the purposes authorized in subsection
(a)--
(1) a total of $300,000,000, if direct construction, or a
combination of direct construction and capital leasing, is
chosen pursuant to subsection (b) for purposes of the
projects authorized in subsection (a); and
(2) $30,000,000 for each such fiscal year, if capital
leasing alone is chosen pursuant to subsection (b) for
purposes of the projects authorized in subsection (a).
(d) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (a)
may only be carried out using--
(1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2004, 2005, 2006, or
2007 pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in
subsection (a);
(2) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2004 that remain
available for obligation; and
(3) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for fiscal year 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 for a category of
activity not specific to a project.
(e) Report to Congressional Committees.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations
and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and
House of Representatives a report on this section. The report
shall include notice of the option selected by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (b) to carry out the authority
provided by subsection (a), information on any further
planning required to carry out the authority provided in
subsection (a), and other information of assistance to the
committees with respect to such authority.

SEC. 3. JOINT ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF
VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE AIR FORCE.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the
Air Force shall undertake such joint activities as the
Secretaries consider appropriate to address the health care
needs of veterans and members of the Air Force on active
duty.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 616. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the
quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting the use of mercury
fever thermometers and improving the collection and proper management
of mercury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mercury
Reduction Act of 2003. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators
Jeffords,

[[Page S3734]]

Chafee, Kerry, Hutchison, Reed, Lieberman, Voinovich, Dorgan, and Leahy
have joined me in this initiative. Our legislation addresses the very
serious problems of mercury in the environment and mercury disposal. It
takes special aim at one of the most common and widely distributed
sources of mercury mercury fever thermometers while also for the first
time creating a nationwide policy for dealing with surplus mercury.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment
and particularly harmful to developing children. In fact, according to
a draft report recently released by the EPA, approximately 5 million
American women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their
bloodstream above safe levels. Tragically, the children of these women
will have an elevated risk of birth defects.
When mercury enters the environment, it takes on a highly toxic
organic form known as methylmercury. Methylmercury is almost completely
absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the
brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in the food chain and become
concentrated in some species of fish, posing a health threat to some
people who consume them. For this reason, 40 States have issued
freshwater fish advisories that warn certain individuals to restrict or
avoid consuming fish from affected bodies of water.
One prevalent source of mercury in the environment is from mercury
fever thermometers. Many of us know from personal experience that they
are easily broken. In fact, in 1998 the American Poison Control Center
received 18,000 phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury
thermometers.
One mercury thermometer contains a little under one gram of mercury.
Despite its small size, the mercury in one thermometer, if it were
released annually into the environment, is enough to contaminate all
the fish in a 20-acre lake.
The bill we are introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the
sale of mercury fever thermometers. It would also provide grants for
swap programs to help consumers exchange mercury thermometers for
digital or other alternatives.
Our legislation would allow millions of consumers across the Nation
to receive free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury
thermometers. By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal,
consumers will ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end
up polluting our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce
the risk of breakage and contamination inside the home.
An important component of our bill is the safe disposal of the
mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs, which are
increasingly popular in communities throughout our country. I want to
make sure that we are actually removing surplus mercury from the
environment and from commerce, rather than simply recycling it. It
obviously does little good to collect all this mercury from thermometer
exchange programs if it is going to be recycled into new products and
put back into commerce and eventually into our environment. This bill
directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and
stored in order to keep it out of the environment and out of
commerce. Once the mercury is collected, my intention is it will never
again be able to pose a threat to the health of our children.

The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs is only part
of the problem. There is a bigger problem, and that is the global
circulation of mercury. Let me give an example. When the HoltraChem
manufacturing plant in Orrington, ME, shut down a few years ago, the
plant was left with over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no known way
to permanently and safely dispose of it. In total, about 3,000 tons of
mercury is held at similar plants across the country.
Yet despite this surplus mercury, large amounts of mercury are still
being mined around the world. In addition, the Department of Defense
currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of surplus mercury it does
not know what to do with and for which it does not have any use.
In view of these facts, why are Algeria and other countries still
mining huge amounts of an element that is a known neurotoxin, when the
United States and other countries are doing their best to remove this
extremely toxic element from the environment? How will the United
States dispose of the huge amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants
and other sources that no longer are understood?
Our bill would create an interchange task force to address these very
questions. The task force would be chaired by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and would be comprised of members from
other Federal agencies involved with mercury. Our legislation directs
this task force to find ways to reduce the mercury threat to humans and
to our environment, to identify long-term means of disposing of mercury
safely and properly, and to address the excess mercury problems from
mines as well as industrial sources. This task force would also be
directed to identify comprehensive solutions to the global mercury
problem. One year from the creation of this task force, it would be
required to submit its recommendations to the Congress for permanently
disposing of mercury and for reducing the amount of new mercury mined
every year.
In the meantime, this legislation would make significant progress
toward reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury
contamination in the environment, a source that is found in many of our
homes; that is, the mercury thermometer. Perhaps even more important,
this legislation would, for the first time ever, establish a national
policy, which is what we need to deal with surplus mercury in order to
protect our environment in the long term, as well as our health, and
particularly the health of developing children, from this highly toxic
element.
I hope many more of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this
legislation and that it will be signed into law this year.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Ms.
Landrieu, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 617. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No
Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 legislation that will right
an ongoing injustice experienced by 600,000 American citizens--the
citizens of the District of Columbia--who have historically been denied
voting representation in Congress.
This injustice is felt directly by District residents, but it is also
a stain on the fabric of our democracy for the Nation as a whole. By
now, we should all understand that the vote is a civic entitlement of
every American citizen. It is democracy's most essential right, our
most useful tool.
I am proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of this bill, which
Congresswoman Norton is also today introducing in the House. I am
delighted that Senator Feingold, who has worked with me for two years
on this legislation, is joining me again as an original sponsor, as are
Senators Daschle, Durbin, Mikulski, Schumer, Kennedy, Dodd, Landrieu
and Kerry. The aim of the legislation is simple: It would provide full
voting representation in Congress--through two senators and a member of
the House--to citizens of the District, providing to them the same
rights to participate in our democracy as citizens in the 50 States.
Despite this bill's title, it would not exempt residents of the
District from paying income taxes.
Last year, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired,
held a hearing on this issue in May. It was the first time since 1994
that Congress had held a hearing on the issue. Five months later, in
October, the Committee reported out legislation identical to the bill
we introduce today. I am proud that we progressed as far as we did last
year. Unfortunately it was not far enough.
Today, I think it is particularly ironic--though painfully so--that
we are introducing this legislation as the Nation stands on the brink
of a decision

[[Page S3735]]

about war with Iraq to protect our national security. If war does come,
citizens of Washington D.C. will serve their fellow Americans with
pride, as they have in every previous war. In fact, the District
suffered more casualties in Vietnam than the citizens of 10 states.
Furthermore, over 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen and women from
the District have already been called upon to help in the war on
terrorism. Yet--to our shame--D.C. citizens cannot choose
representatives to the legislature that governs them. There is
something wrong with this picture.
The people of this city have also been the direct target of
terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a
vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security.
Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like everyone else.
Actually, they pay more. Per capita, District residents have the second
highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no say in how high
those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent.
They fight and die and pay for our democracy, but they cannot
participate fully in it. How can we countenance this? How can we
promote democracy abroad effectively while denying it to hundreds of
thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital?
The citizens who live in our Nation's Capital deserve more than a
nonvoting delegate
in the House. Notwithstanding the strong service of the Honorable
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and her ability to vote in
committee, a representative without the power to vote on the floor of
the House simply isn't good enough.
Prior to the District's establishment in 1790, residents of the area
who were eligible to vote had full representation in Congress. When the
framers of the Constitution placed our Capital under the jurisdiction
of the Congress, they placed with Congress the responsibility of
ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights would be protected in the future,
just as Congress should protect the rights of all citizens throughout
the land. For more than 200 years, Congress has failed to meet this
obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to make D.C. citizens wait
another 200 years.
Today, no other democratic nation denies the residents of its capital
representation in the national legislature. What must visitors from
around the world think when they come to see our beautiful landmarks,
our monuments, and our Capitol dome--proud symbols of the world's
leading democracy--only to learn that the citizens of this city have no
voice in Congress? What would we do if the residents of Boston,
Nashville, Denver, Seattle, or El Paso had no voting rights? All those
cities are roughly the same size as Washington, D.C.--and I know we as
a Nation wouldn't let their citizens go voiceless in the Congress.
Incredibly, the vast majority of Americans already believe that D.C.
residents have voting representation in the Congress. When they are
informed that they don't, 80 percent of Americans, according to one
poll, say that they should. That is overwhelming support and by
righting this wrong, we will be following the will of the American
people.
The people of the District of Columbia have been without this key
right for far too long. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 618. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign
to reintroduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. Last year
the Senate unanimously passed this bill, which will at last release
funds the United States has held in trust for the Western Shoshone
people for over 24 years. Unfortunately the House was unable to
complete its consideration of the bill before the last Congress
adjourned.
Historically, the Western Shoshone people have resided on land within
the central portion of Nevada and parts of California, Idaho, and Utah.
For more than a hundred years, the Western Shoshone have not received a
fair compensation for the loss of their tribal land and resources. In
1946 the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate Indians
for lands and resources taken from them by the United States. In 1962
the commission determined that the Western Shoshone land had been taken
through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977 the commission awarded the
tribe in excess of $26 million dollars. The United States Supreme Court
has upheld the commission's award. It was not until 1979 that the
United States appropriated over $26 million dollars to reimburse the
descendents of these tribes for their loss.
The Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third of the tribal
members are unemployed; for many of those who do have jobs, it is a
struggle to live from paycheck to the next. Wood stoves often provide
the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like other American
Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be disproportionately
affected by poverty and low educational attainment. The high school
completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 20 and 24 is
dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate that is 12.5
percent higher than the rest of the National. For the Western Shoshone,
the money contained in the settlement funds could lead to drastic
lifestyle improvements.
After 24 years the judgment funds still remain in the United States
Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a single penny of this
money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty-four years, the
original trust fund has grown to well over $121 million dollars. It is
the past time that this money should be delivered into the hands of its
owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee has officially
requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this distribution.
It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast
majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an
immediate distribution of their money.
This Act will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone tribal
members and ensure that future generations of Western Shoshone will be
able to enjoy the benefit of the distribution in perpetuity. Through
the establishment of a tribally controlled grant trust fund, individual
members of the Western Shoshone will be able to apply for money for
education and other needs within limits set by a self-appointed
committee of tribal members. I will continue my ongoing work with the
members of the Western Shoshone and the Department of Interior to help
resolve any current land issues.
It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim
distributed without further delay. They have already voted twice to
firmly and decisively voice their interests. Members of the Western
Shoshone gathered in Fallon and Elko, NV in May of 1998. They cast a
vote overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported
the distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. Again on
June 2002 they cast a vote overwhelmingly in support of the
distribution of the judgment funds at a rate of 100 percent per capita.
1,647 Western Shoshone voted in favor of the distribution of the funds;
only 156 opposed. I rise today in support and recognition of their
decision. The final distribution of this fund has lingered for more
than twenty years. During the 107th Congress, the Indian Affairs
Committee approved and the full Senate unanimously passed this bill. It
is clear that the best interests of the Tribe will not be served by
prolonging their wait. Twenty-four years has been more than long
enough. I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 618

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 ``Western Shoshone Claims
Distribution Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the
administrative committee established under section 4(c)(1).
(2) Western shoshone joint judgment funds.--The term
``Western Shoshone joint judgment funds'' means--

[[Page S3736]]

(A) the funds appropriated in satisfaction of the judgment
awards granted to the Western Shoshone Indians in Docket
Numbers 326-A-1 and 326-A-3 before the United States Court of
Claims; and
(B) all interest earned on those funds.
(3) Western shoshone judgment funds.--The term ``Western
Shoshone judgment funds'' means--
(A) the funds appropriated in satisfaction of the judgment
award granted to the Western Shoshone Indians in Docket
Number 326-K before the Indian Claims Commission; and
(B) all interest earned on those funds.
(4) Judgment roll.--The term ``judgment roll'' means the
Western Shoshone judgment roll established by the Secretary
under section 3(b)(1).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Western
Shoshone Educational Trust Fund established under section
4(b)(1).
(7) Western shoshone member.--The term ``Western Shoshone
member'' means an individual who--
(A)(i) appears on the judgment roll; or
(ii) is the lineal descendant of an individual appearing on
the roll; and
(B)(i) satisfies all eligibility criteria established by
the Committee under section 4(c)(4)(D)(iii);
(ii) meets any application requirements established by the
Committee; and
(iii) agrees to use funds distributed in accordance with
section 4(b)(2)(B) for educational purposes approved by the
Committee.

SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN SHOSHONE JUDGMENT FUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Western Shoshone judgment funds shall
be distributed in accordance with this section.
(b) Judgment Roll.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Western
Shoshone judgment roll consisting of all individuals who--
(A) have at least \1/4\ degree of Western Shoshone blood;
(B) are citizens of the United States; and
(C) are living on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Ineligible individuals.--Any individual that is
certified by the Secretary to be eligible to receive a per
capita payment from any other judgment fund awarded by the
Indian Claims Commission, the United States Claims Court, or
the United States Court of Federal Claims, that was
appropriated on or before the date of enactment of this Act,
shall not be listed on the judgment roll.
(3) Regulations regarding judgment roll.--The Secretary
shall--
(A) publish in the Federal Register all regulations
governing the establishment of the judgment roll; and
(B) use any documents acceptable to the Secretary in
establishing proof of eligibility of an individual to--
(i) be listed on the judgment roll; and
(ii) receive a per capita payment under this Act.
(4) Finality of determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on an application of an individual to be listed on
the judgment roll shall be final.
(c) Distribution.--
(1) In general.--On establishment of the judgment roll, the
Secretary shall make a per capita distribution of 100 percent
of the Western Shoshone judgment funds, in shares as equal as
practicable, to each person listed on the judgment roll.
(2) Requirements for distribution payments.--
(A) Living competent individuals.--The per capita share of
a living, competent individual who is 19 years or older on
the date of distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment
funds under paragraph (1) shall be paid directly to the
individual.
(B) Living, legally incompetent individuals.--The per
capita share of a living, legally incompetent individual
shall be administered in accordance with regulations
promulgated and procedures established by the Secretary under
section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or
Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)).
(C) Deceased individuals.--The per capita share of an
individual who is deceased as of the date of distribution of
the Western Shoshone judgment funds under paragraph (1) shall
be paid to the heirs and legatees of the individual in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
(D) Individuals under the age of 19.--The per capita share
of an individual who is not yet 19 years of age on the date
of distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment funds under
paragraph (1) shall be--
(i) held by the Secretary in a supervised individual Indian
money account; and
(ii) distributed to the individual--

(I) after the individual has reached the age of 18 years;
and
(II) in 4 equal payments (including interest earned on the
per capita share), to be made--

(aa) with respect to the first payment, on the eighteenth
birthday of the individual (or, if the individual is already
18 years of age, as soon as practicable after the date of
establishment of the Indian money account of the individual);
and
(bb) with respect to the 3 remaining payments, not later
than 90 days after each of the 3 subsequent birthdays of the
individual.
(3) Applicable law.--Notwithstanding section 7 of the
Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25
U.S.C. 1407), a per capita share (or the availability of that
share) paid under this section shall not--
(A) be subject to Federal or State income taxation;
(B) be considered to be income or resources for any
purpose; or
(C) be used as a basis for denying or reducing financial
assistance or any other benefit to which a household or
Western Shoshone member would otherwise be entitled to
receive under--
(i) the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
(ii) any other Federal or federally-assisted program.
(4) Unpaid funds.--The Secretary shall add to the Western
Shoshone joint judgment funds held in the Trust Fund under
section 4(b)(1)--
(A) all per capita shares (including interest earned on
those shares) of living competent adults listed on the
judgment roll that remain unpaid as of the date that is--
(i) 6 years after the date of distribution of the Western
Shoshone judgment funds under paragraph (1); or
(ii) in the case of an individual described in paragraph
(2)(D), 6 years after the date on which the individual
reaches 18 years of age; and
(B) any other residual principal and interest funds
remaining after the distribution under paragraph (1) is
complete.

SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN SHOSHONE JOINT JUDGMENT
FUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Western Shoshone joint judgment funds
shall be distributed in accordance with this section.
(b) Western Shoshone Educational Trust Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish in
the Treasury of the United States, for the benefit of Western
Shoshone members, a trust fund to be known as the ``Western
Shoshone Educational Trust Fund'', consisting of--
(A) the Western Shoshone joint judgment funds; and
(B) the funds added under in section 3(b)(4).
(2) Amounts in trust fund.--With respect to amounts in the
Trust fund--
(A) the principal amount--
(i) shall not be expended or disbursed; and
(ii) shall be invested in accordance with section 1 of the
Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a); and
(B) all interest income earned on the principal amount
after the date of establishment of the Trust fund--
(i) shall be distributed by the Committee--

(I) to Western Shoshone members in accordance with this
Act, to be used as educational grants or for other forms of
educational assistance determined appropriate by the
Committee; and
(II) to pay the reasonable and necessary expenses of the
Committee (as defined in the written rules and procedures of
the Committee); but

(ii) shall not be distributed under this paragraph on a per
capita basis.
(c) Administrative Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established an administrative
committee to oversee the distribution of educational grants
and assistance under subsection (b)(2).
(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of 7
members, of which--
(A) 1 member shall represent the Western Shoshone Te-Moak
Tribe and be appointed by that Tribe;
(B) 1 member shall represent the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
and be appointed by that Tribe;
(C) 1 member shall represent the Yomba Shoshone Tribe and
be appointed by that Tribe;
(D) 1 member shall represent the Ely Shoshone Tribe and be
appointed by that Tribe;
(E) 1 member shall represent the Western Shoshone Committee
of the Duck Valley Reservation and be appointed by that
Committee;
(F) 1 member shall represent the Fallon Band of Western
Shoshone and be appointed by that Band; and
(G) 1 member shall represent the general public and be
appointed by the Secretary.
(3) Term.--
(A) In general.--Each member of the Committee shall serve a
term of 4 years.
(B) Vacancies.--If a vacancy remains unfilled in the
membership of the Committee for a period of more than 60
days--
(i) the Committee shall appoint a temporary replacement
from among qualified members of the organization for which
the replacement is being made; and
(ii) that member shall serve until such time as the
organization (or, in the case of a member described in
paragraph (2)(G), the Secretary) designates a permanent
replacement.
(4) Duties.--The Committee shall--
(A) distribute interest funds from the Trust Fund under
subsection (b)(2)(B)(i);
(B) for each fiscal year, compile a list of names of all
individuals approved to receive those funds;
(C) ensure that those funds are used in a manner consistent
with this Act;
(D) develop written rules and procedures, subject to the
approval of the Secretary, that cover such matters as--
(i) operating procedures;
(ii) rules of conduct;
(iii) eligibility criteria for receipt of funds under
subsection (b)(2)(B)(i);
(iv) application selection procedures;
(v) procedures for appeals to decisions of the Committee;
(vi) fund disbursement procedures; and

[[Page S3737]]

(vii) fund recoupment procedures;
(E) carry out financial management in accordance with
paragraph (6); and
(F) in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii), use a
portion of the interest funds from the Trust Fund to pay the
reasonable and necessary expenses of the Committee (including
per diem rates for attendance at meetings that are equal to
those paid to Federal employees in the same geographic
location), except that not more than $100,000 of those funds
may be used to develop written rules and procedures described
in subparagraph (D).
(5) Jurisdiction of tribal courts.--At the discretion of
the Committee and with the approval of the appropriate tribal
government, a tribal court, or a court of Indian offenses
operated under section 11 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation), shall have
jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the
Committee.
(6) Financial management.--
(A) Financial statement.--The Committee shall employ an
independent certified public accountant to prepare a
financial statement for each fiscal year that discloses--
(i) the operating expenses of the Committee for the fiscal
year; and
(ii) the total amount of funds disbursed under subsection
(b)(2)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
(B) Distribution of information.--For each fiscal year, the
Committee shall provide to the Secretary, to each
organization represented on the Committee, and, on the
request of a Western Shoshone member, to the Western Shoshone
member, a copy of--
(i) the financial statement prepared under subparagraph
(A); and
(ii) the list of names compiled under paragraph (4)(B).
(d) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Committee on the management and investment of the funds
distributed under this section.

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Levin):
S. 620. A bill to amend title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965
to provide for fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression or
prevention technologies, in public and private college and university
housing and dormitories, including fraternity and sorority housing and
dormitories; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Mr.
Lautenburg and Mr. Levin to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention
Act. This measure would provide Federal matching grants for the
installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is
now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our
children's college living facilities.
The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday,
January 19th, 2000, will not be forgotten. Three freshmen, all 18 years
old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two
South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall,
was a six-story, 350-room structure built in 1952 that housed
approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to
the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with
smoke alarms but no sprinkler system.
Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind.
And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic
experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation
Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and
injured three others. The three-story fraternity house was 70 years
old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several
factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire
sprinkler protection.
Sadly, dorm fires are not rare. On December 9, 1997, a student died
in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, IL. The
dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire
sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University
of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire
sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997, a student died in a dormitory
fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, MO. On
October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in
Bloomsburg, PA. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980
and 1998, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were
an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities,
involving one death, 70 injuries, and $8 million in property damage.
So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these
tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults?
We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives.
Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not
have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced
safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are
rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent
of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in
buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34
percent of them had fire sprinklers present.
At my State's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only
14 of the 33 residence halls have sprinklers. Only 3 of 9 dorms at
North Carolina Central University are equipped with the life-saving
devices, and there are sprinklers in 4 of the 18 dorms at the
University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of
Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration,
to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities,
fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler
systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would
be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost of
the project. This legislation authorizes $80 million for fiscal years
2004 through 2008.
In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install
sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost
is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North
Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I
think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is
just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small
incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive
review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they
need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can
help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives.
Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire
traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them
to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep,
burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise
on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill wrote me: ``Every
year, parents send their children off to college seeking an education
unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing their children is the
fire hazards associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority
houses and other forms of student housing . . . The only complete
answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire sprinkler
systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our
college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has been
endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association. I ask all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank
you.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and the
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
March 4, 2003.
Hon. John Edwards,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Senator Edwards: On behalf of the National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) and our 70,000 members, I want to thank
you for introducing the College Fire Prevention Act. We are
pleased to support your legislative efforts to provide
federal assistance for the installation of fire sprinkler
systems in college and university housing and dormitories.
Each year, an estimated 1,800 fires occur in dormitories
and fraternity and sorority houses. These fires are
responsible for an average of one death, seventy injuries and
over $8 million in property damage. Of these fires, only 35%
had fire sprinkler systems present.

[[Page S3738]]

As you know, in your home state of North Carolina, a tragic
fire on Mother's Day in 1996 killed five students in a
fraternity house.
Our statistics show that properly installed and maintained
fire sprinkler systems have a proven track records of
protecting lives and property in all types of occupancies. In
particular, the retrofitting of fire sprinkler systems in
college and university housing will greatly improve the
safety of these public and private institutions.
Thank you for your leadership on this crucial issue. NFPA
is ready to assist in any way to see this legislation passed.
Sincerely,
John C. Biechman,
Vice-President, Government Affairs.
____

Chapel Hill Fire Department, Chapel Hill, NC, March 12, 2003.
Senator John Edwards,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Edwards: One of the most under addressed fire
safety problems in America today is university and college
student housing. Every year, parents send their children off
to college seeking an education unaware that one of the
greatest dangers facing their children is the fire hazards
associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses
and other forms of student housing. We in Chapel Hill
experienced a worst-case scenario, when in 1996 a fire in a
fraternity house on Mother's Day/Graduation Day claimed five
young lives and injured three more. We recognized the only
complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install
fire sprinkler systems.
I had the privilege of reading a draft copy of your
proposed legislation amending the Higher Education Act of
1965 to create a matching grants program supporting the
lifesaving step of installing fire sprinkler systems in
student housing. I strongly urge you to introduce this
legislation and I pledge to assist you in promoting this
important Bill. Your proposed legislation is the only real
solution to the fire threat in student housing. Higher
education cannot prepare our young people to contribure to
society if they do not survive the experience.
After thirteen years of being responsible for fire
protection at the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill,
I am convinced that where students reside, alarms systems are
not enough, clear exit ways are not enough, quick fire
department response is not enough and educational programs
are not enough. The only way you can insure fire safety for
college student housing is to place a fire sprinkler system
over them. Thank you for recognizing the magnitude of this
threat and for proposing a solution to it.
Tell me how we can help.
Sincerely,
Daniel Jones,
Fire Chief.

S. 620

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

SECTION 1. COLLEGE FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

Title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1133 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART E--COLLEGE FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE

``SEC. 771. SHORT TITLE.

``This part may be cited as the `College Fire Prevention
Act'.

``SEC 772. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire occurred at a
Seton Hall University dormitory. Three male freshmen, all 18
years of age, died. Fifty-four students, 2 South Orange
firefighters, and 2 South Orange police officers were
injured. The dormitory was a 6-story, 350-room structure
built in 1952, that housed approximately 600 students. It was
equipped with smoke alarms but no fire sprinkler system.
``(2) On Mother's Day 1996 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House killed 5
college juniors and injured 3. The 3-story plus basement
fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire
Protection Association identified several factors that
contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire
sprinkler protection.
``(3) It is estimated that between 1980 and 1998, an
average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and
sororities, involving 1 death, 70 injuries, and $8,000,000 in
property damage were reported to public fire departments.
``(4) Within dormitories, fraternities, and sororities the
number 1 cause of fires is arson or suspected arson. The
second leading cause of college building fires is cooking,
while the third leading cause is smoking.
``(5) New dormitories are generally required to have
advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such
requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing
buildings.
``(6) In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires
reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where
there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent had
fire sprinklers present.

``SEC. 773. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $80,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008.

``SEC. 774. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the United States Fire Administration, is authorized to
award grants to States, private or public colleges or
universities, fraternities, and sororities to assist them in
providing fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression
or prevention technologies, for their student housing and
dormitories.
``(b) Matching Funds Requirement.--The Secretary may not
award a grant under this section unless the entity receiving
the grant provides, from State, local, or private sources,
matching funds in an amount equal to not less than one-half
of the cost of the activities for which assistance is sought.

``SEC. 775. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Application.--Each entity desiring a grant under this
part shall submit to the Secretary an application at such
time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this part, the
Secretary shall give priority to applicants that demonstrate
in the application submitted under subsection (a) the
inability to fund the sprinkler system, or other fire
suppression or prevention technology, from sources other than
funds provided under this part.
``(c) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--An entity
that receives a grant under this part shall not use more than
4 percent of the grant funds for administrative expenses.

``SEC. 776. DATA AND REPORT.

``The Comptroller General shall--
``(1) gather data on the number of college and university
housing facilities and dormitories that have and do not have
fire sprinkler systems and other fire suppression or
prevention technologies; and
``(2) report such data to Congress.

``SEC. 777. ADMISSIBILITY.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
application for assistance under this part, any negative
determination on the part of the Secretary with respect to
such application, or any statement of reasons for the
determination, shall not be admissible as evidence in any
proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity.''.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 621. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to allow
qualifying States to use allotments under the State children's health
insurance program for expenditures under the Medicaid program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Cantwell entitled the
``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill addresses an
inequity that was created during the establishment of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized
certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid
coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill.
While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and
``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new
CHIP funding for the children of their respective States, the
legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico, Vermont,
and Washington, among others. This had the effect of penalizing a
certain group of States for having done the right thing.
The ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' addresses this inequity
by allowing those States, which had expanded coverage to children up to
185 percent of poverty by April 15, 1997, before the enactment of CHIP,
to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of
those children covered by Medicaid above 133 percent of poverty--
putting them on a more level field with all other States in the
country.
As you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to
establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and
provide $48 billion over ten years as an incentive to States to provide
health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent
of poverty or beyond.
During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997,
Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain States
were already undertaking Medicaid or separate State-run expansions of
coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that
they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes.
The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York,
and Pennsylvania to convert their separate State-run programs into CHIP
expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through
Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding
for their expansions.

[[Page S3739]]

Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar
expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for
their expansions. This created an inequity among the States where some
were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP
and others were denied. Therefore, our bill addresses this inequity.
New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to
children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment
of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age
18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After
CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235
percent of poverty--above the level of the vast majority of states
across the country.
Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated
$266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has
only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last
fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less
than 10 percent of its federal CHIP allocations.
New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its
expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to
the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP
as other comparable states were.
The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous.
According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000
uninsured children. In other words, almost 21 percent of all the
children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has
expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the second
highest rate of uninsured children in the country.
This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the
uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty.
These children are, consequently, often eligible for Medicaid but
currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between
185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all
of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New
Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.
Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many States are accessing
their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New
Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those
States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than
the children of New Mexico.
As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association
reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative
states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before
the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these
goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding
flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage
to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''
Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity.
The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended
consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children
currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States,
including Washington and Vermont.
Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA
that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong
maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to
conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to
find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must
receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.
The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other
states across the country are doing.
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. 621

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 ``Children's Health Equity Act
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE SCHIP FUNDS
FOR MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.

Section 2105 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Certain Funds
for Medicaid Expenditures.--
``(1) State option.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to fiscal years in which allotments for a
fiscal year under section 2104 (beginning with fiscal year
1998) are available under subsections (e) and (g) of that
section, a qualifying State (as defined in paragraph (2)) may
elect to use such allotments (instead of for expenditures
under this title) for payments for such fiscal year under
title XIX in accordance with subparagraph (B).
``(B) Payments to states.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a qualifying State that
has elected the option described in subparagraph (A), subject
to the total amount of funds described with respect to the
State in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall pay the State
an amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that
would have been paid to the State under title XIX for
expenditures of the State for the fiscal year described in
clause (ii) if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under
subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical
assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)) of such
expenditures.
``(ii) Expenditures described.--For purposes of clause (i),
the expenditures described in this clause are expenditures
for such fiscal years for providing medical assistance under
title XIX to individuals who have not attained age 19 and
whose family income exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line.
``(iii) No impact on determination of budget neutrality for
waivers.--In the case of a qualifying State that uses amounts
paid under this subsection for expenditures described in
clause (ii) that are incurred under a waiver approved for the
State, any budget neutrality determinations with respect to
such waiver shall be determined without regard to such
amounts paid.
``(2) Qualifying state.--In this subsection, the term
`qualifying State' means a State that--
``(A) as of April 15, 1997, has an income eligibility
standard with respect to any 1 or more categories of children
(other than infants) who are eligible for medical assistance
under section 1902(a)(10)(A) or under a waiver under section
1115 implemented on January 1, 1994, that is up to 185
percent of the poverty line or above; and
``(B) satisfies the requirements described in paragraph
(3).
``(3) Requirements.--The requirements described in this
paragraph are the following:
``(A) SCHIP income eligibility.--The State has a State
child health plan that (whether implemented under title XIX
or this title)--
``(i) as of January 1, 2001, has an income eligibility
standard that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line or
has an income eligibility standard that exceeds 200 percent
of the poverty line under a waiver under section 1115 that is
based on a child's lack of health insurance;
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the
acceptance of applications for children; and
``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who
apply for and meet eligibility standards on a statewide
basis.
``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children
whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation,
waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of
such children for child health assistance under such State
plan.
``(C) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented
at least 3 of the following policies and procedures (relating
to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):
``(i) Uniform, simplified application form.--With respect
to children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State uses the same uniform,
simplified application form (including, if applicable,
permitting application other than in person) for purposes of
establishing eligibility for benefits under title XIX and
this title.
``(ii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply
any asset test for eligibility under section 1902(l) or this
title with respect to children.
``(iii) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The
State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly
redetermined more often than once every year under this title
or for children described in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
``(iv) Same verification and redetermination policies;
automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to
children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial
eligibility determinations and redeterminations of
eligibility using the same verification policies (including
with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and
frequency as the State uses for such purposes

[[Page S3740]]

under this title, and, as part of such redeterminations,
provides for the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of
such children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
``(v) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides
for the receipt and initial processing of applications for
benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at
facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under
section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers
described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section
1902(a)(55).''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Bunning, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ensign, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Reed, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Miller, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Biden, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 622. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide families of disabled children with the opportunity to purchase
coverage under the medicaid program for such children, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to
announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill
to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the
country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and
appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care
needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental
retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness.
Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family
health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't
adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their
child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care
services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements,
and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program
for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that
best meets the needs of children with disabilities, it can become a
lifeline on which many parents depend.
Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in
order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and
middle income families who have a child with special health care needs:
they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst
cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody
for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so
desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a
parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need.
Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two
daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The
family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored
health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down-
sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000
on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job;
unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month
and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The
family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's
earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses
puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty
level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is
being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their
disabled child.
Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and
Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on
behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than
70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I
understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care
system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these
families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year.
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. 622

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT;
TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family
Opportunity Act of 2003'' or the ``Dylan Lee James Act''.
(b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is
expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to that section or other provision of the Social
Security Act.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; table of
contents.
Sec. 2. Opportunity for families of disabled children to purchase
medicaid coverage for such children.
Sec. 3. Treatment of inpatient psychiatric hospital services for
individuals under age 21 in home or community-based
services waivers.
Sec. 4. Development and support of family-to-family health information
centers.
Sec. 5. Restoration of medicaid eligibility for certain SSI
beneficiaries.

SEC. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR FAMILIES OF DISABLED CHILDREN TO
PURCHASE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR SUCH CHILDREN.

(a) State Option To Allow Families of Disabled Children To
Purchase Medicaid Coverage for Such Children.--
(1) In general.--Section 1902 (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVII);
(ii) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclause:

``(XIX) who are disabled children described in subsection
(cc)(1);''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(cc)(1) Individuals described in this paragraph are
individuals--
``(A) who have not attained 18 years of age;
``(B) who would be considered disabled under section
1614(a)(3)(C) but for having earnings or deemed income or
resources (as determined under title XVI for children) that
exceed the requirements for receipt of supplemental security
income benefits; and
``(C) whose family income does not exceed such income level
as the State establishes and does not exceed--
``(i) 250 percent of the income official poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of
the size involved; or
``(ii) such higher percent of such poverty line as a State
may establish, except that--
``(I) any medical assistance provided to an individual
whose family income exceeds 250 percent of such poverty line
may only be provided with State funds; and
``(II) no Federal financial participation shall be provided
under section 1903(a) for any medical assistance provided to
such an individual.''.
(2) Interaction with employer-sponsored family coverage.--
Section 1902(cc) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(cc)), as added by paragraph
(1)(B), is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(2)(A) If an employer of a parent of an individual
described in paragraph (1) offers family coverage under a
group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of the
Public Health Service Act), the State shall--
``(i) require such parent to apply for, enroll in, and pay
premiums for, such coverage as a condition of such parent's
child being or remaining eligible for medical assistance
under subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX) if the parent is
determined eligible for such coverage and the employer
contributes at least 50 percent of the total cost of annual
premiums for such coverage; and
``(ii) if such coverage is obtained--
``(I) subject to paragraph (2) of section 1916(h), reduce
the premium imposed by the State under that section in an
amount that reasonably reflects the premium contribution made
by the parent for private coverage on behalf of a child with
a disability; and
``(II) treat such coverage as a third party liability under
subsection (a)(25).
``(B) In the case of a parent to which subparagraph (A)
applies, a State, subject to paragraph (1)(C)(ii), may
provide for payment of any portion of the annual premium

[[Page S3741]]

for such family coverage that the parent is required to pay.
Any payments made by the State under this subparagraph shall
be considered, for purposes of section 1903(a), to be
payments for medical assistance.''.
(b) State Option To Impose Income-Related Premiums.--
Section 1916 (42 U.S.C. 1396o) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (g)'' and
inserting ``subsections (g) and (h)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h)(1) With respect to disabled children provided medical
assistance under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX), subject to
paragraph (2), a State may (in a uniform manner for such
children) require the families of such children to pay
monthly premiums set on a sliding scale based on family
income.
``(2) A premium requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may
only apply to the extent that--
``(A) the aggregate amount of such premium and any premium
that the parent is required to pay for family coverage under
section 1902(cc)(2)(A)(i) does not exceed 5 percent of the
family's income; and
``(B) the requirement is imposed consistent with section
1902(cc)(2)(A)(ii)(I).
``(3) A State shall not require prepayment of a premium
imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall not terminate
eligibility of a child under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX)
for medical assistance under this title on the basis of
failure to pay any such premium until such failure continues
for a period of not less than 60 days from the date on which
the premium became past due. The State may waive payment of
any such premium in any case where the State determines that
requiring such payment would create an undue hardship.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1903(f)(4) (42 U.S.C.
1396b(f)(4)) is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX),'' after
``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII),''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to medical assistance for items and services
furnished on or after October 1, 2005.

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SERVICES
FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 21 IN HOME OR
COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES WAIVERS.

(a) In General.--Section 1915(c) (42 U.S.C. 1396n(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, or would
require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for
individuals under age 21,'' after ``intermediate care
facility for the mentally retarded''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or would
require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for
individuals under age 21'' before the period;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``or services in an
intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded'' each
place it appears and inserting ``services in an intermediate
care facility for the mentally retarded, or inpatient
psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(C)--
(A) by inserting ``, or who are determined to be likely to
require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for
individuals under age 21,'' after ``, or intermediate care
facility for the mentally retarded''; and
(B) by striking ``or services in an intermediate care
facility for the mentally retarded'' and inserting ``services
in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded,
or inpatient psychiatric hospital services for individuals
under age 21''; and
(4) in paragraph (7)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``or would require inpatient psychiatric
hospital services for individuals under age 21,'' after
``intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded,'';
and
(B) by inserting ``or who would require inpatient
psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21''
before the period.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply with respect to medical assistance provided on or after
January 1, 2004.

SEC. 4. DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF FAMILY-TO-FAMILY HEALTH
INFORMATION CENTERS.

Section 501 (42 U.S.C. 701) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c)(1)(A) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary
(through grants, contracts, or otherwise) to provide for
special projects of regional and national significance for
the development and support of family-to-family health
information centers described in paragraph (2)--
``(i) there is appropriated to the Secretary, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
``(I) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(II) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(III) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(ii) there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
``(B) Funds appropriated or authorized to be appropriated
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) be in addition to amounts appropriated under
subsection (a) and retained under section 502(a)(1) for the
purpose of carrying out activities described in subsection
(a)(2); and
``(ii) remain available until expended.
``(2) The family-to-family health information centers
described in this paragraph are centers that--
``(A) assist families of children with disabilities or
special health care needs to make informed choices about
health care in order to promote good treatment decisions,
cost-effectiveness, and improved health outcomes for such
children;
``(B) provide information regarding the health care needs
of, and resources available for, children with disabilities
or special health care needs;
``(C) identify successful health delivery models for such
children;
``(D) develop with representatives of health care
providers, managed care organizations, health care
purchasers, and appropriate State agencies a model for
collaboration between families of such children and health
professionals;
``(E) provide training and guidance regarding caring for
such children;
``(F) conduct outreach activities to the families of such
children, health professionals, schools, and other
appropriate entities and individuals; and
``(G) are staffed by families of children with disabilities
or special health care needs who have expertise in Federal
and State public and private health care systems and health
professionals.
``(3) The Secretary shall develop family-to-family health
information centers described in paragraph (2) under this
subsection in accordance with the following:
``(A) With respect to fiscal year 2004, such centers shall
be developed in not less than 25 States.
``(B) With respect to fiscal year 2005, such centers shall
be developed in not less than 40 States.
``(C) With respect to fiscal year 2006, such centers shall
be developed in not less than 50 States and the District of
Columbia.
``(4) The provisions of this title that are applicable to
the funds made available to the Secretary under section
502(a)(1) apply in the same manner to funds made available to
the Secretary under paragraph (1)(A).
``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `State'
means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.''.

SEC. 5. RESTORATION OF MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN SSI
BENEFICIARIES.

(a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(II)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(aa)'' after ``(II)'';
(2) by striking ``) and'' and inserting ``and'';
(3) by striking ``section or who are'' and inserting
``section), (bb) who are''; and
(4) by inserting before the comma at the end the following:
``, or (cc) who are under 21 years of age and with respect to
whom supplemental security income benefits would be paid
under title XVI if subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
1611(c)(7) were applied without regard to the phrase `the
first day of the month following' ''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to medical assistance for items and services
furnished on or after the first day of the first calendar
quarter that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
____

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleague
Senator Grassley today in re-introducing the Family Opportunity Act
of--so that once and for all, we can remove the health care barriers
for children with disabilities that so often prevent families from
staying together and staying employed, and that so often prevent their
children from growing up to live independent lives and become fully
contributing members of their communities.
More than 9 percent of children in this country have significant
disabilities, many of whom do not have access to the basic health
services they need to maintain their health status, let alone prevent
its continuing deterioration. To obtain theses health services for
their children, families are being forced to become poor, stay poor,
put their children in institutions or ever give up custody of their
children--all so that their children can qualify for the health
coverage available under Medicaid.
In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children
report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down
overtime, and unable even to save money for the future of their
children and family--all so that their child can stay eligible for
Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. The lack of
adequate health care in our country today continues to force these
families into poverty in order to obtain the care they need for their
disabled children.
The legislation we are reintroducing will close the health care gap
for the nation's most vulnerable population, and enable families of
disabled children to be equal partners in the American dream.
In the words of President George Bush in his ``New Freedom
Initiative,'' ``To many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in
bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access

[[Page S3742]]

necessary for success--and we need to tear down these barriers.
The Family Opportunity. Act will do just that. It will tear down the
unfair barriers to needed health care that so many disabled and special
needs children are denied. It will make health insurance coverage more
widely available for children with significant disabilities, through
opportunities to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. States will
have greater flexibility to enable children with metal health
disabilities to obtain the health services they need in order to live
at home and in their communities. It will establish Family to Family
Information Centers in each state to assist families with special needs
children.
The passage of Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999 demonstrated
the nation's commitment to give adults with disabilities the right to
lead independent and productive lives without giving up their health
care. It is time for Congress to show the same commitment to children
with disabilities.
We came very close to passing the Family Opportunity Act in the last
Congress. I look forward to working members of this new Congress to
enact this important legislation, and give disabled children and their
families their rightful opportunity to fulfill their dreams and
participate fully in the life of our nation.
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 623. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the
severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit, FEHB, program
premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to federal and
military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums
with pre-tax dollars.
Over 9 million Federal employees, retirees and their families are
covered under FEHBP. In 2003 premiums are expected to rise an average
of 11 percent, the third year in a row the average increase has
exceeded 10 percent.
The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to
retirees living on a fixed income. The 2003 Cost of Living Adjustment,
COLA, for Federal civil service annuitants is only 1.4 percent, the
lowest since a 1.3 percent increase in 1999. The modest COLA is
completely diminished by increased health care costs.
In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current
federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private
sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the
amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by
reducing an individual's federal tax liability.
Extending this benefit to federal retirees requires a change in the
tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.
Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our
Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health
care costs.
A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees
are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association
of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve
Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army.
I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation and
show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and
military retirees. 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. 623

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

SECTION 1. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY
FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and
military retirees.--
``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an
annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title
5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the
annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and
benefits under the health benefits program established by
chapter 89 of such title 5.
``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an
individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of
being a member or former member of the uniformed services of
the United States with respect to a choice between such pay
and benefits under the health benefits programs established
by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.

(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by
redesignating section 223 as section 224 and by inserting
after section 222 the following new section:

``SEC. 223. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.

``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an
individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts
paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance
purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits
programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and
dependents.
``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount
allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be
taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the
taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes
Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code
is amended by inserting after paragraph (18) the following
new paragraph:
``(19) Tricare supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
The deduction allowed by section 223.''
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 223. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 224. Cross reference.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian
Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary
so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning
with the first open enrollment period, afforded under section
8905(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, which begins not
less than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military
Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with
the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section
1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such
actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the
option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning with the
first open enrollment period afforded under health benefits
programs established under chapter 55 of such title, which
begins not less than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Levin):
S. 624. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the
Russian Federation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia
Trade Act of 2003.
This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to
Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this
legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of
negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.
Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when
that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly
what Congress did when China joined the WTO.
The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that
Congress should grant PNTR to Russia

[[Page S3743]]

prior to their joining the WTO. If we are going to do down this path,
we must ensure that there is adequate Congressional oversight.
This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the
following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be
guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the
WTO, if such a resolution is introduced.
Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on
Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The
Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of
Congressional involvement.
And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government
has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports
of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef.
That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress
continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 624

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) the Russian Federation has adopted constitutional
protections and statutory and administrative procedures that
accord its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate,
free of anything more than a nominal tax on emigration or on
the visas or other documents required for emigration and free
of any tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any citizens
as a consequence of the desire of such citizens to emigrate
to the country of their choice or to return to the Russian
Federation;
(2) the Russian Federation has been found to be in full
compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under
title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1994;
(3) the Russian Federation has taken important steps toward
the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market
economy and, as a participating state of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (in this Act referred to
as the ``OSCE''), is committed to developing a system of
governance in accordance with the principles regarding human
rights and humanitarian affairs that are set forth in the
Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (also known as the ``Helsinki Final Act'') and
successive documents;
(4) the Russian Federation is committed to addressing
issues relating to its national and religious minorities as a
participating state of the OSCE, to adopting measures to
ensure that persons belonging to national minorities have
full equality both individually and communally, and to
respecting the independence of minority religious
communities, although problems still exist regarding the
registration of religious groups, visa, and immigration
requirements, and other laws, regulations, and practices that
interfere with the activities or internal affairs of minority
religious communities;
(5) the Russian Federation has enacted legislation
providing protection against discrimination or incitement to
violence against persons or groups based on national, racial,
ethnic, or religious discrimination, including anti-Semitism;
(6) the Russian Federation has committed itself, including
through exchanges of letters, to ensuring freedom of
religion, equal treatment of all religious groups, and
combating racial, ethnic, and religious intolerance and
hatred, including anti-Semitism;
(7) the Russian Federation has engaged in efforts to combat
ethnic and religious intolerance by cooperating with various
United States nongovernmental organizations;
(8) the Russian Federation is continuing the restitution of
religious properties, including religious and communal
properties confiscated from national and religious minorities
during the Soviet era, facilitating the reemergence of these
minority groups in the national life of the Russian
Federation, and has committed itself, including through
exchanges of letters, to continue the restitution of such
properties;
(9) the Russian Federation has received normal trade
relations treatment since concluding a bilateral trade
agreement with the United States that entered into force on
June 17, 1992;
(10) the Russian Federation is making progress toward
accession to the World Trade Organization, recognizing that
many central issues remain to be resolved, including removal
of unjustified restrictions on agricultural products of the
United States, commitments relating to tariff reductions for
goods, trade in services, protection of intellectual property
rights, reform of the industrial energy sector, elimination
of export incentives for industrial goods, reform of customs
procedures and technical, sanitary, and phytosanitary
measures, and inclusion of trade remedy provisions;
(11) the Russian Federation has enacted some protections
reflecting internationally recognized labor rights, but
serious gaps remain both in the country's legal regime and
its enforcement record;
(12) the Russian Federation has provided constitutional
guarantees of freedom of the press, although infringements of
this freedom continue to occur; and
(13) the Russian Federation has demonstrated a strong
desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with
the United States.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE
ACT OF 1974 TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

(a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of
Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision
of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et
seq.), the President may--
(1) determine that such title should no longer apply to the
Russian Federation; and
(2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with
respect to the Russian Federation, proclaim the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations
treatment) to the products of that country.
(b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after
the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2)
of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the Russian
Federation, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974
shall cease to apply to that country.

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

It is the policy of the United States to remain fully
committed to a multifaceted engagement with the Russian
Federation, including by--
(1) urging the Russian Federation to ensure that its
national, regional, and local laws, regulations, practices,
and policies fully, and in conformity with the standards of
the OSCE--
(A) provide for the free emigration of its citizens;
(B) safeguard religious liberty throughout the Russian
Federation, including by ensuring that the registration of
religious groups, visa and immigration requirements, and
other laws, regulations, and practices are not used to
interfere with the activities or internal affairs of minority
religious communities;
(C) enforce and enhance existing Russian laws at the
national and local levels to combat ethnic, religious, and
racial discrimination and related violence;
(D) expand the restitution of religious and communal
properties, including by establishing a legal framework for
the timely completion of such restitution; and
(E) respect fully freedom of the press;
(2) working with the Russian Federation, including through
the Secretary of Labor and other appropriate executive branch
officials, to address the issues described in section 1(11);
and
(3) continuing rigorous monitoring by the United States of
human rights issues in the Russian Federation, including the
issues described in paragraphs (1) and (2), providing
assistance to nongovernmental organizations and human rights
groups involved in human rights activities in the Russian
Federation, and promoting annual discussions and ongoing
dialog with the Russian Federation regarding those issues,
including the participation of United States and Russian
nongovernmental organizations in such discussions.

SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

The reports required by sections 102(b) and 203 of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6412(b) and 6433) shall include an assessment of the status
of the issues described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
section 3(1).

SEC. 5. CONTINUED ENJOYMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER THE JUNE 17,
1992, BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENT.

(a) Finding.--The Congress finds that the trade agreement
between the United States and the Russian Federation that
entered into force on June 17, 1992, remains in force between
the 2 countries and provides the United States with important
rights, including the right to use specific safeguard rules
to respond to import surges from the Russian Federation.
(b) Applicability of Safeguard.--Section 421 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451) shall apply to the Russian
Federation to the same extent as such section applies to the
People's Republic of China.

SEC. 6. EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OVER WTO
ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS.

(a) Notice of Agreement on Accession to WTO by Russian
Federation.--Not later than 5 days after the date on which
the United States has entered into a bilateral agreement with
the Russian Federation on the terms of accession by the
Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, the
President shall so notify the Congress, and the President
shall transmit to the Congress, not later than 15 days after
that agreement is entered into, a report that sets forth the
provisions of that agreement.
(b) Resolution of Disapproval.--
(1) Introduction.--If a resolution of disapproval is
introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate
during the 30-day

[[Page S3744]]

period (not counting any day which is excluded under section
154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2194(b)),
beginning on the date on which the President first notifies
the Congress under subsection (a) of the agreement referred
to in that subsection, that resolution of disapproval shall
be considered in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Resolution of disapproval.--In this subsection, the
term ``resolution of disapproval'' means only a joint
resolution of the two Houses of the Congress, the matter
after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the
Congress does not approve the agreement between the United
States and the Russian Federation on the terms of accession
by the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, of
which Congress was notified on __.'', with the blank space
being filled with the appropriate date.
(3) Procedures for considering resolutions.--
(A) Introduction and referral.--Resolutions of
disapproval--
(i) in the House of Representatives--

(I) may be introduced by any Member of the House;
(II) shall be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
and, in addition, to the Committee on Rules; and
(III) may not be amended by either Committee; and

(ii) in the Senate--

(I) may be introduced by any Member of the Senate;
(II) shall be referred to the Committee on Finance; and
(III) may not be amended.

(B) Committee discharge and floor consideration.--The
provisions of subsections (c) through (f) of section 152 of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(c) through (f))
(relating to committee discharge and floor consideration of
certain resolutions in the House and Senate) apply to a
resolution of disapproval to the same extent as such
subsections apply to resolutions under such section.
(c) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--
Subsection (b) is enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such are
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, and
such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent that
they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2) with the full recognition of the constitutional right
of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to
the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that
House.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Miller):
S. 626. A bill to reduce the amount of paperwork for special
education teachers, to make mediation mandatory for all legal disputes
related to individualized education programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along
with my colleague Senator Miller, the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork
Reduction Act of 2003. During the 107th Congress, we were successful in
legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act. This year we hope to complete reauthorization of
another important federal education initiative--the reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we
consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve
the quality of the education that students with special needs receive.
One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in
direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden
imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable
time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing
frustration for the special education teachers working on the
frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best
quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork
Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that
will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the
children they instruct.
This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct
the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of
Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies,
would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent
within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be
encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General
Accounting Office, GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of
the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State
and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been
conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the
1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork
burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the
U.S. Department of Education, and the States and local districts can
take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this
legislation.
Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to
Individual Education Programs, IEPs, to better empower parents and
schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather
than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this
legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct
research to determine best practices for successful mediation,
including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to
reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher
resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation
training support services to support state and local efforts. The
resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated
through Part D of IDEA.
The Council for Exceptional Children, CEO, states, ``No barrier is so
irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from
teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked
third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The
CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the
profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics
concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend
completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education
teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their
job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on
paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average
of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education
teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing
paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized
education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83
percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to
one and a half days each week in IEP-relating meetings.
One special education teacher expressed her frustration with
excessive paperwork to me. ``I began my professional career as a
lawyer, but found that I had a passion for interacting with and helping
students and became a teacher. However, I decided last year that I
could no longer work with special education students from my district.
I came this decision reluctantly and solely on the basis of the
increasing and burdensome amount of paperwork required for special
education summer services. As a teacher, your job is to interact,
teach, and participate in a student's learning experience, in
particular that of a student of special needs. As a result of the
paperwork and fear of lawsuits by school districts, I am no longer able
to interact with my students.''
There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork.
The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set
forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to
complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the
National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result
in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a
negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second,
there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding
Federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by
the States and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education
compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five
pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is
litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for
due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials
often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove
that a free appropriate public education, FAPE, was provided to the
special education student.
A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal
disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation
as an

[[Page S3745]]

alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to
the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education,
CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and
teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with
teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working
together with educator and service providers as partners instead of as
adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of
mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and
legal options.
Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative
for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation
sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, States are required
to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot
of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation
Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it
pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that
attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000.
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays
mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is
apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well.
According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation
session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental
request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.
Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due
process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80
percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of
voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both
parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute
Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict
occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84
percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.
The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious
problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated
special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in
order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn.
It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to
give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing
their lives, and less time wading through stacks of paper. I would
invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to
help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all
students so that no child is left behind.
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 627. A bill to prevent the use of certain payments instruments,
credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. KYL. 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. 627

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 ``Unlawful Internet Gambling
Funding Prohibition Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal
use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire
transfers;
(2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999
recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire
transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which
represent them;
(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection
problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer
credit industry;
(4) Internet gambling conducted through offshore
jurisdictions has been identified by United States law
enforcement officials as a significant money laundering
vulnerability;
(5) gambling through the Internet, which has grown rapidly
in the half-decade preceding the enactment of this Act, opens
up the possibility of immediate, individual, 24-hour access
in every home to the full range of wagering opportunities on
sporting events or casino-like contests, such as roulette,
slot machines, poker, or black-jack; and
(6) the extent to which gambling is permitted and regulated
in the United States has been primarily a matter for
determination by individual States and, if applicable, Indian
tribes, with Federal law serving to prevent interstate or
other attempts to evade or avoid such determinations.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT SYSTEM
INSTRUMENT, CREDIT CARD, OR FUND TRANSFER FOR
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER IV--FUNDING OF ILLEGAL INTERNET GAMBLING

``Sec. 5361. Definitions

``For purposes of this subchapter, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Bet or wager.--The term `bet or wager'--
``(A) means the staking or risking by any person of
something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a
sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an
agreement or understanding that the person or another person
will receive something of value in the event of a certain
outcome;
``(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to
win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is
predominantly subject to chance);
``(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section
3702 of title 28, United States Code;
``(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining
to the establishment or movement of funds in, to, or from an
account by the bettor or customer with regard to the business
of betting or wagering; and
``(E) does not include--
``(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that
term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) for the purchase or sale of securities
(as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of such Act);
``(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules
of a registered entity or exempt board of trade pursuant to
the Commodity Exchange Act;
``(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
``(iv) any other transaction that--

``(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the
Commodity Exchange Act; or
``(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws
under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section
28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

``(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
``(vi) any contract for insurance;
``(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured
institution;
``(viii) any participation in a simulation sports game, or
an educational game or contest, that--

``(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single
sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual
performance in any single sporting event;
``(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge
and skill of the participants, with such outcome determined
predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting
events; and
``(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is
established in advance of the game or contest and is not
determined by the number of participants or the amount of any
fees paid by those participants; or

``(ix) any lawful transaction with a business licensed or
authorized by a State.
``(2) Business of betting or wagering.--The term `business
of betting or wagering' does not include, other than for
purposes of section 5366, any creditor, credit card issuer,
insured institution, or other financial institution, operator
of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be
initiated, money transmitting business, or international,
national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a
credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value
product transaction, or money transmitting service, or any
participant in such network, or any interactive computer
service or telecommunications service.
``(3) Designated payment system.--The term `designated
payment system' means any system utilized by any creditor,
credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a
terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be
initiated, money transmitting business, or international,
national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a
credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value
product transaction, or money transmitting service, or any
participant in such network, that the Secretary, in
consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System and the Attorney General of the United States,
determines, by regulation or order, could be utilized in
connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted
transaction.
``(4) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
international computer network of interoperable packet
switched data networks.
``(5) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive
computer service' has the same meaning as in section 230(f)
of the Communications Act of 1934.
``(6) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Electronic Funding Oversight, established under section 5362.

[[Page S3746]]

``(7) Restricted transaction.--The term `restricted
transaction' means any transaction or transmittal involving
any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any
paragraph of section 5363 which the recipient is prohibited
from accepting under section 5363.
``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
``(9) Unlawful internet gambling.--The term `unlawful
Internet gambling' means the placing, receipt, or other
transmission of a bet or wager by any means which involves
the use, at least in part, of the Internet, where such bet or
wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law
in the State in which the bet or wager is initiated,
received, or otherwise made.
``(10) Other terms.--
``(A) Credit; creditor; credit card; and card issuer.--The
terms `credit', `creditor', `credit card', and `card issuer'
have the same meanings as in section 103 of the Truth in
Lending Act.
``(B) Electronic fund transfer.--The term `electronic fund
transfer'--
``(i) has the same meaning as in section 903 of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term includes
transfers that would otherwise be excluded under section
903(6)(E) of that Act; and
``(ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of
the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.
``(C) Financial institution.--The term `financial
institution' has the same meaning as in section 903 of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term does not
include a casino, sports book, or other business at or
through which bets or wagers may be placed or received.
``(D) Insured institution.--The term `insured institution'
means--
``(i) an insured depository institution, as defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and
``(ii) an insured credit union, as defined in section 101
of the Federal Credit Union Act.
``(E) Money transmitting business and money transmitting
service.--The terms `money transmitting business' and `money
transmitting service' have the same meanings as in section
5330(d) (determined without regard to any regulations issued
by the Secretary thereunder).

``Sec. 5362. Office of electronic funding oversight; policies
and procedures to identify and prevent restricted
transactions

``(a) Establishment of Treasury Office.--
``(1) In general.--There is established within the
Department of the Treasury, the Office of Electronic Funding
Oversight, the purposes of which are--
``(A) to coordinate Federal efforts to prohibit restricted
transactions; and
``(B) otherwise to carry out the duties of the Office, as
specified in this subchapter.
``(2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
appointed by the Secretary. The director of the Office may
serve as the designee of the Secretary, at the request of the
Secretary, for any purpose under this subchapter.
``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this subchapter, the Office, in consultation
with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and
the Attorney General of the United States, shall prescribe
regulations requiring any designated payment system, and all
participants therein, to establish policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted
transactions through the establishment of policies and
procedures that--
``(1) allow the payment system and any person involved in
the payment system to identify restricted transactions by
means of codes in authorization messages or by other means;
``(2) block restricted transactions identified as a result
of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to
paragraph (1); and
``(3) prevent the acceptance of the products or services of
the payment system in connection with a restricted
transaction.
``(c) Requirements for Policies and Procedures.--In
prescribing regulations pursuant to subsection (b), the
Office shall--
``(1) identify types of policies and procedures, including
nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed to be
`reasonably designed to identify' and `reasonably designed to
block' or to `prevent the acceptance of the products or
services' with respect to each type of transaction, such as,
should credit card transactions be so designated, identifying
transactions by a code or codes in the authorization message
and denying authorization of a credit card transaction in
response to an authorization message;
``(2) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a
payment system to choose among alternative means of
identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing the
acceptance of the products or services of the payment system
or participant in connection with, restricted transactions;
and
``(3) consider exempting restricted transactions from any
requirement imposed under such regulations, if the Office
finds that it is not reasonably practical to identify and
block, or otherwise prevent, such transactions.
``(d) Compliance With Payment System Policies and
Procedures.--A creditor, credit card issuer, financial
institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic
fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business,
or international, national, regional, or local network
utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund
transfer, stored value product transaction, or money
transmitting service, or a participant in such network, shall
be considered to be in compliance with the regulations
prescribed under subsection (b), if--
``(1) such person relies on and complies with the policies
and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is
a member or participant--
``(A) to identify and block restricted transactions; or
``(B) to otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products
or services of the payment system, member, or participant in
connection with restricted transactions; and
``(2) such policies and procedures of the designated
payment system comply with the requirements of regulations
prescribed under subsection (b).
``(e) No Liability for Blocking or Refusing To Honor
Restricted Transactions.--A person that is subject to a
regulation prescribed or order issued under this subchapter
and blocks, or otherwise refuses to honor, a restricted
transaction, or as a member of a designated payment system
relies on the policies and procedures of the payment system,
in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under this
section, shall not be liable to any party for such action.
``(f) Regulatory Enforcement.--Regulations issued by the
Office under this subchapter shall be enforced by the Federal
functional regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, in
the manner provided in section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act.

``Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any bank instrument
for unlawful internet gambling

``No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering
may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of
another person in unlawful Internet gambling--
``(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on
behalf of such other person (including credit extended
through the use of a credit card);
``(2) an electronic fund transfer or funds transmitted by
or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of
an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service,
from or on behalf of such other person;
``(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is
drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or
payable at or through any financial institution; or
``(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial
transaction, as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation,
which involves a financial institution as a payor or
financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of
such other person.

``Sec. 5364. Civil remedies

``(a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United
States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
prevent and restrain violations of this subchapter or the
rules or regulations issued under this subchapter by issuing
appropriate orders in accordance with this section,
regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under
this subchapter.
``(b) Proceedings.--
``(1) Institution by federal government.--
``(A) In general.--The United States, acting through the
Attorney General, or, in the case of rules or regulations
issued under this subchapter, through an agency authorized to
enforce such regulations in accordance with this subchapter,
may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or
restrain a violation or a threatened violation of this
subchapter or such rules or regulations.
``(B) Relief.--Upon application of the United States under
this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary
injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or
restrain a violation or threatened violation of this
subchapter or the rules or regulations issued under this
subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
``(2) Institution by state attorney general.--
``(A) In general.--The attorney general of a State (or
other appropriate State official) in which a violation of
this subchapter allegedly has occurred or will occur may
institute proceedings under this section to prevent or
restrain the violation or threatened violation.
``(B) Relief.--Upon application of the attorney general (or
other appropriate State official) of an affected State under
this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary
injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or
restrain a violation or threatened violation of this
subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
``(3) Indian lands.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
for a violation of this subchapter or the rules or
regulations issued under this subchapter that is alleged to
have occurred, or may occur, on Indian lands (as that term is
defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--
``(i) the United States shall have the enforcement
authority provided under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an
applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall be carried out in
accordance with that compact.
``(B) Rule of construction.--No provision of this
subchapter shall be construed as altering, superseding, or
otherwise affecting

[[Page S3747]]

the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
``(c) Expedited Proceedings.--In addition to any proceeding
under subsection (b), a district court may, in exigent
circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order against a
person alleged to be in violation of this subchapter or the
rules or regulations issued under this subchapter, upon
application of the United States under subsection (b)(1), or
the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of
an affected State under subsection (b)(2), in accordance with
rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(d) Limitation Relating to Interactive Computer
Services.--
``(1) In general.--Relief granted under this section
against an interactive computer service shall--
``(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access
to, an online site violating this subchapter, or a hypertext
link to an online site violating this subchapter, that
resides on a computer server that such service controls or
operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph
shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under
this section pursuant to section 5366;
``(B) be available only after notice to the interactive
computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear
are provided;
``(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer
service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts
indicating activity violating this subchapter;
``(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it
applies; and
``(E) specifically identify the location of the online site
or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be
disabled.
``(2) Coordination with other law.--An interactive computer
service that does not violate this subchapter shall not be
liable under section 1084 of title 18, United States Code,
except that the limitation in this paragraph shall not apply
if an interactive computer service has actual knowledge and
control of bets and wagers and--
``(A) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet
website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed,
received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or
wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made;
or
``(B) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any
person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an
Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be
placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful
bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or
otherwise made.
``(3) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraph
(2) do not affect any potential liability of an interactive
computer service or other person under any provision of title
18, United States Code, other than as specifically provided
in paragraph (2).
``(e) Factors To Be Considered in Certain Cases.--In
considering granting relief under this section against any
payment system, or any participant in a payment system that
is a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution,
operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer
may be initiated, money transmitting business, or
international, national, regional, or local network utilized
to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer,
stored value product transaction, or money transmitting
service, or a participant in such network, the court shall
consider--
``(1) the extent to which the person extending credit or
transmitting funds knew or should have known that the
transaction was in connection with unlawful Internet
gambling;
``(2) the history of such person in extending credit or
transmitting funds when such person knew or should have known
that the transaction is in connection with unlawful Internet
gambling;
``(3) the extent to which such person has established and
is maintaining policies and procedures in compliance with
rules and regulations issued under this subchapter;
``(4) the extent to which it is feasible for any specific
remedy prescribed as part of such relief to be implemented by
such person without substantial deviation from normal
business practice; and
``(5) the costs and burdens that the specific remedy will
have on such person.
``(f) Notice to Regulators and Financial Institutions.--
Before initiating any proceeding under subsection (b) with
respect to a violation or potential violation of this
subchapter or the rules or regulations issued under this
subchapter by any creditor, credit card issuer, financial
institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic
fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business,
or international, national, regional, or local network
utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund
transfer, stored value product transaction, or money
transmitting service, or any participant in such network, the
Attorney General of the United States, an attorney general of
a State (or other appropriate State official), or an agency
authorized to initiate such proceeding under this subchapter,
shall--
``(1) notify such person, and the appropriate regulatory
agency (as determined in accordance with section 5362(f) for
such person) of such violation or potential violation and the
remedy to be sought in such proceeding; and
``(2) allow such person 30 days to implement a reasonable
remedy for the violation or potential violation, consistent
with the factors described in subsection (e), and in
conjunction with such action as the appropriate regulatory
agency may take.

``Sec. 5365. Criminal penalties

``(a) In General.--Whoever violates this subchapter or the
rules or regulations issued under this subchapter shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for
not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) Permanent Injunction.--Upon conviction of a person
under this section, the court may enter a permanent
injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or
otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or
inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or
wagers.

``Sec. 5366. Circumventions prohibited

``Notwithstanding section 5361(2), a creditor, credit card
issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at
which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money
transmitting business, or international, national, regional,
or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction,
electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction,
or money transmitting service, or any participant in such
network, or any interactive computer service or
telecommunications service, may be liable under this
subchapter if such creditor, issuer, institution, operator,
business, network, or participant has actual knowledge and
control of bets and wagers, and--
``(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet
website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed,
received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or
wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made;
or
``(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any
person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an
Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be
placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful
bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or
otherwise made.''.

SEC. 4. INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS.

(a) In General.--In deliberations between the United States
Government and any other country on money laundering,
corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government
should--
(1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and
relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet
gambling operations are being used for money laundering,
corruption, or other crimes;
(2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of
foreign governments, through information sharing or other
measures, in the enforcement of this Act and the amendments
made by this Act; and
(3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money
Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering
typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling
operations are being used for money laundering purposes.
(b) Report Required.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations
between the United States and other countries on issues
relating to Internet gambling.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL GAMBLING PROVISIONS.

(a) Amendment to Definition.--Section 1081 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by designating the five undesignated paragraphs that
begin with ``The term'' as paragraphs (1) through (5),
respectively; and
(2) in paragraph (5), as so designated--
(A) by striking ``wire communication'' and inserting
``communication'';
(B) by inserting ``satellite, microwave,'' after
``cable,''; and
(C) by inserting ``(whether fixed or mobile)'' after
``connection''.
(b) Increase in Penalty for Unlawful Wire Transfers of
Wagering Information.--Section 1084(a) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``two years'' and
inserting ``5 years''.
______

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bond, and Ms.
Murkowski):
S. 628. A bill to require the construction at Arlington National
Cemetery of a memorial to the crew of the Columbia Orbiter; ordered
held at the desk.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle
Columbia was lost during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. We all mourn
that tragic loss. But although our hearts have been filled with sorrow,
we have also taken comfort in the knowledge that there was so much
about these heroic astronauts for us to be grateful for.
They were, indeed, remarkable people for they truly represented the
best of the human spirit. As such, it is only fitting that we endeavor
to remember them for their outstanding contributions.
Today, along with Senators Bond and Mikulski, I introduce legislation
to construct a memorial to the crew of the Columbia Orbiter at
Arlington National Cemetery.
This memorial would be located in close proximity to the memorial to
the crew of the Challenger Orbiter at Arlington Cemetery and that the
design

[[Page S3748]]

of the Columbia Memorial is intended to be consistent with the artistic
sensibilities of the Challenger Memorial.
This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Army, in
consultation with NASA, to place the Columbia Memorial at Arlington and
would make available $500,000 from funds already appropriated in the
Fiscal Year 2003 DOD Appropriations Act for the Memorial.
The bill also authorizes NASA to collect gifts and donations for the
Columbia Memorial at Arlington Cemetery or for another appropriate
memorial or monument. This authority to collect donations and gifts
expires after 5 years.
We will never forget the wonderful legacy of the Columbia
astronauts. They have been an inspiration to us all.
Lastly, I take this opportunity to invite any Senator to join with me
in cosponsoring this legislation to establish this memorial to these
outstanding individuals.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be held at the desk until the
close of business Wednesday, March 19, so that such Senators will be
shown as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is my further hope
that this bill will be speedily cleared on each side of the aisle so
that it may be sent to the House next week, if at all possible. I send
the bill to the desk, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill
will be held at the desk until the close of business, Wednesday, March
19.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution requiring the President to report to
Congress specific information relating to certain possible consequences
of the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate companion to
a joint resolution already introduced in the House by Congressman
Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
This resolution is quite simple. It requires the President to report
to Congress on the potential costs and consequences of military action
in Iraq before ordering the United States Armed Forces to war in Iraq.
This is a resolution that simply requires that this country know what
it is we are getting into before, not after, war breaks out.
Of course, it is my hope, and I very much believe the President when
he asserts that it is his hope, that there will be no war. But judging
from the administration's statements and Iraq's behavior, with each
passing day it becomes more and more likely that the United States will
engage in a major military operation in Iraq. It is entirely possible
that we will undertake this operation without a great deal of
international support. And while I have no doubt in my mind that our
admirable men and women in uniform will be successful in any military
engagement, I do have doubts about whether or not the American people
truly understand the magnitude of the task the country is setting for
itself--not only with regard to the military engagement itself, but
with regard to occupation and reconstruction.
I do not believe that Americans have been told much about what the
future holds beyond the most optimistic of scenarios, and frankly I do
not believe that Congress has heard much about the full range of
potential scenarios either.
This resolution would require that the President provide that
information before ordering our men and women in uniform to war in
Iraq.
The resolution asks for a full accounting of the implications for
homeland security of initiating military action against Iraq. It asks
for an accounting of the implications for the fight against terrorism.
It asks for an accounting of the implications for regional stability in
the Middle East, and for an accounting of the implications of war in
Iraq for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
This resolution recognizes that there may be positive and negative
implications to consider. It does not pre-judge these issues. But it
does acknowledge that Members of Congress, the elected representatives
of the people, should be privy to the thinking of our experts and
leaders in the executive branch about the effect of war in Iraq on all
of these issues. It is our responsibility to weigh these questions, to
weigh the consequences of starting a war.
And, while I do not doubt for a moment the skills and competence of
our brave service men and women, I do know that their efforts alone are
not enough to ensure a lasting victory. It is crucial to the ultimate
success of U.S. policy, that the American people understand the
potential risks and the potential rewards of this national undertaking.
We are considering the American military occupation of a major Middle
Eastern country, and we are considering this in a very dangerous time.
This country must have its eyes open before we move forward.
This resolution also requires that the administration explain to
Congress the steps that the United States and our allies will take to
ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction will be safeguarded
from dispersal to other rogue states or international terrorist
organizations. If the goal is disarmament, then defeating Saddam
Hussein's forces is not going to accomplish the mission at hand. Do we
know where the WMD sites are? One would assume that we would share that
information with the inspectors if we had it. But if we do not, how
will we ensure that WMD and the means to make them are not dispersed
across Iraq's borders, or sold off to the highest bidder, in the event
of invasion. Saddam Huessein's order is despicable and dangerous. But
disorder is dangerous too. Again, we need to understand the risks, and
we need to understand the plan.

This resolution requires the Administration to explain the plan for
stabilization and reconstruction. Earlier this week the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee held a hearing on reconstruction in Iraq. We had
hoped to get answers to some of the basic questions that senior
officials from the State and Defense Departments were utterly unable to
respond to as recently as February. But the Administration canceled the
appearance of General Jay Garner, the director for the Pentagon's
Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, who was slated to
come before the committee. And so the Foreign Relations Committee of
the United States Senate is left scanning the newspapers to get a sense
of Administration plans, extrapolating from tidbits in the press to
understand potential costs, and quizzing very capable experts--but
experts not privy to Administration planning--about the universe of
possibilities. This is simply unacceptable.
This resolution calls for the Administration to clearly report to
Congress on the nature and extent of the international support for
military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against
Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. I believe that
this is the single most important issue before us. I know that I
disagree with some of my colleagues on the wisdom of the
Administration's policy in Iraq. But I am certain that none of us
disagree on the proposition that the first priority of all of us in
government must be the fight against terrorism. And we all know that we
cannot fight terrorism alone. But I have heard directly from foreign
officials who are telling me that it will be more difficult for them to
be strong supporters of the fight against terrorism if the U.S. acts in
Iraq without the United Nations' approval.
This resolution calls on the Administration to explain clearly the
steps that it will take to protect United States soldiers, allied
forces, and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental
hazards resulting from military operations. Everyone in this body has
heard from veterans of the Gulf War who suffer and struggle even today,
long after their period of sacrifice for their country should have
ended. Based on what we know from these veterans, it is entirely
reasonable to demand a plan now, not after the fact.
The resolution also calls for the Administration to provide estimates
of the American and allied military casualties, Iraqi military
casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from military
action against Iraq, and measures that will be taken to prevent
civilian casualties and adhere to international humanitarian law. I
know that America is a resilient society and a resolute society. But I
am not at all

[[Page S3749]]

sure that Americans have been prepared for anything but the best-case
scenario, and that is a disservice to the American people and a
disservice to our military.
This resolution calls for an estimate of the full costs associated
with military action against Iraq, including, but not limited to,
providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people and to neighboring
nations in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq with or
without allied support, and securing long-term political stability in
Iraq and the region insofar as it is affected by such military action.
I can tell you that right now in the Budget committee, we are flying
blind, trying to make fiscally responsible decisions for the future
while the Administration remains unwilling to provide an honest
accounting of what this war will cost, or what it will cost to meet the
humanitarian needs of Iraq, or what the long process of reconstruction
will cost. We know that these are not small figures. And unfortunately,
it looks as though we will be proceeding without a great deal of
international support, meaning less burden-sharing and more shouldering
of this cost on our own. And that is why this resolution also calls for
an accounting of the anticipated short and long term effects of
military action on the United States economy and the Federal budget.

I feel strongly that we should have demanded this information long
ago. But we continue to ask, because Congress continues to have
constitutional responsibilities. And I continue to hear from a
tremendous number of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the
prospect of a war with Iraq. The sources of their concern and their
views on the issue vary, but in virtually all cases, they want to
understand the range of options before us, and they are demanding more
information about the costs and commitments they will incur as a result
of decisions that we make here. They are right to insist on that
information, to insist that we exercise some foresight here and wrestle
honestly with the consequences that may follow from taking military
action. Without such a discussion, we cannot hope to answer the most
important question before us--will a given course of action make the
U.S. more or less secure in the end.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to insist that
the Administration provide this information before war breaks out. I
voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq last
fall, because I was uncomfortable with the Administration's shifting
justifications for war, dissatisfied with the vague answers available
at the time relating to our plans for dealing with weapons of mass
destruction and reconstruction in Iraq, and most of all, because I was
concerned that this action would actually alienate key allies in the
fight against terrorism. But even those who voted differently surely
must believe that we have a responsibility to anwser these questions
now, and to share the answers with our constituents, so that this great
country is operating not on wishful thinking or simple ignorance, but
with an understanding of the facts before us, and the awesome task
ahead.

____________________