[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 59 (Friday, April 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5345-S5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Edwards, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Collins Mr. Cochran, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dodd, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 888. A bill to reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
reauthorizing the Museum and Library Services Act. I am joined in this 
effort by Senator Reed, Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, 
and several other colleagues of mine. Libraries and museums serve as 
important cultural institutions in communities throughout our Nation, 
and this legislation will provide them with continued Federal support 
through innovative grant programs administered by the Institute of 
Museum and Library Services.
  Specifically, this bill authorizes $250 million for libraries and 
$41.5 million for museums in 2004, and such sums as necessary in 2005 
through 2009. In addition, it authorizes a doubling of the minimum 
state allotment under the Grants to State Library Agencies Program, up 
to $680,000. That provision, coupled with the expected increase in 
appropriations for 2004, will greatly benefit New Hampshire's 
libraries.
  The bill contains a number of other important provisions. Recognizing 
the important of school libraries, it requires that the Institute's 
library activities be coordinated with the school library provisions of 
the No Child Left Behind Act. My bill also prohibits projects 
determined to be obscene from receiving Federal funds, requires the 
Institute to conduct analyses of the need for museum and library 
services and the effectiveness of funded projects in meeting those 
needs, consolidates the library and museum advisory boards into one 
entity, and prohibits funds appropriate under the Act's authority from 
being used for library or museum construction.
  furthermore, this bill increases the indemnity limits in the Arts and 
Artifacts Indemnity Act, thereby facilitating the international 
exchange and display of works of art, books, rare documents and other 
published materials, artifacts, and films and other audiovisual media. 
This will ensure that people throughout the world are exposed to 
American culture and that our own citizens will have richer educational 
opportunities available as well.
  I want to thank Senator Reed for his leadership on this issue, as 
well as Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi, particularly. 
Together we have crafted a bipartisan bill that will serve our museums 
and libraries well in the coming years. I expect to move this bill 
through the HELP Committee soon, and look forward to its speedy 
passage.
  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. 888

       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 ``Museum and Library Services 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. General definitions.
Sec. 102. Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Sec. 103. Director of the Institute.
Sec. 104. National Museum and Library Services Board.
Sec. 105. Awards; analysis of impact of services.

               TITLE II--LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 204. Reservations and allotments.
Sec. 205. State plans.
Sec. 206. Grants to States.
Sec. 207. National leadership grants, contracts, or cooperative 
              agreements.

                       TITLE III--MUSEUM SERVICES

Sec. 301. Purpose.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Museum services activities.
Sec. 304. Repeals.
Sec. 305. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 306. Short title.

[[Page S5346]]

 TITLE IV--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ACT

Sec. 401. Amendment to contributions.
Sec. 402. Amendment to membership.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Amendments to Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act.
Sec. 502. National children's museum.
Sec. 503. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 504. Technical corrections.
Sec. 505. Repeals.
Sec. 506. Effective date.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

       Section 202 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9101) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Determined to be obscene.--The term `determined to be 
     obscene' means determined, in a final judgment of a court of 
     record and of competent jurisdiction in the United States, to 
     be obscene.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (4);
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Final judgment.--The term `final judgment' means a 
     judgment that is--
       ``(A) not reviewed by any other court that has authority to 
     review such judgment; or
       ``(B) not reviewable by any other court.
       ``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, 
     including any Alaska native village, regional corporation, or 
     village corporation (as defined in, or established pursuant 
     to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.)), which is recognized by the Secretary of the 
     Interior as eligible for the special programs and services 
     provided by the United States to Indians because of their 
     status as Indians.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Museum and library services board.--The term `Museum 
     and Library Services Board' means the National Museum and 
     Library Services Board established under section 207.
       ``(7) Obscene.--The term `obscene' means, with respect to a 
     project, that--
       ``(A) the average person, applying contemporary community 
     standards, would find that such project, when taken as a 
     whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
       ``(B) such project depicts or describes sexual conduct in a 
     patently offensive way; and
       ``(C) such project, when taken as a whole, lacks serious 
     literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.''.

     SEC. 102. INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES.

       Section 203 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9102) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Museum and Library Services Board.--There shall be a 
     National Museum and Library Services Board within the 
     Institute, as provided under section 207.''.

     SEC. 103. DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE.

       Section 204 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9103) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Where appropriate, the Director shall ensure that 
     activities under subtitle B are coordinated with activities 
     under section 1251 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6383).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Regulatory Authority.--The Director may promulgate 
     such rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate 
     to implement the provisions of this title.
       ``(g) Application Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive 
     financial assistance under this title, a person or agency 
     shall submit an application in accordance with procedures 
     established by the Director by regulation.
       ``(2) Review and evaluation.--The Director shall establish 
     procedures for reviewing and evaluating applications 
     submitted under this title. Actions of the Institute and the 
     Director in the establishment, modification, and revocation 
     of such procedures under this Act are vested in the 
     discretion of the Institute and the Director. In establishing 
     such procedures, the Director shall ensure that the criteria 
     by which applications are evaluated are consistent with the 
     purposes of this title, taking into consideration general 
     standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and 
     values of the American public.
       ``(3) Treatment of projects determined to be obscene.--
       ``(A) In general.--The procedures described in paragraph 
     (2) shall include provisions that clearly specify that 
     obscenity is without serious literary, artistic, political, 
     or scientific merit, and is not protected speech.
       ``(B) Prohibition.--No financial assistance may be provided 
     under this title with respect to any project that is 
     determined to be obscene.
       ``(C) Treatment of application disapproval.--The 
     disapproval of an application by the Director shall not be 
     construed to mean, and shall not be considered as evidence 
     that, the project for which the applicant requested financial 
     assistance is or is not obscene.''.

     SEC. 104. NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD.

       The Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 207 as section 208; and
       (2) by inserting after section 206 the following:

     ``SEC. 207. NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Institute a board to be known as the `National Museum and 
     Library Services Board'.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) Number and appointment.--The Museum and Library 
     Services Board shall be composed of the following:
       ``(A) The Director.
       ``(B) The Deputy Director for the Office of Library 
     Services.
       ``(C) The Deputy Director for the Office of Museum 
     Services.
       ``(D) The Chairman of the National Commission on Libraries 
     and Information Science.
       ``(E) 10 members appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals 
     who are citizens of the United States and who are specially 
     qualified by virtue of their education, training, or 
     experience in the area of library services, or their 
     commitment to libraries.
       ``(F) 10 members appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals 
     who are citizens of the United States and who are specially 
     qualified by virtue of their education, training, or 
     experience in the area of museum services, or their 
     commitment to museums.
       ``(2) Special qualifications.--
       ``(A) Library members.--Of the members of the Museum and 
     Library Services Board appointed under paragraph (1)(E)--
       ``(i) 5 shall be professional librarians or information 
     specialists, of whom--

       ``(I) not less than 1 shall be knowledgeable about 
     electronic information and technical aspects of library and 
     information services and sciences; and
       ``(II) not less than 1 other shall be knowledgeable about 
     the library and information service needs of underserved 
     communities; and

       ``(ii) the remainder shall have special competence in, or 
     knowledge of, the needs for library and information services 
     in the United States.
       ``(B) Museum members.--Of the members of the Museum and 
     Library Services Board appointed under paragraph (1)(F)--
       ``(i) 5 shall be museum professionals who are or have been 
     affiliated with--

       ``(I) resources that, collectively, are broadly 
     representative of the curatorial, conservation, educational, 
     and cultural resources of the United States; or
       ``(II) museums that, collectively, are broadly 
     representative of various types of museums, including museums 
     relating to science, history, technology, art, zoos, 
     botanical gardens, and museums designed for children; and

       ``(ii) the remainder shall be individuals recognized for 
     their broad knowledge, expertise, or experience in museums or 
     commitment to museums.
       ``(3) Geographic and other representation.--Members of the 
     Museum and Library Services Board shall be appointed to 
     reflect persons from various geographic regions of the United 
     States. The Museum and Library Services Board may not 
     include, at any time, more than 3 appointive members from a 
     single State. In making such appointments, the President 
     shall give due regard to equitable representation of women, 
     minorities, and persons with disabilities who are involved 
     with museums and libraries.
       ``(4) Voting.--The Director, the Deputy Director of the 
     Office of Library Services, the Deputy Director of the Office 
     of Museum Services, and the Chairman of the National 
     Commission on Library and Information Science shall be 
     nonvoting members of the Museum and Library Services Board.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, each member of the Museum and Library Services 
     Board appointed under subparagraph (E) or (F) of subsection 
     (b)(1) shall serve for a term of 5 years.
       ``(2) Initial board appointments.--
       ``(A) Treatment of members serving on effective date.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (b), each individual who is a 
     member of the National Museum Services Board on the date of 
     enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, 
     may, at the individual's election, complete the balance of 
     the individual's term as a member of the Museum and Library 
     Services Board.
       ``(B) First appointments.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), 
     any appointive vacancy in the initial membership of the 
     Museum and Library Services Board existing after the 
     application of subparagraph (A), and any vacancy in such 
     membership subsequently created by reason of the expiration 
     of the term of an individual described in subparagraph (A), 
     shall be filled by the appointment of a member described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(E). When the Museum and Library Services 
     Board consists of an equal number of individuals who are 
     specially qualified in the area of library services and 
     individuals who are specially qualified in the area of museum 
     services, this subparagraph shall cease to be effective and 
     the board shall be appointed in accordance with subsection 
     (b).

[[Page S5347]]

       ``(C) Authority to adjust terms.--The terms of the first 
     members appointed to the Museum and Library Service Board 
     shall be adjusted by the President as necessary to ensure 
     that the terms of not more than 4 members expire in the same 
     year. Such adjustments shall be carried out through 
     designation of the adjusted term at the time of appointment.
       ``(3) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     shall serve for the remainder of the term for which the 
     predecessor of the member was appointed.
       ``(4) Reappointment.--No appointive member of the Museum 
     and Library Services Board who has been a member for more 
     than 7 consecutive years shall be eligible for reappointment.
       ``(5) Service until successor takes office.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, an 
     appointive member of the Museum and Library Services Board 
     shall serve after the expiration of the term of the member 
     until the successor to the member takes office.
       ``(d) Duties and Powers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Museum and Library Services Board 
     shall advise the Director on general policies with respect to 
     the duties, powers, and authority of the Institute relating 
     to museum and library services, including financial 
     assistance awarded under this title.
       ``(2) National awards.--The Museum and Library Services 
     Board shall advise the Director in making awards under 
     section 209.
       ``(e) Chairperson.--The Director shall serve as Chairperson 
     of the Museum and Library Services Board.
       ``(f) Meetings.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Museum and Library Services Board 
     shall meet not less than 2 times each year and at the call of 
     the Director.
       ``(2) Vote.--All decisions by the Museum and Library 
     Services Board with respect to the exercise of its duties and 
     powers shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the 
     Board who are present and authorized to vote.
       ``(g) Quorum.--A majority of the voting members of the 
     Museum and Library Services Board shall constitute a quorum 
     for the conduct of business at official meetings, but a 
     lesser number of members may hold hearings.
       ``(h) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
       ``(1) Compensation.--Each member of the Museum and Library 
     Services Board who is not an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government may be compensated at a rate to be fixed 
     by the President, but not to exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the maximum annual rate of pay authorized for a position 
     above grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 5108 
     of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 
     travel time) during which such member is engaged in the 
     performance of the duties of the Museum and Library Services 
     Board. Members of the Museum and Libraries Services Board who 
     are full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government 
     may not receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by 
     reason of their service on the Museum and Library Services 
     Board.
       ``(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Museum and 
     Library Services Board shall receive travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with 
     applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(i) Coordination.--The Director, with the advice of the 
     Museum and Library Services Board, shall take steps to ensure 
     that the policies and activities of the Institute are 
     coordinated with other activities of the Federal 
     Government.''.

     SEC. 105. AWARDS; ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF SERVICES.

       The Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 208 (as 
     redesignated by section 104 of this Act) the following:

     ``SEC. 209. AWARDS.

       ``The Director, with the advice of the Museum and Library 
     Services Board, may annually award National Awards for 
     Library Service and National Awards for Museum Service to 
     outstanding libraries and outstanding museums, respectively, 
     that have made significant contributions in service to their 
     communities.

     ``SEC. 210. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY 
                   SERVICES.

       ``From amounts described in sections 214(c) and 275(b), the 
     Director shall carry out and publish analyses of the impact 
     of museum and library services. Such analyses--
       ``(1) shall be conducted in ongoing consultation with--
       ``(A) State library administrative agencies;
       ``(B) State, regional, and national library and museum 
     organizations; and
       ``(C) other relevant agencies and organizations;
       ``(2) shall identify national needs for, and trends of, 
     museum and library services provided with funds made 
     available under subtitles B and C;
       ``(3) shall report on the impact and effectiveness of 
     programs conducted with funds made available by the Institute 
     in addressing such needs; and
       ``(4) shall identify, and disseminate information on, the 
     best practices of such programs to the agencies and entities 
     described in paragraph (1).

     ``SEC. 210A. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

       ``No funds appropriated to carry out the Museum and Library 
     Services Act, the Library Services and Technology Act, or the 
     Museum Services Act may be used for construction expenses.''.

               TITLE II--LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY

     SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

       Section 212 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9121) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) to promote improvement in library services in all 
     types of libraries in order to better serve the people of the 
     United States;
       ``(3) to facilitate access to resources in all types of 
     libraries for the purpose of cultivating an educated and 
     informed citizenry; and
       ``(4) to encourage resource sharing among all types of 
     libraries for the purpose of achieving economical and 
     efficient delivery of library services to the public.''.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 213 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9122) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) 
     as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively.

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 214 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9123) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subtitle $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 
     and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``3 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3.5 percent''.

     SEC. 204. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 221(b)(3) of the Library Services and Technology 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 9131(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Minimum allotments.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     minimum allotment for each State shall be $340,000, except 
     that the minimum allotment shall be $40,000 in the case of 
     the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     the Republic of Palau.
       ``(B) Ratable reductions.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), if the sum appropriated under the authority of section 
     214 and not reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year 
     is insufficient to fully satisfy the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A), each of the minimum allotments under such 
     subparagraph shall be reduced ratably.
       ``(C) Exception.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the 
     sum appropriated under the authority of section 214 and not 
     reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year exceeds the 
     aggregate of the allotments for all States under this 
     subsection for fiscal year 2003--

       ``(I) the minimum allotment for each State otherwise 
     receiving a minimum allotment of $340,000 under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased to $680,000; and
       ``(II) the minimum allotment for each State otherwise 
     receiving a minimum allotment of $40,000 under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased to $60,000.

       ``(ii) Insufficient funds to award alternative minimum.--If 
     the sum appropriated under the authority of section 214 and 
     not reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year exceeds 
     the aggregate of the allotments for all States under this 
     subsection for fiscal year 2003 yet is insufficient to fully 
     satisfy the requirement of clause (i), such excess amount 
     shall first be allotted among the States described in clause 
     (i)(I) so as to increase equally the minimum allotment for 
     each such State above $340,000. After the requirement of 
     clause (i)(I) is fully satisfied for any fiscal year, any 
     remainder of such excess amount shall be allotted among the 
     States described in clause (i)(II) so as to increase equally 
     the minimum allotment for each such State above $40,000.
       ``(D) Special rule.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection and using funds allotted for the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     the Republic of Palau under this subsection, the Director 
     shall award grants to the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated 
     States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau to carry out 
     activities described in this subtitle in accordance with the 
     provisions of this subtitle that the Director determines are 
     not inconsistent with this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Award basis.--The Director shall award grants 
     pursuant to clause (i) on a competitive basis and after 
     taking into consideration available recommendations from the 
     Pacific Region Educational Laboratory in Honolulu, Hawaii.
       ``(iii) Administrative costs.--The Director may provide not 
     more than 5 percent of the funds made available for grants 
     under this subparagraph to pay the administrative costs of 
     the Pacific Region Educational Laboratory regarding 
     activities assisted under this subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 205. STATE PLANS.

       Section 224 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9134) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``not later than 
     April 1, 1997.'' and inserting ``once every 5 years, as 
     determined by the Director.''; and

[[Page S5348]]

       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``this Act'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``this subtitle'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 213(2)(A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``section 213(1)(A) or (B)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``1934,'' and all that follows through 
     ``Act, may'' and inserting ``1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)) 
     may''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``section:'' and inserting ``subsection:''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``given'' and 
     inserting ``applicable to''.

     SEC. 206. GRANTS TO STATES.

       Section 231 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9141) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) expanding services for learning and access to 
     information and educational resources in a variety of 
     formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all 
     ages;
       ``(2) developing library services that provide all users 
     access to information through local, State, regional, 
     national, and international electronic networks;
       ``(3) providing electronic and other linkages among and 
     between all types of libraries;
       ``(4) developing public and private partnerships with other 
     agencies and community-based organizations;
       ``(5) targeting library services to individuals of diverse 
     geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, to 
     individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with 
     limited functional literacy or information skills; and
       ``(6) targeting library and information services to persons 
     having difficulty using a library and to underserved urban 
     and rural communities, including children (from birth through 
     age 17) from families with incomes below the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``between the two 
     purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of such 
     subsection,'' and inserting ``among such purposes,''.

     SEC. 207. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRANTS, CONTRACTS, OR 
                   COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       Section 262(a)(1) of the Library Services and Technology 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 9162(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``education 
     and training'' and inserting ``education, recruitment, and 
     training''.

                       TITLE III--MUSEUM SERVICES

     SEC. 301. PURPOSE.

       Section 271 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9171) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 271. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this subtitle--
       ``(1) to encourage and support museums in carrying out 
     their public service role of connecting the whole of society 
     to the cultural, artistic, historical, natural, and 
     scientific understandings that constitute our heritage;
       ``(2) to encourage and support museums in carrying out 
     their educational role, as core providers of learning and in 
     conjunction with schools, families, and communities;
       ``(3) to encourage leadership, innovation, and applications 
     of the most current technologies and practices to enhance 
     museum services;
       ``(4) to assist, encourage, and support museums in carrying 
     out their stewardship responsibilities to achieve the highest 
     standards in conservation and care of the cultural, historic, 
     natural, and scientific heritage of the United States to 
     benefit future generations;
       ``(5) to assist, encourage, and support museums in 
     achieving the highest standards of management and service to 
     the public, and to ease the financial burden borne by museums 
     as a result of their increasing use by the public; and
       ``(6) to support resource sharing and partnerships among 
     museums, libraries, schools, and other community 
     organizations.''.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 272(1) of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9172(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Such term includes aquariums, arboretums, 
     botanical gardens, art museums, children's museums, general 
     museums, historic houses and sites, history museums, nature 
     centers, natural history and anthropology museums, 
     planetariums, science and technology centers, specialized 
     museums, and zoological parks.''.

     SEC. 303. MUSEUM SERVICES ACTIVITIES.

       Section 273 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9173) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 273. MUSEUM SERVICES ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director, after considering 
     available policy advice of the Museum and Library Services 
     Board, may enter into arrangements, including grants, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and other forms of 
     assistance, with museums and other entities as the Director 
     considers appropriate, to pay the Federal share of the cost 
     of--
       ``(1) supporting museums in providing learning and access 
     to collections, information, and educational resources in a 
     variety of formats (including exhibitions, programs, 
     publications, and websites) for individuals of all ages;
       ``(2) supporting museums in building learning partnerships 
     with the Nation's schools and developing museum resources and 
     programs in support of State and local school curricula;
       ``(3) supporting museums in assessing, conserving, 
     researching, maintaining, and exhibiting their collections, 
     and in providing educational programs to the public through 
     the use of their collections;
       ``(4) stimulating greater collaboration among museums, 
     libraries, schools, and other community organizations in 
     order to share resources and strengthen communities;
       ``(5) encouraging the use of new technologies and broadcast 
     media to enhance access to museum collections, programs, and 
     services;
       ``(6) supporting museums in providing services to people of 
     diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds 
     and to individuals with disabilities;
       ``(7) supporting museums in developing and carrying out 
     specialized programs for specific segments of the public, 
     such as programs for urban neighborhoods, rural areas, Indian 
     reservations, and State institutions;
       ``(8) supporting professional development and technical 
     assistance programs to enhance museum operations at all 
     levels, in order to ensure the highest standards in all 
     aspects of museum operations;
       ``(9) supporting museums in research, program evaluation, 
     and the collection and dissemination of information to museum 
     professionals and the public; and
       ``(10) encouraging, supporting, and disseminating model 
     programs of museum and library collaboration.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) 50 percent.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Federal share described in subsection (a) shall be not more 
     than 50 percent.
       ``(2) Greater than 50 percent.--The Director may use not 
     more than 20 percent of the funds made available under this 
     subtitle for a fiscal year to enter into arrangements under 
     subsection (a) for which the Federal share may be greater 
     than 50 percent.
       ``(3) Operational expenses.--No funds for operational 
     expenses may be provided under this section to any entity 
     that is not a museum.
       ``(c) Review and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish procedures 
     for reviewing and evaluating arrangements described in 
     subsection (a) entered into under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Applications for technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director may use not more than 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle 
     for technical assistance awards.
       ``(B) Individual museums.--Individual museums may receive 
     not more than 3 technical assistance awards under 
     subparagraph (A), but subsequent awards for technical 
     assistance shall be subject to review outside the Institute.
       ``(d) Services for Native Americans.--From amounts 
     appropriated under section 275, the Director shall reserve 
     1.75 percent to award grants to, or enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with, Indian tribes and organizations 
     that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians (as 
     defined in section 7207 of the Native Hawaiian Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 7517)), to enable such tribes and organizations to 
     carry out the activities described in subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 304. REPEALS.

       Sections 274 and 275 of the Museum and Library Services Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 9174 and 9175) are repealed.

     SEC. 305. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 276 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9176) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$28,700,000 for the 
     fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 1998 through 2002.'' and inserting 
     ``$41,500,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''; and
       (2) by redesignating such section as section 275 of such 
     Act.

     SEC. 306. SHORT TITLE.

       Subtitle C of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9171 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 271, 272, and 273 as sections 
     272, 273, and 274, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after the subtitle heading the following:

     ``SEC. 271. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This subtitle may be cited as the `Museum Services 
     Act'.''.

 TITLE IV--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ACT

     SEC. 401. AMENDMENT TO CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 4 of the National Commission on Libraries and 
     Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1503) is amended by 
     striking ``accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, 
     bequests, and devises of property,'' and inserting ``solicit, 
     accept, hold, administer, invest in the name of the United 
     States, and utilize gifts, bequests, and devises of services 
     or property,''.

     SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO MEMBERSHIP.

       Section 6(a) of the National Commission on Libraries and 
     Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1505(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``and at least one 
     other of whom shall be knowledgeable with respect to the 
     library and information service and science needs of the 
     elderly'';

[[Page S5349]]

       (2) by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``A majority of members of the Commission who have 
     taken office and are serving on the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum for conduct of business at official 
     meetings of the Commission''; and
       (3) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``five years, except 
     that'' and all that follows through the period and inserting 
     ``five years, except that--
       ``(1) a member of the Commission appointed to fill a 
     vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for 
     which the member's predecessor was appointed, shall be 
     appointed only for the remainder of such term; and
       ``(2) any member of the Commission may continue to serve 
     after an expiration of the member's term of office until such 
     member's successor is appointed, has taken office, and is 
     serving on the Commission.''.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. AMENDMENTS TO ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT.

       Section 5 of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act (20 
     U.S.C. 974) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``$5,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$8,000,000,000'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$500,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$600,000,000''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) not less than $400,000,000 but less than 
     $500,000,000, then coverage under this chapter shall extend 
     only to loss or damage in excess of the first $400,000 of 
     loss or damage to items covered; or
       ``(8) $500,000,000 or more, then coverage under this 
     chapter shall extend only to loss or damage in excess of the 
     first $500,000 of loss or damage to items covered.''.

     SEC. 502. NATIONAL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM.

       (a) Designation.--The Capital Children's Museum located at 
     800 Third Street, NE, Washington, D.C. (or any successor 
     location), organized under the laws of the District of 
     Columbia, is designated as the ``National Children's 
     Museum''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Capital Children's Museum referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the National Children's 
     Museum.

     SEC. 503. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 170(e)(6)(B)(i)(III) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the special rule for contributions of 
     computer technology and equipment for educational purposes) 
     is amended by striking ``section 213(2)(A) of the Library 
     Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``section 213(1)(A) of the Library Services and 
     Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(1)(A))''.

     SEC. 504. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Title Heading.--The title heading for the Museum and 
     Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:

               ``TITLE II--MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES''.

       (b) Subtitle A Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle 
     A of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et 
     seq.) is amended to read as follows:

                  ``Subtitle A--General Provisions''.

       (c) Subtitle B Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle 
     B of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9121 et 
     seq.) is amended to read as follows:

            ``Subtitle B--Library Services and Technology''.

       (d) Subtitle C Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle 
     C of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9171 et 
     seq.) is amended to read as follows:

                    ``Subtitle C--Museum Services''.

       (e) Contributions.--Section 208 of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9106) (as redesignated by section 104 
     of this Act) is amended by striking ``property of services'' 
     and inserting ``property or services''.
       (f) State Plan Contents.--Section 224(b)(5) of the Library 
     Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(b)(5)) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end.
       (g) National Leadership Grants, Contracts, or Cooperative 
     Agreements.--Section 262(b)(1) of the Library Services and 
     Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9162(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``cooperative agreements, with,'' and inserting ``cooperative 
     agreements with,''.

     SEC. 505. REPEALS.

       (a) National Commission on Libraries and Information 
     Science Act.--Section 5 of the National Commission on 
     Libraries and Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1504) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
       (b) Museum and Library Services Act of 1996.--Sections 704 
     through 707 of the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996 
     (20 U.S.C. 9102 note, 9103 note, and 9105 note) are repealed.

     SEC. 506. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, except that the amendments 
     made by sections 203, 204, and 305 of this Act shall take 
     effect on October 1, 2003.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I rise to join Senators Gregg, 
Kennedy, Frist, and others in introducing the Museum and Library 
Services Act.
  This legislation, which extends the authorization of museum and 
library services through fiscal year 2009 and makes several important 
improvements to current law, is a compromise based on S. 238, 
bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senators Kennedy, Cochran, 
Collins, Snowe, and others in January.
  Like S. 238, this bill ensures that library activities are 
coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now 
part of the No child Left Behind Act of 2001. It also doubles the 
minimum State allotment under the Library Program, which will enable 
smaller States such as Rhode Island to benefit and implement the 
valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put 
in place. It includes an increase in the indemnity limits under the 
Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to ensure continued support for 
American museums as they facilitate international cultural exchanges 
through touring exhibitions here in the U.S. and loans of American art 
around the world.
  The bill also updates the uses of funds for library and museum 
programs and increases the authorization under the Library services and 
Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $250 million and the Museum 
Services Act from $28.7 million to $41.5 million. We should meet these 
funding levels in the appropriations process due to the strong 
bipartisan nature of the bill we are introducing today. I personally 
believe that our libraries and museums should be more robustly funded, 
particularly as these institutions play increasingly important roles in 
our lives. Indeed, the bipartisan bill that Senator Kennedy and I put 
forward earlier this year included even higher funding levels. But, in 
an effort to move this bill forward, I have agreed to support this 
compromise.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work 
for its swift passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 889. A bill to accord honorary citizenship to the alien victims of 
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States and 
to provide for the granting of citizenship to the alien spouses and 
children of certain victims of such attacks; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist 
Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship 
relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September 
11, 2001.
  In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the 
families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety 
of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been 
dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my 
view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of 
September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be 
a part of that effort.
  When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in 
the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of 
hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on 
American soil on a major American institution and directed at the 
United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. 
Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder 
with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and 
their families should be honored.
  My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants 
and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their 
spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill 
would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a 
background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the 
spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to 
offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because 
of this attack on the United States.
  About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that 
fateful September morning. Nationals from

[[Page S5350]]

some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non-
immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents.
  America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good 
reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 
11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia, 
Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and 
Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more.
  In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant 
families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center 
disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and 
daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and 
their livelihoods jeopardized.
  Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic 
nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the 
families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They 
are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in 
the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs 
designed to assist the surviving families of victims.
  Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous 
burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of 
one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her 
immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker 
status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were 
born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in 
American schools.
  She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. 
However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the 
last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now. 
My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to 
avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they 
have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of 
their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do.
  This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received 
numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their 
immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. 
Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork 
to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor 
die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. 
This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to 
become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache.
  When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not 
distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between 
undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking 
the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and 
non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant.
  The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but 
they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are 
a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. 
Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can 
acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by 
allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of 
American citizenship.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and 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. 889

       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 ``Terrorist Victim Citizenship 
     Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered a 
     series of attacks which led to the deaths of thousands of 
     people.
       (2) Hundreds of foreign nationals perished in the attacks 
     on the American institutions on American soil.
       (3) At that time, the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service was processing applications for adjustment in 
     immigration status for immigrants who perished in the 
     attacks.
       (4) The immigrant or nonimmigrant status of many immigrant 
     families depends on the sponsorship of those who perished.
       (5) The former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     publicly stated that it would not take action against foreign 
     nationals whose immigration status is in jeopardy as a direct 
     result of the attack.
       (6) The Commissioner of the former Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service James Ziglar stated that ``the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service will exercise its 
     discretion toward families of victims during this time of 
     mourning and readjustment''.
       (7) Only Congress has the authority to change immigration 
     law to address unanticipated omissions in existing law to 
     account for the unique circumstances surrounding the events 
     of September 11, 2001.

     SEC. 3. DECEASED ALIEN VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS DEEMED TO 
                   BE UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

       Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and except as 
     provided in section 5, each alien who died as a result of a 
     September 11, 2001, terrorist attack against the United 
     States, shall, as of that date, be considered to be an 
     honorary citizen of the United States if the alien held 
     lawful status under the immigration laws of the United States 
     as of that date.

     SEC. 4. CITIZENSHIP ACCORDED TO ALIEN SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF 
                   CERTAIN VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and except as 
     provided in section 5, an alien spouse or child of an 
     individual who was lawfully present in the United States and 
     who died as a result of a September 11, 2001, terrorist 
     attack against the United States shall be entitled to 
     naturalization as a citizen of the United States upon being 
     administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an 
     appropriate ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448), without 
     regard to the current status of the alien spouse or child 
     under the immigration laws of the United States, if the 
     spouse or child applies to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     for naturalization not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall record the date of naturalization of any person granted 
     naturalization under this section as being September 10, 
     2001.

     SEC. 5. EXCEPTIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien 
     may not be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, or 
     afforded honorary citizenship, under this Act if the alien 
     is--
       (1) inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or deportable 
     under paragraph (2) or (4) of section 237(a) of that Act, 
     including any terrorist perpetrator of a September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attack against the United States; or
       (2) a member of the family of a person described in 
     paragraph (1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Collins, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 890. A bill to amend the individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act to provide grants to State educational agencies to establish high 
cost funds from which local educational agencies are paid a percentage 
of the costs of providing a free appropriate public education to high 
need children and other high costs associated with educating children 
with disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Supporting Success for High Need Students Act, and I thank Senator 
Collins and Senator Kennedy for joining me in offering this 
legislation. In recent years, I have come to this floor many times to 
talk about special education, often in the context of the need to fully 
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is often 
known.
  Mandatory full funding of IDEA is an important issue that should have 
been settled many years ago. The Federal Government should be meeting 
the commitment it made over 25 years ago to fund 40 percent of the 
excess cost of special education. Two years ago, this body finally 
recognized that reality and passed an amendment to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act that would have fulfilled that promise for 
students, schools, districts and States struggling to make up where we 
fall short. I was disappointed that the President made it clear that he 
did not support funding this long-standing mandate, and that the House 
voted not to accept the Senate amendment. At that time I voiced my 
commitment to continuing to fight to provide the full funding that is 
long overdue, and I will continue that fight. Unfortunately though, 
there is a small minority of

[[Page S5351]]

students whose educational needs will not be adequately supported even 
when IDEA is fully funded.
  High-need students, whose disabilities may make education an 
extremely expensive endeavor, must nonetheless have the services and 
supports they need to receive a full, appropriate public education. 
Children who are severely autistic or have severe developmental 
disabilities, for example, may need special facilities, equipment, 
educational tools, medical services, professional individualized 
attention and other resources in order to get the education they need 
to succeed. These needs often far exceed those of most students with 
disabilities, and so do their costs. The National Center for Education 
Statistics estimates that the average per pupil expenditure to educate 
a child in the United States was $7,156 in the 2000-01 academic year. 
The cost of educating a high-needs student can far exceed that. Costs 
occasionally exceed $150,000 per year--more than 20 times the average--
to provide students with disabilities the education they need. However, 
no price is too high to fulfill the civil rights of America's children.
  With so many Americans out of work, and State and local budgets 
squeezed to the brink of disaster, these costs can be a prohibitive 
burden for school districts to shoulder. Small, rural school districts 
or districts near specialized medical facilities--which are often in 
our major cities, but can be in unexpected locations such as near a 
major military base--are most heavily impacted by these costs. But in 
the right combination of circumstances, such as a family with 
quadruplets who are all severely developmentally delayed, any district 
can feel the pinch of the costs incurred from educating these high-need 
children.
  I know that educators, administrators and elected officials at every 
level want to do the right thing. They are trying to give students with 
disabilities the best education they can. But too often, they simply 
lack the resources to do so, or they find themselves faced with a no-
win situation--choosing between implementing an after school program 
for the entire district or funding one high-need student's 
Individualized Education Plan. The losers in this equation are the 
students--with or without disabilities--their parents, and our society 
as a whole. The resulting tensions do a grave disservice to our 
communities.

  The bill I am introducing today--the Supporting Success for High Need 
Students Act of 2003--is a carefully crafted bill that would address 
this problem. This legislation adds funding to IDEA targeted 
specifically for high-need students. It authorizes $750 million in 
fiscal year 2004 for grants to be administered by the States. This 
funding would be allocated to the States using the same formula that 
apportions funding for IDEA part B. If a high-need student's education 
costs more than four times the average per pupil expenditure, the 
school district would be able to apply for a grant to offset those 
costs. I believe that we should preserve incentives for school 
districts to manage those costs, so my bill would allow districts to 
recover three-quarters of the costs above that 400 percent threshold to 
educate high-needs students. Districts could not be reimbursed with 
these funds for any legal costs incurred through due process 
proceedings, or costs that should be reimbursed by Medicaid. The funds 
would only cover education and related services included in an 
appropriately formulated Individualized Education Plan.
  To illustrate, let's assume that four times the average per pupil 
expenditure is $25,000. If a school district were serving a student 
whose education cost $45,000 a year, that district could recoup about 
$15,000 from the State grant. If a district were serving a student 
whose education cost $225,000, that district could recoup about 
$150,000. This bill would not make up all the additional costs of 
educating high-need students, but it would give struggling districts a 
much-needed lifeline by making them a lot more manageable.
  It has often been noted that the moral test of a society is how it 
cares for its weakest members. It is the government's appropriate role 
and duty to protect the basic human dignity of all its citizens to 
ensure that even the neediest among us have a fair opportunity to 
realize their dreams and potential. That is why we passed the special 
education law over 25 years ago, and that is why we should pass the 
Supporting Success for High Need Students Act his 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. 890

       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 ``Supporting Success for High 
     Need Students Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. HIGH COST FUND FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 620. HIGH COST FUND FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Average per-pupil expenditure.--The term `average 
     per-pupil expenditure' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(2) High need child.--The term `high need child' means a 
     child with a disability for whom a free appropriate public 
     education in a fiscal year costs more than 4 times the 
     average per-pupil expenditure for such fiscal year.
       ``(b) Authorization of Grant Program and Allotment.--
       ``(1) Reservation.--From funds appropriated under 
     subsection (h), the Secretary shall reserve--
       ``(A) not more than 1 percent to assist the outlying areas 
     in providing a free appropriate public education to children 
     with disabilities in such areas for whom a free appropriate 
     public education costs more than 4 times the national average 
     per-pupil expenditure or 4 times the average per-pupil 
     expenditure in the outlying area; and
       ``(B) 1.226 percent to assist the Secretary of the Interior 
     in providing a free appropriate public education to children 
     with disabilities on reservations who are enrolled in schools 
     for Indian children operated or funded by the Secretary of 
     the Interior for whom a free appropriate public education 
     costs more than 4 times the national average per-pupil 
     expenditure or 4 times the average per-pupil expenditure in 
     such schools.
       ``(2) Grant Program.--From funds appropriated under 
     subsection (h), and not reserved under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall award grants to State educational agencies, 
     from allotments under paragraph (3), to enable the State 
     educational agencies to establish high cost funds, as 
     described in subsection (c), from which local educational 
     agencies shall receive disbursements to pay a percentage of 
     the costs of providing a free appropriate public education to 
     high need children and other high costs, as described in 
     subsection (c)(3), associated with educating children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(3) Allotment.--From funds appropriated under subsection 
     (h) for a fiscal year, and not reserved under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall allot to each State an amount that bears 
     the same ratio to such funds as the amount the State received 
     under section 611 for the fiscal year bears to the total 
     amount received by all States under that section for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(c) High Cost Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under subsection (b) shall--
       ``(A) use the grant funds to establish a high cost fund; 
     and
       ``(B) make disbursements from the high cost fund to local 
     educational agencies in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Required disbursements from the fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under subsection (b) shall make 
     disbursements from the fund established under paragraph (1) 
     to local educational agencies to pay the percentage described 
     in subparagraph (C) of the costs of providing a free 
     appropriate public education to high need children.
       ``(B) Application.--
       ``(i) In general.--A local educational agency that desires 
     a disbursement under this paragraph shall submit an 
     application to the State educational agency at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the State 
     educational agency may require.
       ``(ii) Contents.--An application submitted pursuant to 
     clause (i) shall contain the following:

       ``(I) A figure that reflects the costs of providing a free 
     appropriate public education to each high need child served 
     by the local educational agency in a fiscal year for whom 
     such agency desires a disbursement under this section.
       ``(II) The IEP for each high need child served by the local 
     educational agency for whom such agency desires a 
     disbursement under this section.
       ``(III) Assurances that grant funds provided under this 
     section shall not be used to pay costs that otherwise would 
     be reimbursable as medical assistance for a child with a 
     disability under the State medicaid program under title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act.

       ``(C) Disbursements.--

[[Page S5352]]

       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (D), a State 
     educational agency shall make a disbursement to a local 
     educational agency that submits an application under 
     subparagraph (B) in an amount that is equal to 75 percent of 
     the costs that are in excess of 4 times the average per-pupil 
     expenditure in either the Nation or the State where the child 
     resides (calculated from whichever average per-pupil 
     expenditure is lower) associated with educating each high 
     need child served by such local educational agency in a 
     fiscal year for whom such agency desires a disbursement.
       ``(ii) Appropriate costs.--The costs associated with 
     educating a high need child under clause (i) are only those 
     costs associated with providing special education and related 
     services to such child that are identified in such child's 
     appropriately developed IEP.
       ``(D) Disallowance of certain payments.--A State 
     educational agency may disallow payment of certain costs 
     included in the figure submitted by a local educational 
     agency under subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) if such costs are 
     determined by the State educational agency to be 
     inappropriate or unnecessary excess costs associated with 
     providing a free appropriate public education to a high need 
     child.
       ``(E) Legal fees.--The costs associated with providing a 
     free appropriate public education to a high need child shall 
     not include legal fees, court costs, or other costs 
     associated with a cause of action brought on behalf of such 
     child to ensure a free appropriate public education for such 
     child.
       ``(3) Permissible disbursements from remaining funds.--A 
     State educational agency may make disbursements to local 
     educational agencies from any funds that are remaining in the 
     high cost fund after making the required disbursements under 
     paragraph (2) for a fiscal year for the following purposes:
       ``(A) To pay the costs associated with serving children 
     with disabilities who moved into the areas served by such 
     local educational agencies after commencement of the school 
     year to assist the local educational agencies in providing a 
     free appropriate public education for such children in such 
     year.
       ``(B) To compensate local educational agencies that expend 
     over a threshold amount determined by the State educational 
     agency on costs associated with providing a free appropriate 
     public education to all children with disabilities served by 
     such agencies.
       ``(4) Limitation on administrative costs.--A State 
     educational agency may use not more than 2 percent of the 
     funds received under this section for the administrative 
     costs of carrying out such agency's responsibilities under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Assurance of a Free Appropriate Public Education.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to limit or condition the right of a child with a 
     disability who is assisted under this part to receive a free 
     appropriate public education pursuant to section 612(a)(1) in 
     a least restrictive environment pursuant to section 
     612(a)(5); and
       ``(2) to authorize a State educational agency or local 
     educational agency to indicate a limit on what is expected to 
     be spent on the education of a child with a disability.
       ``(e) Evaluation and Report.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) evaluate the effectiveness of the high cost funds 
     established pursuant to this section; and
       ``(2) submit a report to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress on such evaluation.
       ``(f) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant 
     other Federal, State, and local funds available for providing 
     a free appropriate public education for children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(g) Medicaid Services Not Affected.--Grant funds provided 
     under this section shall not be used to pay costs that 
     otherwise would be reimbursable as medical assistance for a 
     child with a disability under the State medicaid program 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Ensign, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Corzine, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 893. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in 
employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join concerned 
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned 
citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many 
other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition. 
America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious 
freedom. It should be a place where people should not be forced to 
choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I 
am joining with Senators Kerry, Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch, 
Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine in introducing the bipartisan 
Workplace Religious Freedom Act.
  This legislation provides a much needed, balanced approach to 
reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace. It 
recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue 
hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, many with a deep 
personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal 
religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some 
Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays. 
Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith 
convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as 
holy.
  Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head 
covering, or a turban. As a Nation whose great strength rests in 
diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and 
unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're generous 
enough, and respecting enough as a Nation, to support others in genuine 
expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious 
minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very 
small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly diverse 
society, many remain among us who still hold to ancient, heartfelt 
principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they 
deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in 
preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core 
principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence 
of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. Religious 
freedom is best protected and maintained by respecting the diversity of 
religious traditions, especially minority religions. The tragedy of 
September 11, 2001 has reminded us that religious pluralism is one the 
great strengths of this country and an example to much of the world.
  In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers 
would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees 
whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do whenever possible 
here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on 
certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious 
holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but 
important decency to their workers, some unfortunately do not.
  Historically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to 
address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires 
employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their 
employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the 
employer. The problem is that our Federal courts have essentially read 
these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue 
hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this 
great Nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus, 
a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck 
driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada 
can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if 
she wants to continue working for them.
  The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle 
that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of 
employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and 
strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while 
ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American employers. It 
is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller 
business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to 
accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a 
large manufacturing concern.
  I am proud of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I am proud 
that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups 
ranging from the Christian Legal Society, the Union of Orthodox Jewish 
Congregations, the

[[Page S5353]]

Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the 
North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, 
the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee and 
many others.
  America is a great Nation because we honor not only the freedom of 
conscience--but also the freedom to exercise one's religion according 
to the dictates of that religious conscience. This liberty, known as 
the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. It should 
be supported from all quarters through religious accommodation in both 
the public and private sectors. This fundamental freedom is protected 
here in this legislation which re-establishes an appropriate balance 
between the demands of work and the principles of faith.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am extremely pleased to join with my 
colleague Senator Santorum today to introduce the Workplace Religious 
Freedom Act of 2003. Senators Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch, 
Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine have all joined us as original 
cosponsors of this important legislation.
  The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would protect workers from on-
the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. It 
represents a milestone in the protection of the religious liberties of 
all workers.
  In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require 
employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or 
observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the 
employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has 
been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint 
on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The 
Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore the weight to the 
religious accommodation provision that Congress originally intended and 
help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to reasonably 
accommodate their employees' religious practices.
  The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many 
religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to 
carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from 
employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about 
employers who will not make reasonable accommodations for employees to 
observe the Sabbath and other holy days, or for employees to wear 
religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for employees to wear 
clothing that meets religion-based modesty requirements.
  The refusal of an employer absent undue hardship to provide 
reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a 
form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 
1972. And religious discrimination should be treated as seriously as 
any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and 
equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious 
Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all 
members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, 
will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination.
  Even after September 11, 2001, with a heightened sense of religious 
sensitivity among the American people, securing greater protections for 
the religious needs of employees is a major issue. In October 2001, the 
U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a Muslim woman who 
was pressured by her employer to stop wearing her head scarf. We must 
come together now to pass this bipartisan legislation.
  It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the 
religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers 
from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only 
if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for 
the employer. This common sense definition of undue hardship is used in 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and has worked well in that 
context.
  We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it 
simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers, 
strengthening the required standard for employers. This bill does not 
deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively 
expand 14th Amendment rights.
  This bill is endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the 
Agudath Israel of America, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish 
Congress, Americans for Democratic Action, Anti-Defamation League, 
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Bible Sabbath Association, 
B'nai B'rith International, Central Conference of American Rabbis, 
Christian Legal Society, Church of Scientology International, Council 
on Religious Freedom, Family Research Council, General Board of Church 
and Society The United Methodist Church, General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists, Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Hadassah--WZOA, Institute 
on Religion and Public Policy, The Interfaith Alliance, International 
Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, International Commission on 
Freedom of Conscience, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, 
Islamic Supreme Council of America, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 
Jewish Policy Center, NA'AMAT USA, National Association of 
Evangelicals, National Conference for Community and Justice, National 
Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., National Council of 
Jewish Women, National Jewish Democratic Council, National Sikh Center, 
North American Council for Muslim Women, Presbyterian Church (USA), 
Rabbinical Council of America, Republican Jewish Coalition, Sikh 
Council on Religion and Education, Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task 
Force, Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty 
Commission, Traditional Values Coalition, Union of American Hebrew 
Congregations, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, United Church of 
Christ Office for Church in Society, and United Synagogue of 
Conservative Judaism.
  I want to thank Senator Santorum for joining me to lead this effort. 
I look forward to working with him to pass this legislation so that all 
American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities 
and the ability to practice their religion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 895. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 
wireless telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
treatment of such equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
clarify the tax rules governing the depreciation of wireless 
telecommunications equipment. I am joined by my distinguished colleague 
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
  Our current depreciation system, the Modified Accelerated Cost 
Recovery System, MACRS, was last reformed in 1986. At that time, the 
wireless telecommunications industry was in its infancy. Therefore, 
wireless telecommunications equipment, which is primarily computer-
based technology, was not assigned to a specific asset class.
  The IRS has provided only limited guidance with respect to the 
depreciation of wireless telecommunications equipment. In 1998, the IRS 
issued Technical Advice Memorandum, TAM, 98-25-03, which asserted that 
the classes of assets used to provide wireless telecommunications 
services are comparable to wireline telecommunications assets and, 
thus, should be assigned to wireline asset classes. The TAM concluded 
that mobile switching centers should be classified in the same asset 
class with computer-based telephone central office switching equipment, 
5-year property. However, the TAM failed to take a clear position with 
regard to the classification of cell site equipment, so there is no 
practical guidance for IRS revenue agents or taxpayers to follow.
  Over the past decade, the IRS and wireless telecommunications 
companies have expended significant resources in audits and settlement 
disputes involving the depreciation of wireless telecommunications 
equipment. This has resulted in ad hoc, inconsistent, and costly case-
by-case determinations of the appropriate class

[[Page S5354]]

life for this equipment. It has created the current situation in which 
similarly situated companies are being treated differently, with some 
being required to depreciate their wireless telecommunications 
equipment over 5 years, and others over 10 years or longer.
  I believe Congress should act to clarify the depreciation rules for 
wireless telecommunications equipment to provide certainty to the IRS 
and the taxpayer, thereby putting an end to the costly dispute 
settlement process; to ensure a level playing field for taxpayers; and 
to provide fair tax-treatment of wireless telecommunications equipment. 
Given the nature of this equipment and the rapid technological advances 
in the wireless industry, I believe the most appropriate classification 
for wireless telecommunications equipment is as ``qualified 
technological equipment'' with a 5-year depreciable life.
  The bill I am introducing with my colleague from Arkansas would make 
this important clarification to the tax laws. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to enact my legislation that will provide more 
rational tax-treatment of wireless telecommunications equipment. By so 
doing, we will take an incremental step toward modernizing the Tax 
Code's outdated depreciation rules.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 899. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
restore the full market basket percentage increase applied to payments 
to hospitals for inpatient hospital services furnished to medicare 
beneficiaries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today that will increase Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. While we 
corrected in the omnibus appropriations bill the reimbursement issue 
for physicians and rural hospitals, nothing was done to assist teaching 
hospitals or give hospitals a full inflationary update. Texas hospitals 
alone are facing a loss of $53 million in 2003 due to Medicare 
reimbursement cuts.
  Hospital admissions have risen from 31 million patients in 1990 to 33 
million in 2000, and the number of days in the hospital is rising as 
well. Increased admissions, rising liability premiums, and the cost of 
advanced technology have forced hospitals to cut back on services. The 
cost of a pint of blood increased 31 percent in 2001, an additional 
$920 million burden to hospitals. Such costs are continuing to rise, 
yet Medicare reimbursements to hospitals are not keeping pace with 
inflation and their margins are slowly shrinking. Fifty-eight percent 
of hospitals are losing money on the Medicare patients they treat.
  This legislation, the American Hospital Preservation Act, restores 
the market basket update and the reimbursement for indirect medical 
education, IME, payments to teaching hospitals. The market basket 
update is an inflationary adjustment to account for the rising costs of 
goods and services, and the IME payments give teaching hospitals an 
additional Medicare reimbursement due to their higher costs of 
inpatient care. Both of these factors were cut by the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997. Restoring the cuts means $289 million to Texas hospitals 
and $6 billion nationwide over the next five years. Major teaching 
hospitals are experiencing their lowest profit margin since the late 
'90s, 2.4 percent. Patients, especially those who are seriously ill, 
rely on teaching hospitals, which make up 78 percent of all trauma 
centers and 80 percent of all burn beds. Although only 23 percent of 
all hospitals are teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of 
charity care.
  Emergency rooms are increasingly used as a primary care clinic 
because patients cannot find a physician who accepts Medicare, and they 
are treating more individuals who are uninsured. In 2000, hospitals 
provided $21.6 billion in uncompensated care.
  Lower reimbursement rates coupled with bioterrorism risks and a 
workforce shortage make our hospitals a time bomb waiting to go off. 
Our hospitals are always open and must accept anyone who walks through 
their doors. It is our responsibility to ensure they have adequate 
resources from the Federal Government.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the American 
Hospital Preservation Act.
  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. 899

       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 ``American Hospital 
     Preservation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. RESTORING FULL MARKET BASKET UPDATE FOR INPATIENT PPS 
                   HOSPITALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (XVIII), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by striking subclause (XIX) and inserting the following 
     new subclauses:
       ``(XIX) for fiscal year 2004, the market basket percentage 
     increase plus 0.55 percentage points for hospitals in all 
     areas; and
       ``(XX) for fiscal year 2005 and each subsequent fiscal 
     year, the market basket percentage increase for hospitals in 
     all areas.''.
       (b) Protecting Full Market Basket Update for Fiscal Years 
     2004 and Thereafter.--Such section, as amended by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by inserting after subclause (XX) the 
     following:
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the `applicable 
     percentage increase' for any fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2005 may not be a percentage that is less than the market 
     basket percentage increase for such year.''.

     SEC. 2. FREEZING INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME) ADJUSTMENT 
                   PERCENTAGE AT 6.5 PERCENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (VI), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking subclause (VII) and inserting the following 
     new subclauses:
       ``(VII) during fiscal year 2003, ``c'' is equal to 1.35.
       ``(VIII) during fiscal year 2004, ``c'' is equal to 1.85; 
     and
       ``(IX) on or after October 1, 2004, `c' is equal to 1.6.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of 
     Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1999 or'' and inserting ``1999,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, or the American Hospital Preservation 
     Act of 2003'' after ``2000''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 900. A bill convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the 
savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake 
Irrigation Project to the pertinent irrigation districts; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of 
legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border 
of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects 
Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from 
Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and 
those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is 
little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership.
  I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to 
believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana 
irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. In the past I 
asked John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, his 
position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower 
Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed 
the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the 
transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very 
encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is 
an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more 
appropriate control.'' During our discussion Commissioner Keys promised 
to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and 
I look forward to it.
  The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the 
original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of 
Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947-
48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help 
spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the 
number one industry in the area.

[[Page S5355]]

  The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the 
greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 
family farms rely on these projects for economic subsistence, and the 
entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In 
an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other 
commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a 
foundation for the businesses in the area.
  As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd 
like to it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return 
over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the 
ideals that have made this country successful The 500 families impacted 
are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people 
to manage their own irrigation projects.
  Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is 
taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an 
individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the 
government gets involved in new projects, there are many that we can 
safely pass on to State or local control. The Lower Yellowstone 
Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my 
colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as 
possible.
  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. 900

       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 ``Lower Yellowstone 
     Reclamation Projects Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Diversion works.--The term ``Diversion Works'' means 
     the land in the N\1/2\NW\1/4\ of Sec. 36, T.18N., R.56E. P. 
     M., Montana, and the diversion dam structure, canal headworks 
     structure, and the first section of the main canal, all 
     contained therein.
       (2) Intake irrigation district.--The term ``Intake 
     Irrigation District'' means the irrigation district by that 
     name that is organized under the laws of the State of Montana 
     and operates the Intake Project.
       (3) Intake project.--The term ``Intake Project'' means the 
     Federal irrigation feature operated by the Intake Irrigation 
     District and authorized under the Act of August 11, 1939 
     (chapter 717; 53 Stat. 1418).
       (4) Irrigation districts.--The term ``irrigation 
     districts'' means--
       (A) the Intake Irrigation District;
       (B) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 1;
       (C) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2; and
       (D) the Savage Irrigation District.
       (5) Lower yellowstone irrigation district no. 1.--The term 
     ``Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 1'' means the 
     irrigation district by that name that is organized under the 
     laws of the State of Montana and operates the part of the 
     Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project located in the State of 
     Montana.
       (6) Lower yellowstone irrigation district no. 2.--The term 
     ``Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2'' means the 
     irrigation district by that name that is organized under the 
     laws of the State of North Dakota and operates the part of 
     the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project located in the State 
     of North Dakota.
       (7) Lower yellowstone irrigation project.--The term ``Lower 
     Yellowstone Irrigation Project'' means the Federal irrigation 
     feature operated by Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 
     1 and Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2 and 
     authorized by the Act of June 17, 1902 (chapter 1093; 32 
     Stat. 388).
       (8) Memorandum of understanding.--The term ``Memorandum of 
     Understanding'' means the memorandum of understanding dated 
     November 16, 1999, and any subsequent replacements or 
     amendments between the Districts and the Montana Area Office, 
     Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, for the purpose 
     of defining certain principles by which the title to the 
     projects will be transferred from the United States to the 
     districts.
       (9) Pick-sloan missouri basin program.--The term ``Pick-
     Sloan Missouri Basin Program'' means the comprehensive 
     Federal program for multipurpose benefits within the Missouri 
     River Basin, including irrigation authorized by section 9 of 
     the Act of December 22, 1944, commonly known as the ``Flood 
     Control Act of 1944'' (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 891).
       (10) Pick-sloan missouri basin program project use power.--
     The term ``Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program Project Use 
     Power'' means power available for establishing and 
     maintaining the irrigation developments of the Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri Basin Program.
       (11) Projects.--The term ``Projects'' means--
       (A) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project;
       (B) the Intake Irrigation Project; and
       (C) the Savage Unit.
       (12) Savage irrigation district.--The term ``Savage 
     Irrigation District'' means the irrigation district by that 
     name that is organized under the laws of the State of Montana 
     and operates the Savage Unit.
       (13) Savage unit.--The term ``Savage Unit'' means the 
     Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, a 
     Federal irrigation development authorized by the Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1944'') (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 891).
       (14) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF PROJECTS.

       (a) Conveyances.--
       (1) General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey works, 
     facilities, and lands of the Projects to the Irrigation 
     Districts in accordance with all applicable laws and pursuant 
     to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. The 
     conveyance shall take place in two stages, the first stage to 
     include all conveyances under this Act except Diversion Works 
     and the second stage to convey the Diversion Works.
       (2) Lands.--
       (A) General.--All lands, easements, and rights-of-way the 
     United States possesses that are to be conveyed by the 
     Secretary to the respective irrigation districts shall be 
     conveyed by quitclaim deed. Conveyance of such lands, 
     easements, and rights-of-way is subject to permits, licenses, 
     leases, rights-of-use, or right-of-way of record outstanding 
     in third parties on, over, or across such lands, easements, 
     and rights-of-way.
       (B) Mineral rights.--Conveyance of all lands herein 
     described shall be subject to a reservation by the United 
     States reserving all minerals of a nature whatsoever, 
     excluding sand and gravel, and subject to oil, gas, and other 
     mineral rights heretofore reserved of record by or in favor 
     of third parties.
       (3) Water rights.--The Secretary shall transfer to the 
     respective Irrigation Districts in accordance with and 
     subject to the law of the State of Montana, all natural flow, 
     wastewater, seepage, return flow, domestic water, stock 
     water, and groundwater rights held in part or wholly in the 
     name of the United States that are used to serve the lands 
     within the Irrigation Districts.
       (4) Costs.--
       (A) Reclamation withdrawn lands.--The Irrigation Districts 
     shall purchase Reclamation withdrawn lands as identified in 
     the Memorandum of Understanding for their value in providing 
     operation and maintenance benefits to the Irrigation 
     Districts.
       (B) Savage unit repayment obligations.--
       (i) Savage irrigation district.--As a condition of 
     transfer, the Secretary shall receive an amount from the 
     Savage Irrigation District equal to the present value of the 
     remaining water supply repayment obligation of $60,480 that 
     shall be treated as full payment under Contract Number I1r-
     1525, as amended and as extended by Contract No. 9-07-60-
     WO770.
       (ii) Pick-sloan missouri basin program construction 
     obligation.--As a condition of transfer, the Secretary shall 
     accept $94,727 as payment from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 
     Program (Eastern Division) power customers under the terms 
     specified in this section, as consideration for the 
     conveyance under this subsection. This payment shall be out 
     of the receipts from the sale of power from the Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri Basin Program (Eastern Division) collected by the 
     Western Area Power Administration and deposited into the 
     Reclamation fund of the Treasury in fiscal year 2003. This 
     payment shall be treated as full and complete payment by the 
     power customers of the construction aid-to-irrigation 
     associated with the facilities of the Savage Unit.
       (b) Revocation of Reclamation Withdrawals and Orders.--
       (1) The Reclamation withdrawal established by Public Land 
     Order 4711 dated October 6, 1969, for the Lower Yellowstone 
     Irrigation Project in lots 1 and 2, section 3, T.23N., R. 59 
     E., is hereby revoked in its entirety.
       (2) The Secretarial Order of March 22, 1906, which was 
     issued for irrigation works on lots 3 and 4 section 2, T. 
     23N., R. 59E., and Secretarial Order of August 8, 1905, which 
     was issued for irrigation works in section 2, T. 17 N., R. 56 
     E. and section 6, T. 17 N., R. 57 E., are hereby revoked in 
     their entirety.
       (3) The Secretarial Order of August 24, 1903, and July 27, 
     1908, which were issued in connection with the Lower 
     Yellowstone Irrigation Project, are revoked insofar as they 
     affect the following lands:
       (A) Lot 9 of Sec. 2 and lot 2 of Sec. 30, T.18N., R.57E.; 
     lot 3 of Sec. 4, T.19N., R.58E.; lots 2 and 3 and 6 and 7 of 
     Sec. 12, T.21N, R.58E.; SW\1/4\NW\1/4\ of Sec. 26, T.22N., 
     R58E; lots 1 and 4 and 7 and NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of Sec. 20, 
     T.22N., R.59E.; SE\1/4\NE\1/4\ of Sec. 13, T.23N., R.59E.; 
     and lot 2 of Sec. 18, T.24N., R.60E.; all in the Principal 
     Meridian, Montana.
       (B) Lot 8 of Sec. 2 and lot 1 and lot 2 and lot 3 and NE\1/
     4\NE\1/4\ of Sec. 10 and lot 2 of Sec. 11 and lot 6 of Sec. 
     18 and lot 3 of Sec. 35, T.151N., R.104W.; and lot 7 of Sec. 
     28, T.152N., R.104W.; all in the Fifth Principal Meridian, 
     North Dakota.

[[Page S5356]]

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       If the conveyance under this Act has not occurred within 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act for the 
     first stage conveyances as provided in section 3, and 5 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act for the second 
     stage conveyances as provided in section 3, the Secretary 
     shall provide a report to the Committee on Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Resources of the Senate on the status of the transfer and 
     anticipated completion date.

     SEC. 5. RECREATION MANAGEMENT.

       As a condition of the Conveyance of lands under section 3, 
     the Secretary shall require that Lower Yellowstone Irrigation 
     District No. 1 and Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 
     2 convey a perpetual conservation easement to the State of 
     Montana, at no cost to the State, for the purposes of 
     protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values 
     and permitting recreation on Federal lands in part to be 
     conveyed under this Act. Lower Yellowstone Irrigation 
     District No 1, Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2, 
     and the State of Montana have mutually agreed upon such 
     conservation easement.

     SEC. 6. PROJECT PUMPING POWER.

       The Secretary shall sustain the irrigation developments 
     established by the Lower Yellowstone and Intake Projects and 
     the Savage Unit as components of the irrigation plan under 
     the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program and shall 
     continue to provide the Irrigation Districts with Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri River Basin Project Use power at the Irrigation 
     Districts' pumping plants, except that the rate shall be at 
     the preference power rate and there shall be no ability-to-
     pay adjustment.

     SEC. 7. YELLOWSTONE RIVER FISHERIES PROTECTION.

       (a) General.--The Secretary, prior to the transfer of title 
     of the Diversion Works and in cooperation with the Irrigation 
     Districts, shall provide fish protection devices to prevent 
     juvenile and adult fish from entering the Main Canal of the 
     Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project and allow bottom 
     dwelling fish species to migrate above the Project's Intake 
     Diversion Dam.
       (b) Participation.--The Secretary and the Irrigation 
     District shall work cooperatively in planning, engineering, 
     and constructing the fish protection devices.
       (c) Construction Schedule.--Construction of Fish Protection 
     Devices shall be completed within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Monitoring.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to the 
     transfer of title of the Diversion Works, shall establish and 
     conduct a monitoring plan to measure the effectiveness of the 
     devices for a period of 2 years after construction is 
     completed.
       (e) Modifications.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, prior to the transfer of title of the Diversion 
     Works, shall be responsible to modify the devices as 
     necessary to ensure proper functioning. All modifications 
     shall be completed within 3 years after the devices were 
     initially constructed.
       (f) Costs.--Costs incurred in planning, engineering, 
     constructing, monitoring, and modifying all fish protection 
     devices shall be deemed nonreimbursable.
       (g) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacements 
     Responsibility.--Following completion of monitoring and 
     modifications required under this section, the Irrigation 
     Districts shall operate, maintain, and replace the fisheries 
     protection devices in a manner to ensure proper functioning.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement 
     this section.

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS AND FUTURE BENEFITS.

       Upon conveyance of the projects under this Act, the 
     Irrigation Districts shall not be subject to the Reclamation 
     laws or entitled to receive any Reclamation benefits under 
     those laws except as provided in section 6.

     SEC. 9. LIABILITY.

       Effective on the date of conveyance of a project under this 
     Act, the United States shall not be liable under any State or 
     Federal law for damages of any kind arising out of any act, 
     omission, or occurrence relating to the projects, except for 
     damages caused by acts of negligence committed by the United 
     Stated or by its employees, agents, or contractors prior to 
     the date of this conveyance. Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to increase the liability of the United States 
     beyond that currently provided in chapter 171 of title 28, 
     United States Code, popularly known as the Federal Tort Act.

     SEC. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.

       As a condition of the Conveyances under section 3, the 
     Secretary shall by no later than the date on which the 
     conveyances occur complete appropriate analyses of the 
     transfer in compliance with the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
     and other applicable laws.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 901. A bill to make technical amendments to the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my 
colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Cochran, the Higher Education 
Technical Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation makes several 
technical and non-controversial changes to the Higher Education Act, 
HEA, and is designed to expand access to higher education, provide 
relief from burdensome legal requirements, improve the financial aid 
process, and bring greater clarity to the law.
  My bill provides for the re-enactment of two provisions in the HEA 
that expired at the end of the last fiscal year, and which are of great 
importance to students, their families, and schools. These provide 
schools having low student loan default rates with exemptions from the 
requirement that loan proceeds be disbursed in multiple installments, 
and the requirement that the disbursement of loan proceeds to first-
time undergraduate borrowers be delayed for 30 days after classes 
start. Thousands of institutions of higher education across America 
have traditionally counted on these exemptions to save them time and 
money in the disbursement of their limited financial aid resources. 
These provisions should also serve as an incentive for schools to keep 
their default rates low. At a time when both student and institutional 
budgets are being squeezed, we should do what we can to provide them 
with relief.
  Furthermore, this legislation provides for greater access to federal 
financial aid for those students participating in distance education 
programs. Specifically, it provides a waiver to the rule that a school 
having a 50 percent or more of its students or 50 percent or more of 
its courses in distance education is ineligible for the Title IV 
student aid programs. Schools eligible for the waiver must already be 
participating in the programs and must have low cohort default rates.
  This bill will also clarify that the HEA provision that limits the 
aid eligibility of a student convicted of one or more drug offenses 
applies only to those offenses that occur while the student is in 
school and receiving aid. Thus, students who may have had drug problems 
in the past but who want to turn their lives around through 
postsecondary education will be able to do so.
  The bill makes a number of other beneficial changes to the HEA. Most 
notably, it: Helps protect home-schooled students by making it clear 
that institutions of higher education will not lose their institutional 
eligibility for Federal financial aid by admitting home-schooled 
students; clarifies the Federal policy on the return of financial aid 
funds when students withdraw, to better protect students' grant aid; 
removes barriers to students seeking forbearance from lenders on 
student loan payments, by eliminating the requirement that new 
agreements between lenders and borrowers be in writing; instead, the 
bill allows a lender to accept a request for forbearance over the 
telephone, as long as a confirmation notice of the agreement reached is 
provided to the borrower and the borrower's file is updated; makes 
clear that under the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity 
Program, the U.S. Department of Education can provide scholarship aid 
to low-income and minority students to prepare for and attend law 
school; eases requirements for Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, by 
allowing them to apply for federal HSI grants without waiting two years 
between applications; corrects a drafting error in current law that 
mistakenly bars students attending certain nonprofit schools of 
veterinary medicine from eligibility for the Federal Family Education 
Loan Program; requires the GAO to conduct a study on how institutions 
of higher education report teacher pass rates on state certification 
exams; allows financial aid administrators to use ``professional 
judgment'' to adjust a student's financial need in cases where the 
student is a ward of the court; and expands the use of technology to 
provide voter registration material directly to students in a timely 
manner.
  The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2003 will provide 
important benefits to our Nation's postsecondary students. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.

[[Page S5357]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 902. A bill to declare, under the authority of Congress under 
Article I, section 8, of the Constitution to ``provide and maintain a 
Navy'', a national policy for the naval force structure required in 
order to ``provide for the common defense'' of the United States 
throughout the 21st century; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 
are the source of Congress' power regarding the Army and the Navy. 
Interestingly, while clause 12 of the Constitution gives Congress the 
power to raise and support armies, clause 13 requires Congress to 
provide and maintain a navy. Thus, while we have discretionary 
authority with regard to the establishment of an army, the Constitution 
presumes that we will always have and maintain a navy.
  Despite this constitutional duty, our current surface fleet is 
smaller than our fleet in 1917, the year before we entered World War I. 
What is worse, the future looks even more bleak. At current build 
rates, we will sink below a 200 ship navy. In fact, we are building 
ships at rates unseen since 1932--the height of the great depression.
  I submit that this policy is unsustainable. The U.S. Navy is not only 
a great pillar of American military might, it is an important tool in 
our diplomacy. American ships conduct about 175 international exercises 
every year. Yet, in recent years we have had to scale back 
participation, and in some cases, cancel exercises because the ships 
were simply not available. These joint exercises improve our ability to 
coordinate activity with our allies. They allow us to instill American 
notions of professionalism and service into the navies all around the 
world, and they give us important intelligence on emerging naval 
capabilities.
  Additionally, the Navy serves as a powerful deterrent in situations 
short of war. How many situations have we used our Navy as a symbol of 
American resolve. The firepower and strength represented by a carrier 
battle group has been important in the Taiwan Straights, in the Sea of 
Japan and in the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to believe that it 
will become any less so in future years.
  The Quadrennial Defense Review puts the requirements for the number 
of ships in the Navy at 360. Naval strategists warn that we are already 
proportioning risk. In other words, we are already deciding what seas 
we will leave underprotected, so as to ensure that we will have enough 
ships to cover flash points.
  The legislation I am offering today is a simple statement of policy. 
It states that it is the policy of the United States to return to a 
Navy of at least 375 ships. This should include 15 carrier battle 
groups and 15 amphibious ready groups. Yet, even this number is a 
dramatic decrease from our high point of a 600 ship navy. However, it 
is an achievable goal, if Congress begins to appropriate resources to 
the Navy shipbuilding account at reasonable levels.
  The bill is based on another policy statement we adopted into law in 
1999--the National Missile Defense Act. That law provided guidance to 
our authorization and appropriations process. It also provide guidance 
to the President's budget. It has been successful in ensuring that the 
last two administrations have budgeted sufficient resources to keep our 
national missile defense program on track. This statement of policy is 
more important still. It is not a statement about a future technology, 
it is a statement about a military capability that this country dare 
not abandon.
  I trust that the Senate shares my commitment to the future of our 
fleet. While it may come at real expense, I know my colleagues share 
the view that it is an expense worth making. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to ensure that this bill is adopted.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 902

       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 ``National Naval Force 
     Structure Policy Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL NAVAL FORCE STRUCTURE POLICY.

        It is the policy of the United States to rebuild as soon 
     as possible the size of the fleet of the United States Navy 
     to no fewer than 375 vessels in active service, to include 15 
     aircraft carrier battle groups and 15 amphibious ready 
     groups, in order to ensure peace through strength for the 
     United States throughout the 21st century.

                                 S. 903

       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 ``Renewal Community Employment 
     Credit Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. RENEWAL COMMUNITY EMPLOYERS MAY QUALIFY FOR 
                   EMPLOYMENT CREDIT BY EMPLOYING RESIDENTS OF 
                   CERTAIN OTHER RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1400H(b)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to modification) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) subsection (d)(1)(B) thereof shall be applied by 
     substituting `such renewal community, an adjacent renewal 
     community within the same State as such renewal community, or 
     a renewal community within such State which is within 5 miles 
     of any border of such renewal community' for `such 
     empowerment zone'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by 
     section 101(a) of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 903. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers in renewal communities to qualify for the renewal community 
employment credit by employing residents of certain other renewal 
communities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Renewal Community Program has been a 
tremendous success in promoting economic growth in my home State of 
Louisiana. It has boosted local economies and cut unemployment in areas 
that need it most. The Department of Housing and Urban Development 
designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal 
communities, under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
  Renewal communities can take advantage of wage tax credits, tax 
deductions, capital gains tax exclusions, and bond financing to 
stimulate job growth, promote economic development, and create 
affordable housing. This assistance goes to areas with poverty rates of 
at least 20 percent, and unemployment rates that are one-and-a-half 
times the national level. Households in renewal communities have 
incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in 
their local jurisdictions.
  One of the most beneficial business incentives under the program is 
the wage tax credit an employer can receive for hiring and retaining 
residents of renewal communities. Businesses can receive up to a $1,500 
Federal tax credit for every newly hired or existing employee who lives 
and works in the Renewal Community.
  Louisiana has four renewal communities. One is in New Orleans and the 
remaining three cover a large portion of the Central and Northern parts 
of the State. These three renewal communities have common borders. This 
is a tremendous benefit for Louisiana, but it also creates some 
problems. Under the rules of the program a business in one renewal 
community cannot receive the wage tax credit if they hire someone who 
lives outside that renewal community, even if that person lives in the 
renewal community right next door.
  A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of 
the State. The Ouachita Renewal Community which covers the City of 
Monroe in Ouachita Parish is surrounded by a number of parishes that 
fall into the North Louisiana Renewal Community--Morehouse Parish to 
the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, 
and Lincoln Parish to the west. The borders of these two renewal 
communities are literally two or three miles apart. Monroe is the 
economic hub of that part of my State. People from Morehouse, Caldwell, 
and Richland Parishes will naturally look for work there. But under 
current law, a company in Monroe cannot get a wage tax credit for 
hiring someone who lives in the renewal community right next door.

[[Page S5358]]

  The situation in Louisiana is fairly unique. I am not certain whether 
Congress really anticipated that one State would receive more than one 
renewal community designation or that those renewal communities would 
be so close together. I certainly understand the desire to promote 
economic development in specific areas. That can work if renewal 
communities are far apart. But when they are so close together as they 
are around Ouachita Parish, or a little further south in the middle of 
my State, where the Central Louisiana Renewal Community borders the 
North Louisiana Renewal Community, then we need to make the program 
more flexible. A person living in Franklin Parish near the border with 
Catahoula Parish does not necessarily know that both parishes lie in 
two different renewal communities. If the closest job is in Catahoula 
Parish, that is where a Franklin Parish resident is going to go. The 
problem is that a business in Catahoula Parish would not receive the 
tax break for hiring the worker from Franklin Parish--only a few miles 
away.
  We need to add some common sense flexibility to the Renewal Community 
program. Today I am introducing legislation that will allow the 
employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent 
or nearby renewal community and still receive the wage tax credits 
granted under the Act. This legislation essentially treats renewal 
communities that are within five miles of each other as one. This bill 
will make a small change in the Renewal Community program, but it will 
make a big difference to the people of my state.
  This legislation will make a very important program more successful 
for Louisiana and other states like it. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 905. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a broadband Internet access tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003. Last year, this bill had broad 
bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. Its companion legislation in the 
House of Representatives had 227 cosponsors. If the Senate considers an 
appropriately targeted and sized economic growth package, which 
includes investment incentives for businesses, this legislation should 
be a priority for inclusion in that legislation as it will help jump 
start a struggling sector of the economy.
  The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and 
forever changed the way America lives and works. Individuals, 
businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the 
benefits of advanced networked communications exponentially each year. 
However, where just a decade ago access to low bandwidth telephone 
facilities met our communications needs, today many people, businesses 
and other organizations require the ability to transmit and receive 
large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance 
learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites. 
This need will only continue to grow. In the near future, access to 
broadband services will be as critical as having a telephone.
  Over the last several years, companies have built networks that meet 
today's broadband need as fast as they can. Even with the recent 
downturn in the telecommunications industry, technology companies 
continue to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities in 
urban and suburban areas. They continue to tear up streets to install 
fiber optics, convert cable TV facilities to broadband telecom 
applications and develop innovative new DSL technologies. As the 
economy improves, these companies will greatly expand the rate of 
deployment of these and other technologies for urban and suburban 
consumers providing them access to the cutting-edge technologies and 
services.
  Other areas of this country are not as fortunate. In rural and inner 
city areas access to even the current generation of broadband 
communications is limited. Investment continues to lag behind wealthier 
urban and suburban communities. This imbalance has only been 
exacerbated due to the telecommunications industry's recent financial 
troubles. In fact, only a limited number of broadband providers exist 
outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas 
nationwide. A few positive signs are occurring though. Small rural 
telecommunications companies are slowly expanding into providing these 
services. They are limited in their ability to provide these services 
because of the expense of installing the infrastructure. This is 
because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve, terrain 
is difficult and populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of 
our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more 
than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--
which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies 
may believe that lower household income levels will not support a 
market for their services, so they choose not to invest in these 
communities. This is a classic situation of market failure that we must 
address.

  The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity 
to continue are alarming. People and businesses in well served 
communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban 
and suburban communities, will be able to build upon the inherent 
advantages of a networked economy. People and businesses in other 
areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in 
my State of West Virginia, would continue to be at an economic and 
educational disadvantage.
  We have seen how savvy businesses have crushed their competitors who 
failed to take advantage of technological innovations, businesses in 
infrastructure-rich areas that already have an advantage, ultimately 
could crush competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is equally 
true for rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new 
skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the 
information-based New Economy compete against their non-rural peers. 
The result could be devastating for Americans who live in rural areas 
or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and 
business failure concentrated in their communities.
  Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance 
to participate in our information-based global economy is also bad for 
the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their 
operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have 
adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city 
locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of 
their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper 
production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the 
deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of 
rural and inner city America.

  We have to make a decision on whether or not rural and inner city 
communities are going to have the same opportunities as their wealthier 
urban and suburban counterparts. I, along with many of my colleagues, 
believe they should and must. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 
would address this disparity.
  The Act would give companies the incentive to build current 
generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very targeted 
tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband 
facilities in rural or inner city areas a tax credit equal to ten 
percent of their investments over the next 5 years. This tax credit 
will help fight the growing disparity in technology that I just 
described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for 
high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only 
powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that 
inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can 
download data at a rate of speed of 1.0 megabytes per second, and 
upload data at 180 kilobytes per second qualify. These speeds will 
allow the broadest possible number of technologies to be eligible for 
the credit.

[[Page S5359]]

  In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies 
that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new 
services that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second 
download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure 
the economy requires as the digital economy expands. We need to reward 
the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation 
broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. These limited 
credits will provide the market the ability to affordably and 
profitably serve rural and inner city communities.
  The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 is part of the solution to 
the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and 
Americans living in inner cities must have the chance to participate in 
the technological revolution that shows no signs of abating. Without 
access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope 
that the Members of this body will support this important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 905

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

     SECTION 1. BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart E of part IV of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules for 
     computing investment credit) is amended by inserting after 
     section 48 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 48A. BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 46, the 
     broadband credit for any taxable year is the sum of--
       ``(1) the current generation broadband credit, plus
       ``(2) the next generation broadband credit.
       ``(b) Current Generation Broadband Credit; Next Generation 
     Broadband Credit.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Current generation broadband credit.--The current 
     generation broadband credit for any taxable year is equal to 
     10 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred with 
     respect to qualified equipment providing current generation 
     broadband services to qualified subscribers and taken into 
     account with respect to such taxable year.
       ``(2) Next generation broadband credit.--The next 
     generation broadband credit for any taxable year is equal to 
     20 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred with 
     respect to qualified equipment providing next generation 
     broadband services to qualified subscribers and taken into 
     account with respect to such taxable year.
       ``(c) When Expenditures Taken Into Account.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--Qualified expenditures with respect to 
     qualified equipment shall be taken into account with respect 
     to the first taxable year in which--
       ``(A) current generation broadband services are provided 
     through such equipment to qualified subscribers, or
       ``(B) next generation broadband services are provided 
     through such equipment to qualified subscribers.
       ``(2) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Qualified expenditures shall be taken 
     into account under paragraph (1) only with respect to 
     qualified equipment--
       ``(i) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) which is placed in service,
     after December 31, 2002.
       ``(B) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     if property--
       ``(i) is originally placed in service after December 31, 
     2002, by any person, and
       ``(ii) sold and leased back by such person within 3 months 
     after the date such property was originally placed in 
     service,

     such property shall be treated as originally placed in 
     service not earlier than the date on which such property is 
     used under the leaseback referred to in clause (ii).
       ``(d) Special Allocation Rules.--
       ``(1) Current generation broadband services.--For purposes 
     of determining the current generation broadband credit under 
     subsection (a)(1) with respect to qualified equipment through 
     which current generation broadband services are provided, if 
     the qualified equipment is capable of serving both qualified 
     subscribers and other subscribers, the qualified expenditures 
     shall be multiplied by a fraction--
       ``(A) the numerator of which is the sum of the number of 
     potential qualified subscribers within the rural areas and 
     the underserved areas which the equipment is capable of 
     serving with current generation broadband services, and
       ``(B) the denominator of which is the total potential 
     subscriber population of the area which the equipment is 
     capable of serving with current generation broadband 
     services.
       ``(2) Next generation broadband services.--For purposes of 
     determining the next generation broadband credit under 
     subsection (a)(2) with respect to qualified equipment through 
     which next generation broadband services are provided, if the 
     qualified equipment is capable of serving both qualified 
     subscribers and other subscribers, the qualified expenditures 
     shall be multiplied by a fraction--
       ``(A) the numerator of which is the sum of--
       ``(i) the number of potential qualified subscribers within 
     the rural areas and underserved areas, plus
       ``(ii) the number of potential qualified subscribers within 
     the area consisting only of residential subscribers not 
     described in clause (i),

     which the equipment is capable of serving with next 
     generation broadband services, and
       ``(B) the denominator of which is the total potential 
     subscriber population of the area which the equipment is 
     capable of serving with next generation broadband services.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Antenna.--The term `antenna' means any device used to 
     transmit or receive signals through the electromagnetic 
     spectrum, including satellite equipment.
       ``(2) Cable operator.--The term `cable operator' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 602(5) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(5)).
       ``(3) Commercial mobile service carrier.--The term 
     `commercial mobile service carrier' means any person 
     authorized to provide commercial mobile radio service as 
     defined in section 20.3 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(4) Current generation broadband service.--The term 
     `current generation broadband service' means the transmission 
     of signals at a rate of at least 1,000,000 bits per second to 
     the subscriber and at least 128,000 bits per second from the 
     subscriber.
       ``(5) Multiplexing or demultiplexing.--The term 
     `multiplexing' means the transmission of 2 or more signals 
     over a single channel, and the term `demultiplexing' means 
     the separation of 2 or more signals previously combined by 
     compatible multiplexing equipment.
       ``(6) Next generation broadband service.--The term `next 
     generation broadband service' means the transmission of 
     signals at a rate of at least 22,000,000 bits per second to 
     the subscriber (or its equivalent when the data rate is 
     measured before being compressed for transmission) and at 
     least 5,000,000 bits per second from the subscriber (or its 
     equivalent as so measured).
       ``(7) Nonresidential subscriber.--The term `nonresidential 
     subscriber' means any person who purchases broadband services 
     which are delivered to the permanent place of business of 
     such person.
       ``(8) Open video system operator.--The term `open video 
     system operator' means any person authorized to provide 
     service under section 653 of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 573).
       ``(9) Other wireless carrier.--The term `other wireless 
     carrier' means any person (other than a telecommunications 
     carrier, commercial mobile service carrier, cable operator, 
     open video system operator, or satellite carrier) providing 
     current generation broadband services or next generation 
     broadband service to subscribers through the wireless 
     transmission of energy through radio or light waves.
       ``(10) Packet switching.--The term `packet switching' means 
     controlling or routing the path of a digitized transmission 
     signal which is assembled into packets or cells.
       ``(11) Provider.--The term `provider' means, with respect 
     to any qualified equipment any--
       ``(A) cable operator,
       ``(B) commercial mobile service carrier,
       ``(C) open video system operator,
       ``(D) satellite carrier,
       ``(E) telecommunications carrier, or
       ``(F) other wireless carrier,

     providing current generation broadband services or next 
     generation broadband services to subscribers through such 
     qualified equipment.
       ``(12) Provision of services.--A provider shall be treated 
     as providing services to 1 or more subscribers if--
       ``(A) such a subscriber has been passed by the provider's 
     equipment and can be connected to such equipment for a 
     standard connection fee,
       ``(B) the provider is physically able to deliver current 
     generation broadband services or next generation broadband 
     services, as applicable, to such a subscriber without making 
     more than an insignificant investment with respect to such 
     subscriber,
       ``(C) the provider has made reasonable efforts to make such 
     subscribers aware of the availability of such services,
       ``(D) such services have been purchased by 1 or more such 
     subscribers, and
       ``(E) such services are made available to such subscribers 
     at average prices comparable to those at which the provider 
     makes available similar services in any areas in which the 
     provider makes available such services.
       ``(13) Qualified equipment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified equipment' means 
     equipment which provides current generation broadband 
     services or next generation broadband services--

[[Page S5360]]

       ``(i) at least a majority of the time during periods of 
     maximum demand to each subscriber who is utilizing such 
     services, and
       ``(ii) in a manner substantially the same as such services 
     are provided by the provider to subscribers through equipment 
     with respect to which no credit is allowed under subsection 
     (a)(1).
       ``(B) Only certain investment taken into account.--Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (C) or (D), equipment shall be 
     taken into account under subparagraph (A) only to the extent 
     it--
       ``(i) extends from the last point of switching to the 
     outside of the unit, building, dwelling, or office owned or 
     leased by a subscriber in the case of a telecommunications 
     carrier,
       ``(ii) extends from the customer side of the mobile 
     telephone switching office to a transmission/receive antenna 
     (including such antenna) owned or leased by a subscriber in 
     the case of a commercial mobile service carrier,
       ``(iii) extends from the customer side of the headend to 
     the outside of the unit, building, dwelling, or office owned 
     or leased by a subscriber in the case of a cable operator or 
     open video system operator, or
       ``(iv) extends from a transmission/receive antenna 
     (including such antenna) which transmits and receives signals 
     to or from multiple subscribers, to a transmission/receive 
     antenna (including such antenna) on the outside of the unit, 
     building, dwelling, or office owned or leased by a subscriber 
     in the case of a satellite carrier or other wireless carrier, 
     unless such other wireless carrier is also a 
     telecommunications carrier.
       ``(C) Packet switching equipment.--Packet switching 
     equipment, regardless of location, shall be taken into 
     account under subparagraph (A) only if it is deployed in 
     connection with equipment described in subparagraph (B) and 
     is uniquely designed to perform the function of packet 
     switching for current generation broadband services or next 
     generation broadband services, but only if such packet 
     switching is the last in a series of such functions performed 
     in the transmission of a signal to a subscriber or the first 
     in a series of such functions performed in the transmission 
     of a signal from a subscriber.
       ``(D) Multiplexing and demultiplexing equipment.--
     Multiplexing and demultiplexing equipment shall be taken into 
     account under subparagraph (A) only to the extent it is 
     deployed in connection with equipment described in 
     subparagraph (B) and is uniquely designed to perform the 
     function of multiplexing and demultiplexing packets or cells 
     of data and making associated application adaptions, but only 
     if such multiplexing or demultiplexing equipment is located 
     between packet switching equipment described in subparagraph 
     (C) and the subscriber's premises.
       ``(14) Qualified expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified expenditure' means 
     any amount--
       ``(i) chargeable to capital account with respect to the 
     purchase and installation of qualified equipment (including 
     any upgrades thereto) for which depreciation is allowable 
     under section 168, and
       ``(ii) incurred after December 31, 2002, and before January 
     1, 2008.
       ``(B) Certain satellite expenditures excluded.--Such term 
     shall not include any expenditure with respect to the 
     launching of any satellite equipment.
       ``(C) Leased equipment.--Such term shall include so much of 
     the purchase price paid by the lessor of equipment subject to 
     a lease described in subsection (c)(2)(B) as is attributable 
     to expenditures incurred by the lessee which would otherwise 
     be described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(15) Qualified subscriber.--The term `qualified 
     subscriber' means--
       ``(A) with respect to the provision of current generation 
     broadband services--
       ``(i) any nonresidential subscriber maintaining a permanent 
     place of business in a rural area or underserved area, or
       ``(ii) any residential subscriber residing in a dwelling 
     located in a rural area or underserved area which is not a 
     saturated market, and
       ``(B) with respect to the provision of next generation 
     broadband services--
       ``(i) any nonresidential subscriber maintaining a permanent 
     place of business in a rural area or underserved area, or
       ``(ii) any residential subscriber.
       ``(16) Residential subscriber.--The term `residential 
     subscriber' means any individual who purchases broadband 
     services which are delivered to such individual's dwelling.
       ``(17) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means any census 
     tract which--
       ``(A) is not within 10 miles of any incorporated or census 
     designated place containing more than 25,000 people, and
       ``(B) is not within a county or county equivalent which has 
     an overall population density of more than 500 people per 
     square mile of land.
       ``(18) Rural subscriber.--The term `rural subscriber' means 
     any residential subscriber residing in a dwelling located in 
     a rural area or nonresidential subscriber maintaining a 
     permanent place of business located in a rural area.
       ``(19) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier' 
     means any person using the facilities of a satellite or 
     satellite service licensed by the Federal Communications 
     Commission and operating in the Fixed-Satellite Service under 
     part 25 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations or the 
     Direct Broadcast Satellite Service under part 100 of title 47 
     of such Code to establish and operate a channel of 
     communications for distribution of signals, and owning or 
     leasing a capacity or service on a satellite in order to 
     provide such distribution.
       ``(20) Saturated market.--The term `saturated market' means 
     any census tract in which, as of the date of the enactment of 
     this section--
       ``(A) current generation broadband services have been 
     provided by a single provider to 85 percent or more of the 
     total number of potential residential subscribers residing in 
     dwellings located within such census tract, and
       ``(B) such services can be utilized--
       ``(i) at least a majority of the time during periods of 
     maximum demand by each such subscriber who is utilizing such 
     services, and
       ``(ii) in a manner substantially the same as such services 
     are provided by the provider to subscribers through equipment 
     with respect to which no credit is allowed under subsection 
     (a)(1).
       ``(21) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means any person 
     who purchases current generation broadband services or next 
     generation broadband services.
       ``(22) Telecommunications carrier.--The term 
     `telecommunications carrier' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 3(44) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     153(44)), but--
       ``(A) includes all members of an affiliated group of which 
     a telecommunications carrier is a member, and
       ``(B) does not include any commercial mobile service 
     carrier.
       ``(23) Total potential subscriber population.--The term 
     `total potential subscriber population' means, with respect 
     to any area and based on the most recent census data, the 
     total number of potential residential subscribers residing in 
     dwellings located in such area and potential nonresidential 
     subscribers maintaining permanent places of business located 
     in such area.
       ``(24) Underserved area.--The term `underserved area' means 
     any census tract which is located in--
       ``(A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community 
     designated under section 1391,
       ``(B) the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone established 
     under section 1400,
       ``(C) a renewal community designated under section 1400E, 
     or
       ``(D) a low-income community designated under section 45D.
       ``(25) Underserved subscriber.--The term `underserved 
     subscriber' means any residential subscriber residing in a 
     dwelling located in an underserved area or nonresidential 
     subscriber maintaining a permanent place of business located 
     in an underserved area.''.
       (b) Credit To Be Part of Investment Credit.--Section 46 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the amount of 
     investment credit) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) the broadband Internet access credit.''
       (c) Special Rule for Mutual or Cooperative Telephone 
     Companies.--Section 501(c)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) from the sale of property subject to a lease 
     described in section 48A(c)(2)(B), but only to the extent 
     such income does not in any year exceed an amount equal to 
     the credit for qualified expenditures which would be 
     determined under section 48A for such year if the mutual or 
     cooperative telephone company was not exempt from taxation 
     and was treated as the owner of the property subject to such 
     lease.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 48 the following:

``Sec. 48A. Broadband internet access credit.''.

       (e) Designation of Census Tracts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, designate and publish those census tracts meeting the 
     criteria described in paragraphs (17) and (24) of section 
     48A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this 
     section). In making such designations, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall consult with such other departments and 
     agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       (2) Saturated market.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of designating and publishing 
     those census tracts meeting the criteria described in 
     subsection (e)(20) of such section 48A--
       (i) the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act the 
     form upon which any provider which takes the position that it 
     meets such criteria with respect to any census tract shall 
     submit a list of such census tracts (and any other 
     information required by the Secretary) not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the publication of such form, and
       (ii) the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish an 
     aggregate list of such census tracts submitted and the 
     applicable providers not later than 30 days after the last 
     date such submissions are allowed under clause (i).

[[Page S5361]]

       (B) No subsequent lists required.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall not be required to publish any list of census 
     tracts meeting such criteria subsequent to the list described 
     in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (C) Authority to disregard false submissions.--In addition 
     to imposing any other applicable penalties, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall have the discretion to disregard any form 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) on which a provider 
     knowingly submitted false information.
       (f) Other Regulatory Matters.--
       (1) Prohibition.--No Federal or State agency or 
     instrumentality shall adopt regulations or ratemaking 
     procedures that would have the effect of confiscating any 
     credit or portion thereof allowed under section 48A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) or 
     otherwise subverting the purpose of this section.
       (2) Treasury regulatory authority.--It is the intent of 
     Congress in providing the broadband Internet access credit 
     under section 48A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
     added by this section) to provide incentives for the 
     purchase, installation, and connection of equipment and 
     facilities offering expanded broadband access to the Internet 
     for users in certain low income and rural areas of the United 
     States, as well as to residential users nationwide, in a 
     manner that maintains competitive neutrality among the 
     various classes of providers of broadband services. 
     Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe 
     such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry 
     out the purposes of section 48A of such Code, including--
       (A) regulations to determine how and when a taxpayer that 
     incurs qualified expenditures satisfies the requirements of 
     section 48A of such Code to provide broadband services, and
       (B) regulations describing the information, records, and 
     data taxpayers are required to provide the Secretary to 
     substantiate compliance with the requirements of section 48A 
     of such Code.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures incurred after December 31, 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW:
  S. 906. A bill to provide for the certification of programs to 
provide uninsured employees of small business access to health 
coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health 
Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003.
  Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long 
discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the 
groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the 
urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups, 
doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit 
hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on 
Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured 
Americans.
  I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are 
and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a 
great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or 
on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of 
uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work 
for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their 
employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured.
  The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more 
affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a 
``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative 
community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from 
California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan.
  The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure. 
Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the 
employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the 
remaining 40 percent of the cost.
  In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity 
serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by 
negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance 
company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered 
insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average 
cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the 
national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs 
$3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the 
employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the 
community would pay about $720.
  Different three share plans have received funds for the community 
portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come 
from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco 
settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events 
and other community initiatives.
  Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans 
from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a 
stable and sustainable funding source for the community share.
  If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a 
refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three 
share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community 
share up front and receive the community share back through a 
refundable tax credit.
  My bill would also encourage the development of more three share 
plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at 
the Health Resources Services Administration.
  This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and 
leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would 
not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor 
would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based 
approach that could work throughout the country if funding is 
available.
  Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state 
Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also 
help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care.
  Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills 
a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and 
goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or 
injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 906

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Health Care Access for Small 
     Businesses Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) For most of the past 16 years, the number of Americans 
     without health insurance has been on the rise, reaching more 
     than 41,000,000 in 2002.
       (2) People without health insurance are less likely to get 
     preventive care and often delay or forgo needed care. They 
     are therefore more likely than those with health insurance to 
     be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided.
       (3) Not only are the health and financial circumstances of 
     uninsured Americans adversely affected by the lack of health 
     insurance, their care is ultimately being paid for in the 
     least efficient manner: after they get sick.
       (4) People who were uninsured during any part of 2001 
     received $99,000,000,000 in care, of which $34,500,000,000 
     was not paid for either out of pocket or by a private or 
     public insurance source. Federal, State, and local 
     governments covered 85 percent of such uncompensated care, 
     amounting to $30,000,000,000.
       (5) Private health insurance enrollees also help pay for 
     uncompensated care through higher premiums.
       (6) Covering more Americans will not only contribute to 
     better overall health, it will lower the amount of health 
     care costs assumed by taxpayers, businesses, and consumers.
       (7) Helping small businesses gain access to affordable 
     health care benefits is essential to insuring more Americans.
       (8) Eighty-two percent of uninsured people are part of 
     working families.
       (9) More than \1/2\ of small businesses with less than 50 
     employees do not offer their employees health insurance.
       (10) Innovative community-based solutions have developed 
     and should serve as a model for insuring more Americans.

     SEC. 3. THREE-SHARE PROGRAMS.

       The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

               ``TITLE XXII--PROVIDING FOR THE UNINSURED

     ``SEC. 2201. THREE-SHARE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator, shall promulgate regulations for the 
     certification of three-share programs for purposes of section 
     36 of the Internal Revenue Code.

[[Page S5362]]

       ``(2) Three-share program requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require, for 
     purposes of a certification under regulations under paragraph 
     (1) that each three-share program shall--
       ``(i) be either a non-profit or local governmental entity;
       ``(ii) define a region in which such program will provide 
     services;
       ``(iii) have the capacity to carry out administrative 
     functions of managing health plans, including monthly 
     billings, verification/enrollment of eligible employers and 
     employees, maintenance of membership rosters, development of 
     member materials (such as handbooks and identification 
     cards), customer service, and claims processing; and
       ``(iv) have community involvement, as determined by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(B) Payment.--To obtain the certification described in 
     paragraph (1), a three-share program shall pay the costs of 
     services provided under subparagraph (A)(ii) by charging a 
     monthly premium for each covered individual to be divided as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Not more than thirty percent of such fee shall be 
     paid by a qualified employee desiring coverage under the 
     three-share program.
       ``(ii) At least seventy percent of such fee shall be paid 
     by the qualified employer of such a qualified employee.
       ``(3) Coverage.--
       ``(A) In general.--To obtain the certification described in 
     paragraph (1) a 3-share program shall provide at least the 
     following benefits:
       ``(i) Physicians services.
       ``(ii) In-patient hospital services.
       ``(iii) Out-patient services.
       ``(iv) Emergency room visits.
       ``(v) Emergency ambulance services.
       ``(vi) Diagnostic lab fees and x-rays.
       ``(vii) Prescription drug benefits.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed to require that a three-share program provide 
     coverage for services performed outside the region described 
     in paragraph (2)(A)(i).
       ``(C) Preexisting conditions.--A program described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be eligible for certification 
     under paragraph (1) if any individual can be excluded from 
     coverage under such program because of a preexisting health 
     condition.
       ``(b) Startup Grants for Three-Share Programs.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator may award startup 
     grants to eligible entities to establish three-share programs 
     for certification under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Three-share program plan.--Each entity desiring a 
     grant under this subsection shall develop a plan for the 
     establishment and operation of a three-share program that 
     meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (a).
       ``(3) Application.--Each entity desiring a grant under this 
     subsection shall submit an application to the Administrator 
     at such time, in such manner and containing such information 
     as the Administrator may require, including--
       ``(A) the three-share program plan described in paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(B) an assurance that the eligible entity will--
       ``(i) determine a benefit package;
       ``(ii) recruit businesses and employees for the three-share 
     program;
       ``(iii) build and manage a network of health providers or 
     contract with an existing network or licensed insurance 
     provider; and
       ``(iv) manage all administrative needs.
       ``(4) Number of grants.--An eligible entity may receive 
     only 1 grant under this subsection for each three-share 
     program and may not receive a grant for such program under 
     both this subsection and subsection (c).
       ``(c) Grants for Existing Three-Share Programs To Meet 
     Certification Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may award grants to 
     three-share programs that are operating on the date of 
     enactment of this section, to assist such programs in meeting 
     the certification requirements of subsection (a).
       ``(2) Number of grants.--An eligible entity may receive 
     only 1 grant under this subsection for a three-share program 
     and may not receive a grant for such program under both this 
     subsection and subsection (b).
       ``(3) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Administrator may require.
       ``(d) Risk Pool Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may award grants to 
     eligible entities administering certified three-share 
     programs to enhance the risk pools of such programs.
       ``(2) Number of grants.--An eligible entity administering a 
     three-share program described in paragraph (1) may receive 
     only 1 grant under this subsection for such three-share 
     program.
       ``(3) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Administrator may require.
       ``(e) Application of State Laws.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to preempt State law.
       ``(f) Distressed business formula.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration shall develop a formula 
     to determine which businesses qualify as distressed 
     businesses for purposes of this Act.
       ``(2) Effect on insurance market.--Granting eligibility to 
     a distressed business using the formula under paragraph (1) 
     shall not interfere with the insurance market. Any business 
     found to have reduced benefits to qualify as a distressed 
     business under the formula under paragraph (1) shall not be 
     eligible for any three-share program certified pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration.
       ``(2) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual' 
     means--
       ``(A) a qualified employee; or
       ``(B) a child under the age of 23 or a spouse of such 
     qualified employee who--
       ``(i) lacks access to health care coverage through their 
     employment or employer;
       ``(ii) lacks access to health coverage through a family 
     member;
       ``(iii) is not eligible for coverage under the medicare 
     program under title XVIII or the medicaid program under title 
     XIX; and
       ``(iv) does not qualify for benefits under the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI.
       ``(3) Distressed business.--The term `distressed business' 
     means a business that--
       ``(A) in light of economic hardship and rising health care 
     premiums may be forced to discontinue or scale back its 
     health care coverage; and
       ``(B) qualifies as a distressed business according to the 
     formula under subsection (f).
       ``(4) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means an 
     entity that meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(A).
       ``(5) Full time.--The term `full time', for purposes of 
     employment, means regularly working at least 35 hours per 
     week.
       ``(6) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee' 
     means any individual employed by a qualified employer who 
     meets certain criteria including--
       ``(A) working full time;
       ``(B) lacking access to health coverage through a family 
     member or common law partner;
       ``(C) not being eligible for coverage under the medicare 
     program under title XVIII or the medicaid program under title 
     XIX; and
       ``(D) agreeing that the share of fees described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) shall be paid in the form of payroll 
     deductions from the wages of such individual.
       ``(7) Qualified employer.--The term `qualified employer' 
     means an employer as defined in section 3(d) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(d)) who--
       ``(A) is a small business concern as defined in section 
     3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632);
       ``(B) is located in the region described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(i); and
       ``(C) has not contributed to the health care benefits of 
     its employees for at least 12 months consecutively or 
     currently provides insurance but is classified as a 
     distressed business.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 4. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR PORTION OF EMPLOYER COSTS OF 
                   THREE-SHARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as 
     section 37 and inserting after section 35 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 36. EMPLOYER COSTS OF THREE-SHARE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible employer, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle an amount equal to 40 percent of the costs of a 
     three-share program resulting from the participation of the 
     taxpayer in such program during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Eligible Employer.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `eligible employer' means any employer which pays or 
     incurs at least 70 percent of the costs of a three-share 
     program resulting from the participation of the taxpayer in 
     such program during the taxable year.
       ``(c) Three-Share Program.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `three-share program' means an employee health care 
     coverage program approved for participation by an eligible 
     employer pursuant to title XXII of the Social Security Act.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit 
     under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed 
     with respect to costs of a three-share program taken into 
     account under subsection (a).
       ``(e) Advanced Refundability.--The Secretary shall provide 
     for the advanced refundability of the credit allowed under 
     this section to be made in quarterly payments to taxpayers 
     providing such information as the Secretary requires in order 
     to make a proper determination of such payments.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--

[[Page S5363]]

       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 36. Employer costs of three-share program.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.

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


          Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003

       Creating affordable health insurance for small businesses 
     is key to reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Dozens 
     of communities around the country, using seed money from a 
     federal grant program called the Community Access Program 
     (CAP), have developed and implemented a unique way to make 
     health coverage affordable to small businesses through 
     ``three-share'' programs.


                          three-share programs

       A three-share program is a community-based health plan that 
     is paid for jointly by the employer, employee and the 
     community.
       Under a typical three-share model, a community-based 
     entity, either a non-profit or local government does the 
     following:
       1. Works with local health care providers or an insurance 
     entity to develop a benefit package;
       2. Signs up small businesses in the community that do not 
     offer health insurance to their employees; and
       3. Takes responsibility for administering the program.
       An enrolled small business and their employees each pay 30 
     percent of the monthly premium while the community pays the 
     remaining 40 percent.
       thousands of Americans who previously went without health 
     insurance are now covered through three-share programs. 
     Unfortunately, entities managing these programs are 
     struggling to secure a steady revenue source for the 
     community share of the costs.


      The Health Insurance Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003

       The Health Insurance Access for Small Businesses Act of 
     2003 encourages the development of more three-share programs 
     by increasing seed money for non-profits or local governments 
     interested in creating a program in their community. The bill 
     provides sustainable funding for the community share if the 
     costs through a refundable tax credit for small businesses.
       Expand seed funding for three-share through Community 
     Access Program (CAP)--CAP is a grant program designed to help 
     communities expand coverage to the uninsured that has helped 
     many non-profits and local governments start three-share 
     programs. Funding is authorized to increase by $50 million 
     for FY04.
       Refundable tax credit for the community portion--This bill 
     will establish a steady revenue stream for the third share 
     through a refundable tax credit to the employer. The employee 
     would pay 30 percent of the premium through payroll 
     deductions. The employer would pay their 30 percent of the 
     premium plus the 40 percent that is the community share. The 
     40 percent would be returned to the business through a 
     refundable tax credit.


                               Specifics

       Target group: Small businesses not currently offering 
     health coverage to employees or distressed small businesses, 
     as defined by the Small Business Act, that are in jeopardy of 
     dropping health coverage because of rising premiums and 
     economic hardship.
       Employer Eligibility:
       Located within a community defined by the administering 
     entity
       Has not offered or contributed to health care benefits of 
     employees for previous 12 consecutive months
       Qualifies as a ``distressed business'' under HRSA 
     regulations.
       Employee Eligibility:
       Works full time (a minimum of 35 hours);
       Lacks access to health coverage through employer;
       Lacks access to health coverage through a family member or 
     common law partner;
       Is not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare;
       Agrees to payroll deductions.
       Family Eligibility:
       Spouse of participating employee not covered through their 
     employer or any public insurance program;
       Dependent of participating employee under the age of 23 not 
     eligible for SCHIP.
       Shared Premiums: Average benefit is estimated to be $540 
     per year for an employee, $540 for employer and $720 will be 
     refunded through the tax credit to the employer.
       Employer pays 30 percent of annual cost;
       Employee pays 30 percent of annual cost;
       Refundable tax credit to employer for 40 percent of the 
     total annual cost.
       Minimum Benefits: All benefit packages must include the 
     following:
       Physicians services;
       In-patient hospital services;
       Out-patient services;
       Emergency room visits;
       Emergency ambulance services;
       Diagnostic lab and x-rays;
       Prescription drug benefits.
       Note.--People may not be excluded because of pre-existing 
     conditions. Coverage for services performed outside 
     designated regional area not required.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 907. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 
flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable 
income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the subject of 
taxation from a little different perspective, a legislative proposal 
which, if adopted, would add very considerably to productivity in 
America, and that is a proposal for a flat tax. In the fall of 1994, 
Richard Armey of the House of Representatives introduced a flat tax. I 
studied it, then in the spring of 1995, I introduced a flat tax for the 
Senate. That was the first one introduced. I have introduced it in 
successive years.
  I usually pick April 15, because April 15 is tax filing day. But this 
year we are going to be in recess for the spring break. I had thought 
today would be the last day we would be in session. That is open to 
debate at this point. I just came from a conference of the 
Appropriations Committee, and there are a great many unresolved issues. 
I posed the question to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee: 
What time do we vote on Sunday?
  Some of my colleagues may be listening on C-SPAN2, and that will give 
them a jolt: What time do we vote on Sunday? Or we might not vote as 
early as Sunday. We might pick a time on Monday.
  I got the attention of the clerks, too, by talking about something 
important: When are we going to finish the business of the Senate? The 
distinguished Parliamentarian is nodding his head in chagrin as to what 
is happening here.
  Some suggestions have been floated around the Appropriations 
Committee of a way to solve this impasse between the House and the 
Senate on appropriations, the impasse between the House and the Senate 
on the budget, and that is a constitutional amendment for a unicameral 
legislature. That would be a shocker. For anybody watching C-SPAN2, 
that means one chamber. Then the question would come up: Which chamber 
will it be?
  Nobody is going to go to a unicameral legislature, and I do not know 
when we are going to conclude the business of the Senate. I may be 
offering this flat tax legislation on the wrong day. Perhaps I ought to 
wait, because we may still be here on April 15, which would be next 
Tuesday.
  In all seriousness, we have the most extraordinarily complex system 
for filing taxes ever devised. In the midst of an overwhelming 
bureaucracy and a regulatory system in Washington, DC, nothing compares 
to the Federal tax code.
  The Federal tax code has grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 
million words and 17,000 pages at the present time. A study showed that 
more than 13 hours are consumed by the average American--rather, more 
than 13 hours are consumed on average--there is no such thing as an 
average American--on average by taxpayers in filling out the principal 
Form 1040. And if one goes to the various schedules, it can be another 
5\1/2\ hours or 7\1/2\ hours.
  I just finished filling out my tax return, and it is inordinately 
complicated. It is insufficient to be a Philadelphia lawyer to 
understand the Federal tax code, and then the State taxes, and then 
city taxes, the wage tax, the property tax, and the real estate tax. It 
is a nightmare.
  It is possible to change all of that by going to a flat tax, and then 
the tax return would be on a postcard. The wonders of television. 
People can see the postcard. It will take about 15 minutes to fill out 
a postcard, which would identify the individual, specify the total 
compensation, specify the allowance, the number of dependents, and in 
the course of 15 minutes it would be finished.
  This tax would be calculated on a flat rate of 20 percent. It would 
be very beneficial to people at all levels of the income strata except 
for those who engage in tax shelters. The average American today, or in 
the middle income, a family of four, which does not itemize deductions, 
pays taxes on all income over $19,850. Under this flat tax, there would 
be a personal exemption of $27,500 for a family of four, and taxes 
would be paid only over that amount.

[[Page S5364]]

  After having just criticized charts, my staff has brought me a chart 
which they prepared. I certainly would not want to omit the showing of 
this chart. The writing is too small for reading on C-SPAN2, but it 
specifies the identity of the person, the total compensation, the 
personal allowance, and it can be filled out in the course of 15 
minutes.
  A superior depiction, in my opinion, is the postcard. People can deal 
more easily with postcards than they can with charts.
  I have provided for two deductions which I am maintaining, deductions 
on interest and charitable contributions. It may be that ultimately we 
will have a totally flat tax, which would reduce another percent down 
to 19 percent. I have included interest on home mortgages because it is 
so prevalent, and I believe Americans might be very surprised not to be 
able to deduct their interest on home mortgages. That interest on home 
mortgages has been a great stimulus for housing construction and also a 
great encouragement for people to own their own homes. That is very 
important as a societal matter.
  I have also retained the deduction on charitable contributions, which 
remains very important. That was reinforced by the Senate earlier this 
week by providing an increase in charitable contributions deductibility 
looking toward faith-based initiatives.
  What I would like to do most emphatically would be to get the debate 
started. This body, the House, and the Treasury Department have never 
seriously considered a flat tax. It ought to be seriously considered. 
Whether it would be accepted or not would be the outcome of the debate. 
The flat tax proposal which I am bringing to you today, which is 
modeled after the outline by Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka of 
Stanford University, has been very carefully thought through. It is a 
neutral tax scheme. An analysis of people at various income levels 
shows that it is universally beneficial for all except those who engage 
in tax shelters and pay no tax at all.
  The greatest benefit would be the savings to the American people of 
some 5.8 billion hours a year and some $194 billion in preparation 
expenses. I have actually seen estimates on the cost of tax compliance 
as high as $800 billion. Again, these estimates are such that nobody 
really knows, but as lawyers say in litigation, the pain and suffering 
that goes with filing these returns, or the cruel and unusual 
punishment involved in making these computations and the study 
involved, it would be a great relief to the American people. It would 
be win, win, win. There would be great savings in time. There would be 
savings in individual taxes, and there would be a tremendous stimulus 
to the economy so that so many corporations and businesses would no 
longer have to have a special office, which is the practice in many 
places, for the tax collector who comes in to conduct the audit on a 
yearly basis.
  To reiterate, in less than one week, American taxpayers face another 
Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, 
and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during 
``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over 
page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records 
looking for information, and struggling to find and fill out all the 
appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are 
intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their 
instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to 
file. Given the approximately 325 possible forms, not to mention the 
instructions that accompany, simply trying to determine which form to 
file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to 
the Tax Foundation, American taxpayers, including businesses, spend 
more than 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion each year in complying 
with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,400 per U.S. household. 
Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations 
which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 
over 6.9 million words in 2000. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance 
has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the 
Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has 
only about 1,773,000 words.
  The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far 
too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the 
estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2002 
Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 10 minutes to complete. 
Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the 
accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions, 
which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or 
Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, shows an estimated 
preparation time of 7 hours, 35 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is 
getting worse each year. Just from 1998 to 2002 the estimated time to 
prepare Form 1040 jumped 96 minutes.
  It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 56 percent 
according to a recent survey now hire an outside professional to 
prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only 29 
percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a 
significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the 
tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that 
paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be 
cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the 
Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made about 9,500 Tax Code 
changes in the past 12 years. And we are far from being finished. Year 
after year, we continue to ask the same question--is there not a better 
way?
  My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable 
chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat 
tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present Tax Code, with 
its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would 
institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and 
businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone but is intended to move 
the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which 
are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, 
fairness, and economic growth.
  My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have 
outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us 
to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations, and 
instructions and delete most of the 6.9 million words in the Internal 
Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent 
in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would 
spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-
sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find 
valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or 
for more time with their families instead of poring over tax tables, 
schedules, and regulations.
  My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a 
taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize 
prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:
  A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and 
attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.8 billion 
hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.
  The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, 
regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 
1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages currently. It would also 
allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000 employees.
  Economists estimate a growth of over $2 trillion in national wealth 
over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in 
personal wealth for every man, woman, and child in America. This growth 
would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.
  Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity 
rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater 
economic expansion.
  Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall 
substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many 
of the current disincentives to savings.
  Americans would be able to save up to $194 billion they currently 
spend every year in tax compliance.
  As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there 
will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now 
amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually.

[[Page S5365]]

  Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on 
the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  The most dramatic way to show what the flat tax is to consider that 
the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will 
allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-
line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out.
  At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, the public support for 
fundamental tax reform is overwhelming. I would point out that in those 
speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: 1, my copy 
of the Constitution; and, 2, a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I 
soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax 
postcard. Many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see 
what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only 
take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer 
burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital 
gains and estates.
  This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax 
burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2002 
tax year, the standard deduction is $4,700 for a single taxpayer, 
$6,900 for a head of household and $7,850 for a married couple filing 
jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is 
$3,000. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does 
not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $19,850--
these are personal exemptions of $12,000 and a standard deduction of 
$7,850. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would 
receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax on only 
income over that amount.
  The tax loopholes enable write-offs to save some $393 billion a year. 
What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions 
in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and 
found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to 
the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud 
because of the simplicity of the tax code, the taxpayer being able to 
find out exactly what he or she owes.
  This bill is modeled after legislation organized and written by two 
very distinguished professors of law at Stanford University, Professor 
Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the 
Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I 
introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 
1995, S. 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate, 
resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption 
of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to 
pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation 
in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-
adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. 
I re-introduced the bill two Congresses ago on April 15, 1999--income 
tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. More recently, I introduced 
my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax 
Reconciliation bill. The amendment was not adopted.

  Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat 
tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing 
our Nation's Tax Code and the policies which underlie it. I began the 
study of the complexities of the Tax Code over 40 years ago as a law 
student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my 
practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the 
spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law 
Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operations for 
Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova 
L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt 
retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not 
others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities 
of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to 
some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the 
world to understand is the income tax.''
  The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions 
whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the 
legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to 
$100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While 
these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by 
continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable 
contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply 
ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they 
should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also 
political practicality. With only those two deductions maintained, 
passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, 
probably impossible.
  In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a 
modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that 
the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19-
percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable 
governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 
percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage 
interest and charitable deductions.
  This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source so that 
there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, 
gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the Tax Code can become a 
powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into 
economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the 
standard of living for all Americans.
  The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it 
will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove 
much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and 
corporate taxpayers and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their 
energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which 
rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth 
in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and 
savings accounts.
  Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within 7 years of 
enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6-percent increase 
in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased 
capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in 
the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But 
Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system 
that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a 
system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and 
prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax 
system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, be printed in the Record.

                                 S. 907

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENT OF 1986 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Flat Tax 
     Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; amendment of 1986 Code.
Sec. 2. Flat tax on individual taxable earned income and business 
              taxable income.
Sec. 3. Repeal of estate and gift taxes.
Sec. 4. Additional repeals.
Sec. 5. Effective dates.

       (c) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal 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 a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. FLAT TAX ON INDIVIDUAL TAXABLE EARNED INCOME AND 
                   BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitle A is 
     amended to read as follows:

             ``Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability

``Part I.   Tax on individuals.
``Part II.  Tax on business activities.

                      ``PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

``Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
``Sec. 2. Standard deduction.
``Sec. 3. Deduction for cash charitable contributions.
``Sec. 4. Deduction for home acquisition indebtedness.
``Sec. 5. Definitions and special rules.

     ``SECTION 1. TAX IMPOSED.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed on every 
     individual a tax equal to 20

[[Page S5366]]

     percent of the taxable earned income of such individual.
       ``(b) Taxable Earned Income.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `taxable earned income' means the excess (if any) 
     of--
       ``(1) the earned income received or accrued during the 
     taxable year, over
       ``(2) the sum of--
       ``(A) the standard deduction,
       ``(B) the deduction for cash charitable contributions, and
       ``(C) the deduction for home acquisition indebtedness,
     for such taxable year.
       ``(c) Earned Income.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `earned income' means wages, 
     salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received 
     from sources within the United States as compensation for 
     personal services actually rendered, but does not include 
     that part of compensation derived by the taxpayer for 
     personal services rendered by the taxpayer to a corporation 
     which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather 
     than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal 
     services actually rendered.
       ``(2) Taxpayer engaged in trade or business.--In the case 
     of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both 
     personal services and capital are material income-producing 
     factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a 
     reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal 
     services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30 
     percent of the taxpayer's share of the net profits of such 
     trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.

     ``SEC. 2. STANDARD DEDUCTION.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term 
     `standard deduction' means the sum of--
       ``(1) the basic standard deduction, plus
       ``(2) the additional standard deduction.
       ``(b) Basic Standard Deduction.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the basic standard deduction is--
       ``(1) $17,500 in the case of--
       ``(A) a joint return, and
       ``(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 5(a)),
       ``(2) $15,000 in the case of a head of household (as 
     defined in section 5(b)), and
       ``(3) $10,000 in the case of an individual--
       ``(A) who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse 
     or head of household, or
       ``(B) who is a married individual filing a separate return.
       ``(c) Additional Standard Deduction.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), the additional standard deduction is $5,000 
     for each dependent (as defined in section 5(d))--
       ``(1) whose earned income for the calendar year in which 
     the taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than the 
     basic standard deduction specified in subsection (b)(3), or
       ``(2) who is a child of the taxpayer and who--
       ``(A) has not attained the age of 19 at the close of the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer 
     begins, or
       ``(B) is a student who has not attained the age of 24 at 
     the close of such calendar year.
       ``(d) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in a calendar year after 2004, each dollar amount 
     contained in subsections (b) and (c) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment for the calendar year 
     in which the taxable year begins.
       ``(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the cost-of-living adjustment for any calendar year is 
     the percentage (if any) by which--
       ``(A) the CPI for the preceding calendar year, exceeds
       ``(B) the CPI for calendar year 2003.
       ``(3) CPI for any calendar year.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2), the CPI for any calendar year is the average of the 
     Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period 
     ending on August 31 of such calendar year.
       ``(4) Consumer price index.--For purposes of paragraph (3), 
     the term `Consumer Price Index' means the last Consumer Price 
     Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of 
     Labor. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the revision 
     of the Consumer Price Index which is most consistent with the 
     Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1986 shall be used.
       ``(5) Rounding.--If any increase determined under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to 
     the next lowest multiple of $50.

     ``SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR CASH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this part, there shall 
     be allowed as a deduction any charitable contribution (as 
     defined in subsection (b)) not to exceed $2,500 ($1,250, in 
     the case of a married individual filing a separate return), 
     payment of which is made within the taxable year.
       ``(b) Charitable Contribution Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `charitable contribution' means a 
     contribution or gift of cash or its equivalent to or for the 
     use of the following:
       ``(1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any 
     political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United 
     States or the District of Columbia, but only if the 
     contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes.
       ``(2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or 
     foundation--
       ``(A) created or organized in the United States or in any 
     possession thereof, or under the law of the United States, 
     any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the 
     United States,
       ``(B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, 
     charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or 
     to foster national or international amateur sports 
     competition (but only if no part of its activities involve 
     the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for 
     the prevention of cruelty to children or animals,
       ``(C) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the 
     benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and
       ``(D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under 
     section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence 
     legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene 
     in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), 
     any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any 
     candidate for public office.

     A contribution or gift by a corporation to a trust, chest, 
     fund, or foundation shall be deductible by reason of this 
     paragraph only if it is to be used within the United States 
     or any of its possessions exclusively for purposes specified 
     in subparagraph (B). Rules similar to the rules of section 
     501(j) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(3) A post or organization of war veterans, or an 
     auxiliary unit or society of, or trust or foundation for, any 
     such post or organization--
       ``(A) organized in the United States or any of its 
     possessions, and
       ``(B) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the 
     benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
       ``(4) In the case of a contribution or gift by an 
     individual, a domestic fraternal society, order, or 
     association, operating under the lodge system, but only if 
     such contribution or gift is to be used exclusively for 
     religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational 
     purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or 
     animals.
       ``(5) A cemetery company owned and operated exclusively for 
     the benefit of its members, or any corporation chartered 
     solely for burial purposes as a cemetery corporation and not 
     permitted by its charter to engage in any business not 
     necessarily incident to that purpose, if such company or 
     corporation is not operated for profit and no part of the net 
     earnings of such company or corporation inures to the benefit 
     of any private shareholder or individual.

     For purposes of this section, the term `charitable 
     contribution' also means an amount treated under subsection 
     (d) as paid for the use of an organization described in 
     paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
       ``(c) Disallowance of Deduction in Certain Cases and 
     Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Substantiation requirement for certain 
     contributions.--
       ``(A) General rule.--No deduction shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) for any contribution of $250 or more unless 
     the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a 
     contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by 
     the donee organization that meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Content of acknowledgment.--An acknowledgment meets 
     the requirements of this subparagraph if it includes the 
     following information:
       ``(i) The amount of cash contributed.
       ``(ii) Whether the donee organization provided any goods or 
     services in consideration, in whole or in part, for any 
     contribution described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) A description and good faith estimate of the value 
     of any goods or services referred to in clause (ii) or, if 
     such goods or services consist solely of intangible religious 
     benefits, a statement to that effect.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `intangible 
     religious benefit' means any intangible religious benefit 
     which is provided by an organization organized exclusively 
     for religious purposes and which generally is not sold in a 
     commercial transaction outside the donative context.
       ``(C) Contemporaneous.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     an acknowledgment shall be considered to be contemporaneous 
     if the taxpayer obtains the acknowledgment on or before the 
     earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the taxpayer files a return for the 
     taxable year in which the contribution was made, or
       ``(ii) the due date (including extensions) for filing such 
     return.
       ``(D) Substantiation not required for contributions 
     reported by the donee organization.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply to a contribution if the donee organization files a 
     return, on such form and in accordance with such regulations 
     as the Secretary may prescribe, which includes the 
     information described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the 
     contribution.
       ``(E) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations that 
     may provide that some or all of the requirements of this 
     paragraph do not apply in appropriate cases.
       ``(2) Denial of deduction where contribution for lobbying 
     activities.--No deduction shall be allowed under this section 
     for a contribution to an organization which conducts 
     activities to which section 11(d)(2)(C)(i) applies on matters 
     of direct financial interest to the donor's trade or 
     business, if a principal purpose of the contribution was to

[[Page S5367]]

     avoid Federal income tax by securing a deduction for such 
     activities under this section which would be disallowed by 
     reason of section 11(d)(2)(C) if the donor had conducted such 
     activities directly. No deduction shall be allowed under 
     section 11(d) for any amount for which a deduction is 
     disallowed under the preceding sentence.
       ``(d) Amounts Paid To Maintain Certain Students as Members 
     of Taxpayer's Household.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations provided by 
     paragraph (2), amounts paid by the taxpayer to maintain an 
     individual (other than a dependent, as defined in section 
     5(d), or a relative of the taxpayer) as a member of such 
     taxpayer's household during the period that such individual 
     is--
       ``(A) a member of the taxpayer's household under a written 
     agreement between the taxpayer and an organization described 
     in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (b) to implement 
     a program of the organization to provide educational 
     opportunities for pupils or students in private homes, and
       ``(B) a full-time pupil or student in the twelfth or any 
     lower grade at an educational organization located in the 
     United States which normally maintains a regular faculty and 
     curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of 
     pupils or students in attendance at the place where its 
     educational activities are regularly carried on,
     shall be treated as amounts paid for the use of the 
     organization.
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Amount.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to amounts paid 
     within the taxable year only to the extent that such amounts 
     do not exceed $50 multiplied by the number of full calendar 
     months during the taxable year which fall within the period 
     described in paragraph (1). For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, if 15 or more days of a calendar month fall within 
     such period such month shall be considered as a full calendar 
     month.
       ``(B) Compensation or reimbursement.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any amount paid by the taxpayer within the 
     taxable year if the taxpayer receives any money or other 
     property as compensation or reimbursement for maintaining the 
     individual in the taxpayer's household during the period 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Relative defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `relative of the taxpayer' means an individual who, with 
     respect to the taxpayer, bears any of the relationships 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section 
     5(d)(1).
       ``(4) No other amount allowed as deduction.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any amount paid by 
     a taxpayer to maintain an individual as a member of the 
     taxpayer's household under a program described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) except as provided in this subsection.
       ``(e) Denial of Deduction for Certain Travel Expenses.--No 
     deduction shall be allowed under this section for traveling 
     expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging) 
     while away from home, whether paid directly or by 
     reimbursement, unless there is no significant element of 
     personal pleasure, recreation, or vacation in such travel.
       ``(f) Disallowance of Deductions in Certain Cases.--For 
     disallowance of deductions for contributions to or for the 
     use of Communist controlled organizations, see section 11(a) 
     of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 790).
       ``(g) Treatment of Certain Amounts Paid to or for the 
     Benefit of Institutions of Higher Education.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, 80 percent 
     of any amount described in paragraph (2) shall be treated as 
     a charitable contribution.
       ``(2) Amount described.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     amount is described in this paragraph if--
       ``(A) the amount is paid by the taxpayer to or for the 
     benefit of an educational organization--
       ``(i) which is described in subsection (d)(1)(B), and
       ``(ii) which is an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 3304(f)), and
       ``(B) such amount would be allowable as a deduction under 
     this section but for the fact that the taxpayer receives 
     (directly or indirectly) as a result of paying such amount 
     the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic 
     event in an athletic stadium of such institution.

     If any portion of a payment is for the purchase of such 
     tickets, such portion and the remaining portion (if any) of 
     such payment shall be treated as separate amounts for 
     purposes of this subsection.
       ``(h) Other Cross References.--
       ``(1) For treatment of certain organizations providing 
     child care, see section 501(k).
       ``(2) For charitable contributions of partners, see section 
     702.
       ``(3) For treatment of gifts for benefit of or use in 
     connection with the Naval Academy as gifts to or for the use 
     of the United States, see section 6973 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       ``(4) For treatment of gifts accepted by the Secretary of 
     State, the Director of the International Communication 
     Agency, or the Director of the United States International 
     Development Cooperation Agency, as gifts to or for the use of 
     the United States, see section 25 of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956.
       ``(5) For treatment of gifts of money accepted by the 
     Attorney General for credit to the `Commissary Funds, Federal 
     Prisons' as gifts to or for the use of the United States, see 
     section 4043 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(6) For charitable contributions to or for the use of 
     Indian tribal governments (or subdivisions of such 
     governments), see section 7871.

     ``SEC. 4. DEDUCTION FOR HOME ACQUISITION INDEBTEDNESS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this part, there shall 
     be allowed as a deduction all qualified residence interest 
     paid or accrued within the taxable year.
       ``(b) Qualified Residence Interest Defined.--The term 
     `qualified residence interest' means any interest which is 
     paid or accrued during the taxable year on acquisition 
     indebtedness with respect to any qualified residence of the 
     taxpayer. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the 
     determination of whether any property is a qualified 
     residence of the taxpayer shall be made as of the time the 
     interest is accrued.
       ``(c) Acquisition Indebtedness.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `acquisition indebtedness' 
     means any indebtedness which--
       ``(A) is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or 
     substantially improving any qualified residence of the 
     taxpayer, and
       ``(B) is secured by such residence.

     Such term also includes any indebtedness secured by such 
     residence resulting from the refinancing of indebtedness 
     meeting the requirements of the preceding sentence (or this 
     sentence); but only to the extent the amount of the 
     indebtedness resulting from such refinancing does not exceed 
     the amount of the refinanced indebtedness.
       ``(2) $100,000 limitation.--The aggregate amount treated as 
     acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed 
     $100,000 ($50,000 in the case of a married individual filing 
     a separate return).
       ``(d) Treatment of Indebtedness Incurred on or Before 
     October 13, 1987.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any pre-October 13, 1987, 
     indebtedness--
       ``(A) such indebtedness shall be treated as acquisition 
     indebtedness, and
       ``(B) the limitation of subsection (c)(2) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Reduction in $100,000 limitation.--The limitation of 
     subsection (c)(2) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by 
     the aggregate amount of outstanding pre-October 13, 1987, 
     indebtedness.
       ``(3) Pre-october 13, 1987, indebtedness.--The term `pre-
     October 13, 1987, indebtedness' means--
       ``(A) any indebtedness which was incurred on or before 
     October 13, 1987, and which was secured by a qualified 
     residence on October 13, 1987, and at all times thereafter 
     before the interest is paid or accrued, or
       ``(B) any indebtedness which is secured by the qualified 
     residence and was incurred after October 13, 1987, to 
     refinance indebtedness described in subparagraph (A) (or 
     refinanced indebtedness meeting the requirements of this 
     subparagraph) to the extent (immediately after the 
     refinancing) the principal amount of the indebtedness 
     resulting from the refinancing does not exceed the principal 
     amount of the refinanced indebtedness (immediately before the 
     refinancing).
       ``(4) Limitation on period of refinancing.--Subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (3) shall not apply to any indebtedness 
     after--
       ``(A) the expiration of the term of the indebtedness 
     described in paragraph (3)(A), or
       ``(B) if the principal of the indebtedness described in 
     paragraph (3)(A) is not amortized over its term, the 
     expiration of the term of the first refinancing of such 
     indebtedness (or if earlier, the date which is 30 years after 
     the date of such first refinancing).
       ``(e) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Qualified residence.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the term `qualified residence' means the principal residence 
     of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Married individuals filing separate returns.--If a 
     married couple does not file a joint return for the taxable 
     year--
       ``(i) such couple shall be treated as 1 taxpayer for 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), and
       ``(ii) each individual shall be entitled to take into 
     account \1/2\ of the principal residence unless both 
     individuals consent in writing to 1 individual taking into 
     account the principal residence.
       ``(C) Pre-october 13, 1987, indebtedness.--In the case of 
     any pre-October 13, 1987, indebtedness, the term `qualified 
     residence' has the meaning given that term in section 
     163(h)(4), as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Special rule for cooperative housing corporations.--
     Any indebtedness secured by stock held by the taxpayer as a 
     tenant-stockholder in a cooperative housing corporation shall 
     be treated as secured by the house or apartment which the 
     taxpayer is entitled to occupy as such a tenant-stockholder. 
     If stock described in the preceding sentence may not be used 
     to secure indebtedness, indebtedness shall be treated as so 
     secured if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of 
     the Secretary that such indebtedness was incurred to acquire 
     such stock.
       ``(3) Unenforceable security interests.--Indebtedness shall 
     not fail to be treated as secured by any property solely 
     because, under any applicable State or local homestead or 
     other debtor protection law in effect on August 16, 1986, the 
     security interest is ineffective or the enforceability of the 
     security interest is restricted.

[[Page S5368]]

       ``(4) Special rules for estates and trusts.--For purposes 
     of determining whether any interest paid or accrued by an 
     estate or trust is qualified residence interest, any 
     residence held by such estate or trust shall be treated as a 
     qualified residence of such estate or trust if such estate or 
     trust establishes that such residence is a qualified 
     residence of a beneficiary who has a present interest in such 
     estate or trust or an interest in the residuary of such 
     estate or trust.

     ``SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

       ``(a) Definition of Surviving Spouse.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     `surviving spouse' means a taxpayer--
       ``(A) whose spouse died during either of the taxpayer's 2 
     taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year, and
       ``(B) who maintains as the taxpayer's home a household 
     which constitutes for the taxable year the principal place of 
     abode (as a member of such household) of a dependent--
       ``(i) who (within the meaning of subsection (d)) is a son, 
     stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a 
     deduction for the taxable year under section 2.

     For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be 
     considered as maintaining a household only if over one-half 
     of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable 
     year is furnished by such individual.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for 
     purposes of this part a taxpayer shall not be considered to 
     be a surviving spouse--
       ``(A) if the taxpayer has remarried at any time before the 
     close of the taxable year, or
       ``(B) unless, for the taxpayer's taxable year during which 
     the taxpayer's spouse died, a joint return could have been 
     made under the provisions of section 6013 (without regard to 
     subsection (a)(3) thereof).
       ``(3) Special rule where deceased spouse was in missing 
     status.--If an individual was in a missing status (within the 
     meaning of section 6013(f)(3)) as a result of service in a 
     combat zone and if such individual remains in such status 
     until the date referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), then, 
     for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the date on which such 
     individual dies shall be treated as the earlier of the date 
     determined under subparagraph (A) or the date determined 
     under subparagraph (B):
       ``(A) The date on which the determination is made under 
     section 556 of title 37 of the United States Code or under 
     section 5566 of title 5 of such Code (whichever is 
     applicable) that such individual died while in such missing 
     status.
       ``(B) Except in the case of the combat zone designated for 
     purposes of the Vietnam conflict, the date which is 2 years 
     after the date designated as the date of termination of 
     combatant activities in that zone.
       ``(b) Definition of Head of Household.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, an individual 
     shall be considered a head of a household if, and only if, 
     such individual is not married at the close of such 
     individual's taxable year, is not a surviving spouse (as 
     defined in subsection (a)), and either--
       ``(A) maintains as such individual's home a household which 
     constitutes for more than one-half of such taxable year the 
     principal place of abode, as a member of such household, of--
       ``(i) a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the 
     taxpayer, or a descendant of a son or daughter of the 
     taxpayer, but if such son, stepson, daughter, stepdaughter, 
     or descendant is married at the close of the taxpayer's 
     taxable year, only if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction 
     for the taxable year for such person under section 2 (or 
     would be so entitled but for subparagraph (B) or (D) of 
     subsection (d)(5)), or
       ``(ii) any other person who is a dependent of the taxpayer, 
     if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable 
     year for such person under section 2, or
       ``(B) maintains a household which constitutes for such 
     taxable year the principal place of abode of the father or 
     mother of the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is entitled to a 
     deduction for the taxable year for such father or mother 
     under section 2.

     For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be 
     considered as maintaining a household only if over one-half 
     of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable 
     year is furnished by such individual.
       ``(2) Determination of status.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) a legally adopted child of a person shall be 
     considered a child of such person by blood,
       ``(B) an individual who is legally separated from such 
     individual's spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate 
     maintenance shall not be considered as married,
       ``(C) a taxpayer shall be considered as not married at the 
     close of such taxpayer's taxable year if at any time during 
     the taxable year such taxpayer's spouse is a nonresident 
     alien, and
       ``(D) a taxpayer shall be considered as married at the 
     close of such taxpayer's taxable year if such taxpayer's 
     spouse (other than a spouse described in subparagraph (C)) 
     died during the taxable year.
       ``(3) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for 
     purposes of this part, a taxpayer shall not be considered to 
     be a head of a household--
       ``(A) if at any time during the taxable year the taxpayer 
     is a nonresident alien, or
       ``(B) by reason of an individual who would not be a 
     dependent for the taxable year but for--
       ``(i) subparagraph (I) of subsection (d)(1), or
       ``(ii) paragraph (3) of subsection (d).
       ``(c) Certain Married Individuals Living Apart.--For 
     purposes of this part, an individual shall be treated as not 
     married at the close of the taxable year if such individual 
     is so treated under the provisions of section 7703(b).
       ``(d) Dependent Defined.--
       ``(1) General definition.--For purposes of this part, the 
     term `dependent' means any of the following individuals over 
     one-half of whose support, for the calendar year in which the 
     taxable year of the taxpayer begins, was received from the 
     taxpayer (or is treated under paragraph (3) or (5) as 
     received from the taxpayer):
       ``(A) A son or daughter of the taxpayer, or a descendant of 
     either.
       ``(B) A stepson or stepdaughter of the taxpayer.
       ``(C) A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(D) The father or mother of the taxpayer, or an ancestor 
     of either.
       ``(E) A stepfather or stepmother of the taxpayer.
       ``(F) A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(G) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(H) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-
     in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law of the taxpayer.
       ``(I) An individual (other than an individual who at any 
     time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined 
     without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the 
     taxable year of the taxpayer, has as such individual's 
     principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a 
     member of the taxpayer's household.
       ``(2) Rules relating to general definition.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(A) Brother; sister.--The terms `brother' and `sister' 
     include a brother or sister by the halfblood.
       ``(B) Child.--In determining whether any of the 
     relationships specified in paragraph (1) or subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph exists, a legally adopted child of an 
     individual (and a child who is a member of an individual's 
     household, if placed with such individual by an authorized 
     placement agency for legal adoption by such individual), or a 
     foster child of an individual (if such child satisfies the 
     requirements of paragraph (1)(I) with respect to such 
     individual), shall be treated as a child of such individual 
     by blood.
       ``(C) Citizenship.--The term `dependent' does not include 
     any individual who is not a citizen or national of the United 
     States unless such individual is a resident of the United 
     States or of a country contiguous to the United States. The 
     preceding sentence shall not exclude from the definition of 
     `dependent' any child of the taxpayer legally adopted by such 
     taxpayer, if, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the child 
     has as such child's principal place of abode the home of the 
     taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and if 
     the taxpayer is a citizen or national of the United States.
       ``(D) Alimony, etc.--A payment to a wife which is alimony 
     or separate maintenance shall not be treated as a payment by 
     the wife's husband for the support of any dependent.
       ``(E) Unlawful arrangements.--An individual is not a member 
     of the taxpayer's household if at any time during the taxable 
     year of the taxpayer the relationship between such individual 
     and the taxpayer is in violation of local law.
       ``(3) Multiple support agreements.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), over one-half of the support of an individual 
     for a calendar year shall be treated as received from the 
     taxpayer if--
       ``(A) no one person contributed over one-half of such 
     support,
       ``(B) over one-half of such support was received from 
     persons each of whom, but for the fact that such person did 
     not contribute over one-half of such support, would have been 
     entitled to claim such individual as a dependent for a 
     taxable year beginning in such calendar year,
       ``(C) the taxpayer contributed over 10 percent of such 
     support, and
       ``(D) each person described in subparagraph (B) (other than 
     the taxpayer) who contributed over 10 percent of such support 
     files a written declaration (in such manner and form as the 
     Secretary may by regulations prescribe) that such person will 
     not claim such individual as a dependent for any taxable year 
     beginning in such calendar year.
       ``(4) Special support test in case of students.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), in the case of any individual who 
     is--
       ``(A) a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the 
     taxpayer (within the meaning of this subsection), and
       ``(B) a student,

     amounts received as scholarships for study at an educational 
     organization described in section 3(d)(1)(B) shall not be 
     taken into account in determining whether such individual 
     received more than one-half of such individual's support from 
     the taxpayer.
       ``(5) Support test in case of child of divorced parents, 
     etc.--
       ``(A) Custodial parent gets exemption.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph, if--
       ``(i) a child receives over one-half of such child's 
     support during the calendar year from such child's parents--

[[Page S5369]]

       ``(I) who are divorced or legally separated under a decree 
     of divorce or separate maintenance,
       ``(II) who are separated under a written separation 
     agreement, or
       ``(III) who live apart at all times during the last 6 
     months of the calendar year, and

       ``(ii) such child is in the custody of 1 or both of such 
     child's parents for more than one-half of the calendar year,

     such child shall be treated, for purposes of paragraph (1), 
     as receiving over one-half of such child's support during the 
     calendar year from the parent having custody for a greater 
     portion of the calendar year (hereafter in this paragraph 
     referred to as the `custodial parent').
       ``(B) Exception where custodial parent releases claim to 
     exemption for the year.--A child of parents described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be treated as having received over 
     one-half of such child's support during a calendar year from 
     the noncustodial parent if--
       ``(i) the custodial parent signs a written declaration (in 
     such manner and form as the Secretary may by regulations 
     prescribe) that such custodial parent will not claim such 
     child as a dependent for any taxable year beginning in such 
     calendar year, and
       ``(ii) the noncustodial parent attaches such written 
     declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the 
     taxable year beginning during such calendar year.

     For purposes of this paragraph, the term `noncustodial 
     parent' means the parent who is not the custodial parent.
       ``(C) Exception for multiple-support agreement.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply in any case where over one-half of 
     the support of the child is treated as having been received 
     from a taxpayer under the provisions of paragraph (3).
       ``(D) Exception for certain pre-1985 instruments.--
       ``(i) In general.--A child of parents described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be treated as having received over 
     one-half such child's support during a calendar year from the 
     noncustodial parent if--

       ``(I) a qualified pre-1985 instrument between the parents 
     applicable to the taxable year beginning in such calendar 
     year provides that the noncustodial parent shall be entitled 
     to any deduction allowable under section 2 for such child, 
     and
       ``(II) the noncustodial parent provides at least $600 for 
     the support of such child during such calendar year.

     For purposes of this clause, amounts expended for the support 
     of a child or children shall be treated as received from the 
     noncustodial parent to the extent that such parent provided 
     amounts for such support.
       ``(ii) Qualified pre-1985 instrument.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `qualified pre-1985 instrument' means 
     any decree of divorce or separate maintenance or written 
     agreement--

       ``(I) which is executed before January 1, 1985,
       ``(II) which on such date contains the provision described 
     in clause (i)(I), and
       ``(III) which is not modified on or after such date in a 
     modification which expressly provides that this subparagraph 
     shall not apply to such decree or agreement.

       ``(E) Special rule for support received from new spouse of 
     parent.--For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of the 
     remarriage of a parent, support of a child received from the 
     parent's spouse shall be treated as received from the parent.

                 ``PART II--TAX ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

``Sec. 11. Tax imposed on business activities.

     ``SEC. 11. TAX IMPOSED ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Tax Imposed.--There is hereby imposed on every person 
     engaged in a business activity located in the United States a 
     tax equal to 20 percent of the business taxable income of 
     such person.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section 
     shall be paid by the person engaged in the business activity, 
     whether such person is an individual, partnership, 
     corporation, or otherwise.
       ``(c) Business Taxable Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `business taxable income' means gross active income reduced 
     by the deductions specified in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Gross active income.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `gross active income' means gross income other than 
     investment income.
       ``(d) Deductions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The deductions specified in this 
     subsection are--
       ``(A) the cost of business inputs for the business 
     activity,
       ``(B) the compensation (including contributions to 
     qualified retirement plans but not including other fringe 
     benefits) paid for employees performing services in such 
     activity, and
       ``(C) the cost of personal and real property used in such 
     activity.
       ``(2) Business inputs.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the 
     term `cost of business inputs' means--
       ``(i) the actual cost of goods, services, and materials, 
     whether or not resold during the taxable year, and
       ``(ii) the actual cost, if reasonable, of travel and 
     entertainment expenses for business purposes.
       ``(B) Purchases of goods and services excluded.--Such term 
     shall not include purchases of goods and services provided to 
     employees or owners.
       ``(C) Certain lobbying and political expenditures 
     excluded.--
       ``(i) In general.--Such term shall not include any amount 
     paid or incurred in connection with--

       ``(I) influencing legislation,
       ``(II) participation in, or intervention in, any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office,
       ``(III) any attempt to influence the general public, or 
     segments thereof, with respect to elections, legislative 
     matters, or referendums, or
       ``(IV) any direct communication with a covered executive 
     branch official in an attempt to influence the official 
     actions or positions of such official.

       ``(ii) Exception for local legislation.--In the case of any 
     legislation of any local council or similar governing body--

       ``(I) clause (i)(I) shall not apply, and
       ``(II) such term shall include all ordinary and necessary 
     expenses (including, but not limited to, traveling expenses 
     described in subparagraph (A)(iii) and the cost of preparing 
     testimony) paid or incurred during the taxable year in 
     carrying on any trade or business--

       ``(aa) in direct connection with appearances before, 
     submission of statements to, or sending communications to the 
     committees, or individual members, of such council or body 
     with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct 
     interest to the taxpayer, or
       ``(bb) in direct connection with communication of 
     information between the taxpayer and an organization of which 
     the taxpayer is a member with respect to any such legislation 
     or proposed legislation which is of direct interest to the 
     taxpayer and to such organization, and that portion of the 
     dues so paid or incurred with respect to any organization of 
     which the taxpayer is a member which is attributable to the 
     expenses of the activities carried on by such organization.
       ``(iii) Application to dues of tax-exempt organizations.--
     Such term shall include the portion of dues or other similar 
     amounts paid by the taxpayer to an organization which is 
     exempt from tax under this subtitle which the organization 
     notifies the taxpayer under section 6033(e)(1)(A)(ii) is 
     allocable to expenditures to which clause (i) applies.
       ``(iv) Influencing legislation.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) In general.--The term `influencing legislation' means 
     any attempt to influence any legislation through 
     communication with any member or employee of a legislative 
     body, or with any government official or employee who may 
     participate in the formulation of legislation.
       ``(II) Legislation.--The term `legislation' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 4911(e)(2).

       ``(v) Other special rules.--

       ``(I) Exception for certain taxpayers.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer engaged in the trade or business of conducting 
     activities described in clause (i), clause (i) shall not 
     apply to expenditures of the taxpayer in conducting such 
     activities directly on behalf of another person (but shall 
     apply to payments by such other person to the taxpayer for 
     conducting such activities).
       ``(II) De minimis exception.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any in-
     house expenditures for any taxable year if such expenditures 
     do not exceed $2,000. In determining whether a taxpayer 
     exceeds the $2,000 limit, there shall not be taken into 
     account overhead costs otherwise allocable to activities 
     described in subclauses (I) and (IV) of clause (i).
       ``(bb) In-house expenditures.--For purposes of provision 
     (aa), the term `in-house expenditures' means expenditures 
     described in subclauses (I) and (IV) of clause (i) other than 
     payments by the taxpayer to a person engaged in the trade or 
     business of conducting activities described in clause (i) for 
     the conduct of such activities on behalf of the taxpayer, or 
     dues or other similar amounts paid or incurred by the 
     taxpayer which are allocable to activities described in 
     clause (i).

       ``(III) Expenses incurred in connection with lobbying and 
     political activities.--Any amount paid or incurred for 
     research for, or preparation, planning, or coordination of, 
     any activity described in clause (i) shall be treated as paid 
     or incurred in connection with such activity.

       ``(vi) Covered executive branch official.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `covered executive branch 
     official' means--

       ``(I) the President,
       ``(II) the Vice President,
       ``(III) any officer or employee of the White House Office 
     of the Executive Office of the President, and the 2 most 
     senior level officers of each of the other agencies in such 
     Executive Office, and
       ``(IV) any individual serving in a position in level I of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5, United 
     States Code, any other individual designated by the President 
     as having Cabinet level status, and any immediate deputy of 
     such an individual.

       ``(vii) Special rule for indian tribal governments.--For 
     purposes of this subparagraph, an Indian tribal government 
     shall be treated in the same manner as a local council or 
     similar governing body.
       ``(viii) Cross Reference.--

  ``For reporting requirements and alternative taxes related to this 
subsection, see section 6033(e).


[[Page S5370]]


       ``(e) Carryover of Excess Deductions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the aggregate deductions for any 
     taxable year exceed the gross active income for such taxable 
     year, the amount of the deductions specified in subsection 
     (d) for the succeeding taxable year (determined without 
     regard to this subsection) shall be increased by the sum of--
       ``(A) such excess, plus
       ``(B) the product of such excess and the 3-month Treasury 
     rate for the last month of such taxable year.
       ``(2) 3-month treasury rate.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the 3-month Treasury rate is the rate determined by the 
     Secretary based on the average market yield (during any 1-
     month period selected by the Secretary and ending in the 
     calendar month in which the determination is made) on 
     outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with 
     remaining periods to maturity of 3 months or less.''
       (b) Conforming Repeals and Redesignations.--
       (1) Repeals.--The following subchapters of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle A and the items relating to such subchapters in the 
     table of subchapters for such chapter 1 are repealed:
       (A) Subchapter B (relating to computation of taxable 
     income).
       (B) Subchapter C (relating to corporate distributions and 
     adjustments).
       (C) Subchapter D (relating to deferred compensation, etc.).
       (D) Subchapter G (relating to corporations used to avoid 
     income tax on shareholders).
       (E) Subchapter H (relating to banking institutions).
       (F) Subchapter I (relating to natural resources).
       (G) Subchapter J (relating to estates, trusts, 
     beneficiaries, and decedents).
       (H) Subchapter L (relating to insurance companies).
       (I) Subchapter M (relating to regulated investment 
     companies and real estate investment trusts).
       (J) Subchapter N (relating to tax based on income from 
     sources within or without the United States).
       (K) Subchapter O (relating to gain or loss on disposition 
     of property).
       (L) Subchapter P (relating to capital gains and losses).
       (M) Subchapter Q (relating to readjustment of tax between 
     years and special limitations).
       (N) Subchapter S (relating to tax treatment of S 
     corporations and their shareholders).
       (O) Subchapter T (relating to cooperatives and their 
     patrons).
       (P) Subchapter U (relating to designation and treatment of 
     empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and rural 
     development investment areas).
       (Q) Subchapter V (relating to title 11 cases).
       (R) Subchapter W (relating to District of Columbia 
     Enterprise Zone).
       (2) Redesignations.--The following subchapters of chapter 1 
     of subtitle A and the items relating to such subchapters in 
     the table of subchapters for such chapter 1 are redesignated:
       (A) Subchapter E (relating to accounting periods and 
     methods of accounting) as subchapter B.
       (B) Subchapter F (relating to exempt organizations) as 
     subchapter C.
       (C) Subchapter K (relating to partners and partnerships) as 
     subchapter D.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

       Subtitle B (relating to estate, gift, and generation-
     skipping taxes) and the item relating to such subtitle in the 
     table of subtitles is repealed.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

       Subtitles H (relating to financing of presidential election 
     campaigns) and J (relating to coal industry health benefits) 
     and the items relating to such subtitles in the table of 
     subtitles are repealed.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by this Act apply to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2003.
       (b) Repeal of Estate and Gift Taxes.--The repeal made by 
     section 3 applies to estates of decedents dying, and 
     transfers made, after December 31, 2003.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as 
     practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical 
     and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code the 
     changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 908. A bill to establish the United States Consensus Council to 
provide for a consensus building process in addressing national public 
policy issues, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
would create a United States Consensus Council. Designed to facilitate 
a consensus building process on important national issues, the U.S. 
Consensus Council is modeled upon similar entities that have operated 
successfully in several States. The council would be a nonprofit, 
private entity that would serve both the legislative and executive 
branches of government. Its role would be to build agreements among 
stakeholders on public policy issues where there are diverse and 
conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other 
decision-makers for action.
  A good example of such a consensus council is the Montana Consensus 
Council. Established in 1994, this council has helped to facilities 
agreements on a range of contentious public issues. The Council, for 
example, facilitated development of a plan for the cleanup of hazardous 
waste sites that was overwhelmingly approved by the State legislature. 
It also helped mediate a dispute between recreationists and ranchers 
over water rights and, with the input of key stakeholders, an agreement 
was successfully reached.
  The North Dakota Consensus Council, created in 1990, has helped build 
agreements on numerous local and State issues, including facilitating a 
five year effort to develop a strategic plan for the future of North 
Dakota and an economic development strategy to implement that plan.
  The U.S. Consensus Council Act was introduced in the last Congress by 
Senator Dorgan and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. The 
Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported the bill last 
fall, but the full Senate did not have an opportunity to act on it 
before adjournment. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan, along with 
Senators Santorum and Conrad, have joined me in reintroducing the 
legislation today.
  The legislation would establish the U.S. Consensus Council as an 
independent nonprofit corporation under the District of Columbia 
Nonprofit Corporation Act. The Council would not be an agency or 
instrumentality of the United States. The Council's role would be to 
design and conduct processes that bring together key stakeholders and 
build agreements on complex public policy issues. The resulting 
recommendations would be advisory, subject to the normal legislative or 
regulatory processes.
  The Council's powers would be vested in a 12-member part-time Board 
of Directors. Each of the leaders of the majority and minority in the 
House of Representatives and the Senate would appoint two board 
members, and the President would appoint four members. Members of the 
Board cannot be Federal officers or employees.
  A President, selected by the Board, would be the chief executive 
officer of the Council.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Collins, in introducing legislation that would create the 
United States Consensus Council. This council would be a nonprofit, 
quasi-governmental entity. Its role would be to build agreements among 
stakeholders on legislative issues where there are diverse and 
conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other 
decisionmakers for action.
  We all talk about the benefit of working across party lines to 
develop consensus on a variety of policy issues. This bill would help 
to institutionalize this goal and provide ongoing support to Congress 
by bringing stakeholders to the table to resolve a wide range of 
difficult national issues.
  The North Dakota Consensus Council in my home State serves as a model 
for this national proposal. In North Dakota, the Consensus Council has 
helped to find common ground on the use of grasslands in the western 
part of the State, the structure of judgeships across the State, and 
flood mitigation efforts in the Red River Valley. By bringing together 
all of the interested parties, the North Dakota Consensus Council was 
able to find solutions to problems that had previously seemed 
insurmountable. Washington, DC, is ripe with opportunity for the same 
kind of consensus building and mediation. We can not only build on the 
experience of consensus building in North Dakota, but similar successes 
in Montana, Florida, Oregon, and many other States.
  The United States Consensus Council would bring people together and 
then

[[Page S5371]]

help to develop recommendations. These recommendations would be 
advisory and would not circumvent any of the normal legislative 
requirements or processes. The board of directors would be appointed by 
the President and the bipartisan congressional leadership. The council 
would remain neutral on substantive policy matters.
  The council would focus on issues that are contentious or deadlocked, 
or they could be emerging issues where mediation could help to prevent 
later polarization.
  The council's role will be to design and conduct processes that lead 
to common ground on effective public policy for a particular issue. The 
council could be called upon to convene key stakeholders in face-to-
face meetings over time to build agreements on complex issues.
  I have long been a supporter of building consensus and finding ways 
to reach compromise. I believe that this legislation could help the 
Congress and the administration to find that middle ground. There are 
so many important issues that get deadlocked in Washington, and this 
approach will help to break that logjam. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill through the 
process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 909. A bill to provide State and local governments with 
flexibility in using funds made available for homeland security 
activities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need 
for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement 
and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities.
  Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local 
governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the 
procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of 
that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management 
personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning 
on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the 
resources to adequately perform that planning.
  I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine 
Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been 
provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection 
equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use 
that equipment.
  As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary 
widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying 
percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different 
areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any 
successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability 
must therefore have flexible rules for implementation.
  For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states 
for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received 
$246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered 
through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were 
based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its 
most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If 
planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If 
training or exercise was the need, they could stress that.
  While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local 
communities, States were required to track performance measures that 
showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States 
such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States 
to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than 
providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational 
infrastructure to plan and execute programs.
  States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time 
and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for 
services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of 
improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support 
basic emergency management activities, such as incident command 
training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the 
communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their 
capability to react to a terrorist incident.
  By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental 
Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency 
response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous 
flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002 
Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen 
Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency 
operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding 
for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be 
passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer 
those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been 
better served by programs brought to them by the state.
  In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test 
plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and 
CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any 
other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward 
desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will 
return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does 
not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds 
could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of 
facilities was in place.
  The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of 
equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course 
for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection, 
decontamination and communications could be procured.
  Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a 
critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in 
earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and 
requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of 
the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training. 
While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted 
to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some 
funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but, 
again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for 
exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa.
  In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then 
training, then exercise.
  If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same 
result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even 
within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that 
make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to 
free up employee time to take needed training or participate in 
exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for 
flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been 
overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create 
special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns 
in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and 
training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to 
respond to a terrorist incident.
  Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response 
capability. In some areas we could build that capability around 
existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build 
capability from the ground up.
  For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have 
formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required 
to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This 
entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the 
City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and 
some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level, 
as they are facing additional security requirements around the city. 
This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required 
training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and 
no Federal grant currently

[[Page S5372]]

available will reimburse training costs to include overtime.
  In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up 
and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to 
respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these 
teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost 
of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people.
  These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic 
responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper 
industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level 
A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional 
training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available 
allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time.
  In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each 
region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise 
and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly 
difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that 
provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more 
rigid.
  The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks 
have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is 
this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to 
respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting 
our residents' health.
  While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent 
events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since 
September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts 
to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters, 
but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable 
terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that 
could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties.
  Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and 
standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and 
responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders 
and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first 
response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for 
collaboration and compatibility.
  No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction 
event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially 
contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital 
emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly 
the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the 
community response system and if they are not prepared and protected, 
there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break 
down completely.
  One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is 
staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all 
these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals 
has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full 
costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean 
economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals.
  The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison 
to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff 
time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's 
on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay 
another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The 
cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace 
the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing 
shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate 
for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average 
hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any 
staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are 
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that 
hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come 
to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to 
provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training 
necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently 
underfunded.
  According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material 
``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting 
Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at 
least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses 
required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train 
25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time 
alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because 
six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination 
line, the nursing costs are just the beginning.
  The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional 
emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical 
components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for 
hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining 
reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an 
average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one 
third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating 
margins in 2002.
  Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best 
possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of 
emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would 
provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any 
crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical 
functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis.
  These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by 
State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to 
prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to 
terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some 
of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly 
prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 910. A bill to ensure the continuation of non-homeland security 
functions of Federal agencies transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
preserve important non-homeland security missions in the Department of 
Homeland Security. I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Carper, and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, in this effort to guarantee the fulfillment of non-homeland 
security functions Americans rely on daily.
  Many of these non-homeland security functions are especially 
important to the State of Hawaii. The Coast Guard provides essential 
search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and protection of our 
coastline. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service protects the 
State's fragile ecosystem from invasive species. The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency assists municipalities in reducing the destructive 
effects of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tidal 
waves.
  To preserve these vital functions, the ``Non-Homeland Security 
Mission Performance Act of 2003'' would require the Department of 
Homeland Security to identify and report to Congress on the resources, 
personnel, and capabilities used to perform non-homeland security 
functions, as well as the management strategy needed to carry out these 
missions.
  The measure would require the Department to include information on 
the performance of these functions in its annual performance report. 
Our legislation also calls for a General Accounting Office, GAO, 
evaluation of the performance of essential non-homeland security 
missions.
  The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security created 
additional management challenges and has fueled growing concerns that 
the performance of core, non-homeland security functions will slip 
through the cracks. Just last week, the GAO testified before the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that

[[Page S5373]]

the Coast Guard has experienced a substantial decline in the amount of 
time spent on core missions. Moreover, GAO found that the Coast Guard 
lacks the resources to reverse this trend. Coast Guard Commandant 
Thomas H. Collins is quoted as saying that his agency has more business 
than it has resources and is challenged like never before to do all 
that America wants it to do.
  These same concerns extend to the entire Department of Homeland 
Security. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship 
and Immigration services provides asylum for refugees and helps 
immigrants become American citizens. The Customs Service protects and 
monitors foreign trade so essential for a healthy American economy. And 
the Secret Service protects and monitors against identity theft, 
counterfeiting, and other financial crimes.
  In fact, the General Accounting Office has added the transformation 
of and implementation of the Department to the GAO High Risk list, 
partially as the result of existing management challenges to fulfill 
non-homeland security missions.
  The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not 
come at the expense of these essential missions. Agencies should strike 
the proper balance between new homeland security responsibilities and 
their critical non-homeland security missions. Enhancing traditional 
missions also enhances domestic security which depends on sound 
management strategies that ensure adequate resources and personnel.
  I urge my colleagues to support the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission 
Performance Act of 2003.'' Our bill takes important steps to ensure 
that Americans will not see a decline in non-homeland security services 
as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
  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. 910

       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 ``Non-Homeland Security 
     Mission Performance Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Federal agencies included in the Department of Homeland 
     Security perform important non-homeland security functions on 
     which all United States citizens rely, such as the protection 
     of fisheries and agriculture, communication and 
     transportation infrastructures, and medical supplies.
       (2) Federal agencies included in the Department shall 
     ensure the continuation of non-homeland security functions as 
     new homeland security responsibilities are adopted.
       (3) A strategy to address non-homeland security functions 
     is needed to meet the daily needs of Americans and to 
     preserve the security of the Nation.
       (4) Non-homeland security functions are complementary to 
     homeland security functions and often share personnel, 
     resources, and assets. It is appropriate for each Under 
     Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure 
     that non-homeland security functions are performed.
       (5) Agencies in the Department of Homeland Security perform 
     essential non-homeland security functions Americans rely on 
     everyday, including the following:
       (A) The United States Coast Guard has vital non-homeland 
     security functions, including search and rescue, fisheries 
     enforcement, law enforcement, marine safety, and aids to 
     navigation.
       (B) The Department of Homeland Security Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services provides important 
     immigration and citizenship services and benefits including 
     processing and approving requests for citizenship, 
     adjudicating asylum for refugees, and immigration benefits, 
     such as refugee and intercountry adoptions.
       (C) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assists 
     local communities to prepare for and respond to floods, 
     hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, and other natural 
     disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     supplements State and local responses to natural disasters 
     and the mitigation of damage, and prevention of disasters, 
     such as earthquakes.
       (D) The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the 
     Animal Research Service develop strategies to prevent and 
     control foreign or emerging animal and plant disease 
     epidemics vital to farmers, the economy, and the protection 
     of the environment.
       (E) The Secret Service is charged with safeguarding payment 
     and financial systems by protecting against counterfeiting, 
     identity theft, credit card fraud, cell phone fraud, computer 
     and telecommunications fraud, money laundering, and other 
     financial crimes.
       (F) The United States Customs Service protects our free 
     trade essential for a healthy economy by working to lower the 
     cost of trade compliance, providing guidance on the conduct 
     of legal trade, and monitoring imports to ensure compliance 
     with public health and safety laws. Customs protects 
     intellectual property and combats money laundering, child 
     pornography, and drug trafficking.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) ensure the continuation of non-homeland security 
     functions of Federal agencies; and
       (2) ensure that Federal agencies develop sound management 
     strategies and allocate sufficient funding to carry out non-
     homeland security functions.

     SEC. 3. NON-HOMELAND SECURITY FUNCTIONS PERFORMANCE.

       (a) In General.--For each entity in the Department of 
     Homeland Security that performs non-homeland security 
     functions, the Under Secretary with responsibility for that 
     entity, in conjunction with the head of that entity, shall 
     submit a report on the performance of the entity and all the 
     functions of that entity, with a particular emphasis on 
     examining the continuing level of performance of non-homeland 
     security functions to--
       (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
       (2) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
       (3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (4) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (5) the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       (6) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (b) Contents.--The report referred to under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) to the greatest extent possible, provide an inventory 
     of the non-homeland security functions of the entity and 
     identify the capabilities of the entity with respect to those 
     functions, including--
       (A) the number of employees carrying out those functions;
       (B) the budget for those functions; and
       (C) the flexibilities, personnel or otherwise, used to 
     carry out those functions;
       (2) contain information relating to the roles, 
     responsibilities, organizational structure, capabilities, 
     personnel assets, and annual budgets, specifically with 
     respect to the capabilities of the entity to accomplish non-
     homeland security functions without any diminishment;
       (3) contain information relating to whether any changes are 
     required to the roles, responsibilities, functions, 
     organizational structure, modernization programs, projects, 
     activities, recruitment and retention programs, and annual 
     fiscal resources to enable the entity to accomplish non-
     homeland security functions without diminishment; and
       (4) contain the strategy the Department will use for the 
     performance of non-homeland security functions and homeland 
     security functions.
       (c) Submission of Reports.--During the 5-year period 
     following the date of the transfer of an entity that performs 
     non-homeland security functions to the Department of Homeland 
     Security or the date of the establishment of an entity that 
     performs non-homeland security functions within the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the Under Secretary with 
     responsibility for that entity shall submit an annual report 
     described under subsection (a).
       (d) Annual Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of this 
     section.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every year during the succeeding 5-
     year period, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives containing--
       (A) an evaluation of the implementation progress reports 
     submitted under this section;
       (B) the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General 
     of the United States resulting from the monitoring and 
     evaluation conducted under this subsection, including 
     evaluations of how successfully the Department of Homeland 
     Security is meeting the non-homeland security functions of 
     the Department; and
       (C) any recommendations for legislation or administrative 
     action the Comptroller General of the United States considers 
     appropriate.
       (e) Performance Reports.--In performance reports submitted 
     under section 1116 of title 31, United States Code, the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall--
       (1) clarify homeland security and non-homeland security 
     function performance; and
       (2) fully describe and evaluate the performance of homeland 
     and non-homeland security functions and goals to Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 911. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a rebate of up to $765 to individuals for

[[Page S5374]]

payroll taxes paid in 2001, to provide employers with an income tax 
credit of up to $765 for payroll taxes paid during the payroll tax 
holiday period, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are living in difficult economic 
times. Too many people are out of work and the economy is not growing 
enough to put them back to work permanently. The March unemployment 
rate was 5.8 percent and it has been holding around this mark for about 
a year. More bad news came just last week when the number of jobless 
claims soared to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That is the 
highest number of weekly claims for unemployment benefits in almost a 
year.
  While unemployment has been rising, other economic indicators are 
dropping. New orders for manufactured goods in February decreased $4.9 
billion or 1.5 percent; shipments also fell 1.5 percent, the largest 
decrease since February of last year.
  These cold, hard numbers cannot measure the unease and uncertainty 
many Americans feel today. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence 
Index fell 2 more points in March after a 3 point drop in February. 
When your neighbor is out of work and cannot find a job, you worry that 
you might be next. So you hold off on buying that new washing machine, 
the new car you need to get to work, or you put that dream vacation on 
hold. Americans have experienced losses in their pensions and 401(k) 
plans. When you combine all of this with the uncertainty surrounding 
the war against terrorism and the war with Iraq, you create a great 
drag on the economy.
  I think all of my colleagues agree that the economy is not where we 
want it to be right now. We agree that it needs a booster shot. We have 
partisan disagreement over specifics and the size of the stimulus. But 
if we put aside our partisan differences, I believe we can come up with 
a bipartisan solution to help the economy in the short term.
  We can accomplish this if we agree on a few, narrow principles for an 
economic stimulus plan. First, we should aim toward providing an 
immediate boost to the economy. We do not need tax cuts that will only 
begin to help several years downs the road. The economy needs help 
today. Second, the urgent need for the boost today means that the 
economic stimulus plan must be simple and easy to administer so that 
full effects can be felt right away. Third, I believe that a stimulus 
plan must be fiscally responsible. While the economy needs a boost 
today, that boost should not come at the expense of our ability to meet 
our needs tomorrow. And finally, the stimulus package must be 
equitable. It must be fair. It should touch all Americans, not just a 
select few.
  Today, along with my colleague Senator Corzine, I am introducing one 
idea for economic stimulus that meets all of these principles. We 
propose that all working Americans receive tax relief equivalent to the 
amount of payroll taxes paid on the first $10,000 of earnings--a total 
of $765. The rebate would be made in two installments. The first would 
come within 2 months of passage of the bill and the second would come 
by December 1st of this year. Employers would also receive an 
equivalent tax credit for their employees.
  This plan meets the principles I have outlined. It is a short-term 
plan that will put spending money in the hands of working Americans. It 
will be simple to administer--rebate checks were a part of the tax cut 
we passed in 2001. The plan is fiscally responsible: the rebate checks 
will be paid out of general revenues and not from the Social Security 
trust fund. Finally, this plan is fair. Every working American will 
benefit.
  Mr. President, I hope the Congress will act quickly to revive our 
economy. Today, Senator Corzine and I are putting one idea forward. My 
colleagues have a variety of other ideas that they will put forward. 
The Senate should look at each and put together a final package that is 
simple, immediate, fair, and fiscally responsible.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu 
in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an 
immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to 
all working Americans and to businesses.
  In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax 
break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on 
the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples 
would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in 
which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General 
Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be 
affected in any way.
  Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our 
proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet 
and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries 
for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months 
of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline.
  The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit 
for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit 
for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to 
spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing 
payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more 
employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have.
  That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the 
country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has 
endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing 
today.
  This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that 
will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be 
immediately reinvested in our economy.
  Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would 
provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally 
irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of 
the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the 
budget resolution.
  At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of 
young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to 
ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong. 
This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity 
they deserve.
  In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own 
Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief 
could have. It quoted the senator as saying:

       A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax 
     cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially 
     during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and 
     unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in 
     consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost.

  Senator Frist continued:

       The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill 
     now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a 
     bipartisan solution.

  Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative 
impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader 
Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those 
words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 914. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 
look-thru rules for purposes of the foreign tax credit limitation to 
dividends from foreign corporations not controlled by a domestic 
corporation; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President I rise today to introduce legislation to 
simplify an unnecessarily complex portion of the tax code that serves 
as an impediment to U.S. businesses attempting to compete in foreign 
markets. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friends and 
colleagues Sens. Breaux and Hatch. The Foreign Tax Credit, FTC, was 
designed to ensure that U.S. corporations were not subject to double 
taxation on foreign income. A number of limitations were placed on 
these credits in order to guard against attempts to reduce U.S. taxes 
on income earned here. Consequently, income earned abroad is sorted 
into separate ``baskets'' based on how the income is earned, also known 
as ``look-through'' treatment.

[[Page S5375]]

  Unfortunately, income from certain corporate joint ventures has not 
always been afforded look-through treatment. In the past, income from a 
10/50 company, a U.S. firm has substantial ownership, at least 10 
percent but not a controlling interest 50 percent, was subject to 
different tax treatment. In 1997, Congress attempted to address 
disparity with legislation affording look-through treatment for 
dividends paid by 10/50 companies. However, the bill included vague 
transition rules that were complex and expensive for U.S. companies.
  Our bill would resolve these transition issues by restoring parity in 
the tax treatment of joint-venture income to other income earned 
overseas by U.S. companies. Everyone, from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation in the 2001 simplification study to the Clinton Administration 
in its budget documents, has called for simplification in this area.
  Legal and political realities in foreign markets often necessitate 
the use of corporate joint ventures with local firms. U.S. 
international tax rules should not penalize companies with overly 
complicated and costly limitations purely because they choose or are 
forced to do business in a certain form. The 10/50 transition rules 
didn't allow the full use of foreign tax credits, thus over-taxing 
income generated from these business ventures. We need to eliminate the 
last vestiges of the 10/50 regime in order to level the international 
playing field for U.S. companies.
  I ask that all my colleagues consider and support this important 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 914

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

     SECTION 1. LOOK-THRU RULES TO APPLY TO DIVIDENDS FROM 
                   NONCONTROLLED SECTION 902 CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 904(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to separate 
     application of section with respect to certain categories of 
     income) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Look-thru applies to dividends from noncontrolled 
     section 902 corporations.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, any 
     dividend from a noncontrolled section 902 corporation with 
     respect to the taxpayer shall be treated as income in a 
     separate category in proportion to the ratio of--
       ``(i) the portion of earnings and profits attributable to 
     income in such category, to
       ``(ii) the total amount of earnings and profits.
       ``(B) Special rules.--For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraph 
     (3)(F) shall apply.
       ``(ii) Earnings and profits.--

       ``(I) In general.--The rules of section 316 shall apply.
       ``(II) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     regulations regarding the treatment of distributions out of 
     earnings and profits for periods before the taxpayer's 
     acquisition of the stock to which the distributions relate.

       ``(iii) Dividends not allocable to separate category.--The 
     portion of any dividend from a noncontrolled section 902 
     corporation which is not treated as income in a separate 
     category under subparagraph (A) shall be treated as a 
     dividend to which subparagraph (A) does not apply.
       ``(iv) Look-thru with respect to carryforwards of credit.--
     Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) also shall 
     apply to any carryforward under subsection (c) from a taxable 
     year beginning before January 1, 2003, of tax allocable to a 
     dividend from a noncontrolled section 902 corporation with 
     respect to the taxpayer.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (E) of section 904(d)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect both before and after the 
     amendments made by section 1105 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
     1997, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Section 904(d)(2)(C)(iii) of such Code, as so in 
     effect, is amended by striking subclause (II) and by 
     redesignating subclause (III) as subclause (II).
       (3) The last sentence of section 904(d)(2)(D) of such Code, 
     as so in effect, is amended to read as follows: ``Such term 
     does not include any financial services income.''.
       (4) Section 904(d)(2)(E) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or (4)'' after ``paragraph (3)'' in 
     clause (i), and
       (B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iv) and by redesignating 
     clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (5) Section 904(d)(3)(F) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``(D), or (E)'' and inserting ``or (D)''.
       (6) Section 864(d)(5)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``(C)(iii)(III)'' and inserting ``(C)(iii)(II)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 915. A bill to authorize appropriations of fiscal years 2004, 
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 for the Department of Energy Office of 
Science, to ensure that the United States is the world leader in key 
scientific fields by restoring a healthy balance of science funding, to 
ensure maximum use of the national user facilities, and to secure the 
Nation's supply of scientists for the 21st century, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 915

       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 ``Energy and Science Research 
     Investment Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Office of Science of the Department of Energy is 
     the largest Federal sponsor of civilian research in the 
     physical sciences and plays a major role in supporting 
     interdisciplinary research that contributes to other 
     scientific fields, including the life sciences, mathematics, 
     computer science, engineering, and the environmental 
     sciences;
       (2)(A) Department of Energy laboratories have scientific 
     capabilities that are unmatched in typical academic or 
     industrial institutions;
       (B) scientific teams of the laboratories are capable of 
     developing integrated approaches to grand scientific 
     challenges that are often beyond the reach of individual 
     experimenters; and
       (C) the Human Genome Project exemplifies that capability;
       (3) the facilities at the Department of Energy laboratories 
     are invaluable to scientists across disciplines, including 
     those from academia, industry, and government;
       (4)(A) for more than half a century, science research has 
     had an extraordinary impact on the economy, national 
     security, medicine, energy, life sciences, and the 
     environment; and
       (B) in the economic arena, studies show that about half of 
     all United States post-World War II economic growth is a 
     direct result of technological innovation stemming from 
     scientific research;
       (5) the Office of Science programs, in constant dollars, 
     have been flat funded for more than a decade, placing the 
     scientific leadership of the United States in jeopardy and 
     limiting the generation of ideas that will enhance the 
     security of the United States and drive future economic 
     growth;
       (6)(A) because the cost of conducting research increases at 
     a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index, flat funding for 
     the Office of Science has led to a decline in the number of 
     grants awarded, students trained, and scientists supported; 
     and
       (B) flat and erratic funding has also led to an underuse of 
     the facilities that the United States has invested hundreds 
     of millions of dollars to construct; and
       (7) higher funding levels for the Office of Science will 
     provide more opportunities to support graduate students in 
     research at universities in the fields of mathematics, 
     engineering, and the physical sciences, helping to alleviate 
     an increasing over-reliance on foreign talent in these 
     fields.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Program Direction.--The Secretary of Energy, acting 
     through the Office of Science, shall--
       (1) conduct a comprehensive program of fundamental 
     research, including research on chemical sciences, physics, 
     materials sciences, biological and environmental sciences, 
     geosciences, engineering sciences, plasma sciences, 
     mathematics, and advanced scientific computing;
       (2) maintain, upgrade, and expand the scientific user 
     facilities maintained by the Office of Science and ensure 
     that the facilities are an integral part of the departmental 
     mission for exploring the frontiers of fundamental science;
       (3) maintain a leading-edge research capability in the 
     energy-related aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology, 
     advanced scientific computing and genome research;
       (4) ensure that the fundamental science programs of the 
     Department of Energy, as appropriate, help inform the applied 
     research and development programs of the Department; and
       (5) ensure that Department of Energy research programs 
     support sufficient numbers of graduate students to maintain 
     the pipeline of scientists and engineers that is critical for 
     the future vitality of Federal laboratories and overall 
     United States science leadership.

[[Page S5376]]

       (b) Authorities of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) for fiscal year 2004, $3,785,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2005, $4,153,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2006, $4,586,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000,000; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2008, $5,400,000,000.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with 
Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would 
authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office 
of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has 
remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research 
has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of 
Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in 
the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all 
sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the 
past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has 
been derived from investments in science and technology.
  The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief 
sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers 
in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, 
mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these 
disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for 
research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy 
physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's 
responsibilities for energy security and defense.
  While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at 
our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly 
enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget 
is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding. 
This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term, 
peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract 
motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the 
curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in 
quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge 
base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers.
  The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows 
the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research 
be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since 
its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s. 
Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at 
this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates 
and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By 
supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and 
institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics, 
nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office 
of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences.
  It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will 
fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical 
DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department 
has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical 
staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. . 
. . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of 
nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.''
  If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science: 
maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE 
facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer 
research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in 
overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical 
sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that 
fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge.
  Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support 
research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy 
physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of 
Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our 
knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 916. A bill to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area 
in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the 
``National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act of 2003.''
  The story behind and about the Mormon pioneers' 1400 mile trek from 
Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley is one of the most compelling 
and captivating in our Nation's history. This legislation would 
designate as a National Heritage Area an area that spans some 250 miles 
along Highway 89 and encompasses outstanding examples of historical, 
cultural, and natural resources that demonstrate the colonization of 
the western United States, and the experience and influence of the 
Mormon pioneers in furthering that colonization.
  The landscape, architecture, artisan skills, and events along Highway 
89 convey in a very real way the legacy of the Mormon pioneers' 
achievements. The community of Panquitch for example, has an annual 
Quilt Day celebration to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its 
pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The 
celebration is in remembrance of the Quilt Walk, a walk in which a 
group of men from Panquitch used quilts to form a path that would bear 
their weight across the snow. This quilt walk enabled these men to 
cross over the mountains to procure food for their community, which was 
facing starvation as it experienced its first winter in Utah.
  Another example of the tenacity of pioneers can be seen today at the 
Hole-in-the-Rock. Here, in 1880, a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and 
1000 head of cattle upon the Colorado River Gorge. Finding no pathways 
down to the river, the pioneers decided to use a narrow crevice leading 
down to the bottom of the gorge. To make the crevice big enough to 
accommodate wagons, the pioneers spent six weeks enlarging the crevice 
by hand, using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder. They then 
attached large ropes to the wagons as they began their descent down the 
steep incline. It is because of such tenacity and innovation on the 
part of pioneers that the western United States was shaped the way it 
was and much of that has contributed to the way of life and landscape 
still found in the West today.
  The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as a special 
recognition of the people and places that have contributed greatly to 
our nation's development. It will allow for the conservation of 
historical and cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive 
exhibits, will increase public awareness of the surviving skills and 
crafts of those living along Highway 89, and specifically allows for 
the preservation of historic buildings. In light of the benefits 
associated with preserving the rich heritage of the founding of many of 
the communities along Highway 89, my legislation has broad support from 
Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Garfield, and Kane counties and is a locally 
based, locally supported undertaking.
  I believe this legislation will provide an exciting platform from 
which a significant part of our Nation's history can be highlighted. 
The Senate passed this legislation last year as part of a larger 
national heritage area package. While the overall package was not 
considered by the other body before the last Congress adjourned, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the 
administration to pass this legislation during this session.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 917. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require the 
use of a certain minimum amount of funds for winter motorized access 
trails; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a bill with great 
significance for snowmachine and snowmobile advocates both in Alaska 
and nationwide.
  As many of my colleagues know, the use of snowmobiles is growing as a 
form of recreation. There are an estimated 1.64 million snowmobiles 
currently in use. In my State of Alaska, and in other northern States, 
travel by snowmobile goes beyond recreation. In many areas it is a 
regular form of transportation when snow prevents

[[Page S5377]]

people from traveling any other way. Snowmobiles are used regularly to 
visit neighbors, to hunt for a family's food supply, to carry people 
who are sick or injured to a place they can receive care. In many parts 
of Alaska, snowmobiles are as common as cars.
  Unfortunately, there is no existing program to provide for the proper 
marking of snowmobile trails, to maintain trails, or even to encourage 
safe use of these machines. The bill I am introducing today is intended 
to correct that situation.
  First, my bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 
snowmobile education program. Second, the bill directs the Secretary, 
working with the snowmobile industry and others, to estimate the amount 
of fuel tax attributable to snowmobile use in each State, and provides 
that at least the same dollar amount be dedicated to the acquisition, 
design, planning, construction and maintenance of snowmobile trails.
  At present, 30 percent of the Recreational Trails program funding is 
reserved for motorized uses, which may be combined with money for other 
uses, to establish multiple-use trails and associated facilities. 
However, although a portion of this funding comes from the tax paid for 
fuel used in snowmobiles, there is no guarantee that any of that money 
actually is used to benefit snowmobile activities.
  My bill takes nothing away from any other part of the Recreational 
Trails program--it simply ensures that each State spends on snowmobiles 
what is collected from snowmobiles. That is simple fairness.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 917

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

     SECTION 1. WINTER MOTORIZED ACCESS TRAILS.

       Section 206 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Snowmachine.--The term `snow
     machine' means a motorized off-road vehicle intended to 
     operate on snow, and which is propelled by means of a 
     revolving track or tracks.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Winter motorized access trails.--
       ``(A) Use of funds.--
       ``(i) Determination by the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     annually estimate revenues to the Highway Trust Fund derived 
     from fuel purchased in each State for use in snowmachines, 
     using information submitted by--

       ``(I) the Department of Commerce;
       ``(II) the Department of the Treasury;
       ``(III) the International Snowmobile Manufacturers 
     Association; and
       ``(IV) any other appropriate sources.

       ``(ii) Use of funds.--

       ``(I) In general.--Of amounts made available to a State for 
     motorized access under the recreational trails program, not 
     less than the amount that is equal to the revenues derived 
     from fuel purchased for use in the State by snowmachines, as 
     estimated by the Secretary under clause (i), shall be used 
     for activities that enhance winter motorized recreational 
     trails, including--

       ``(aa) trails on Bureau of Land Management or National 
     Forest land where such uses are not prohibited by law; and
       ``(bb) trails designed for diverse uses in other seasons.

       ``(II) Activities.--A State may use funds under subclause 
     (I) to--

       ``(aa) locate, survey, and map winter motorized-use or 
     multiple-use trails;
       ``(bb) document or secure public rights-of-way for trails;
       ``(cc) reroute trails where necessary;
       ``(dd) design and construct new trail routes;
       ``(ee) link existing trail systems;
       ``(ff) build trailhead facilities;
       ``(gg) improve trails for safe travel and multiple uses;
       ``(hh) establish safety caches of first aid and emergency 
     gear;
       ``(ii) sign and mark trails;
       ``(jj) purchase trail building and grooming equipment; and
       ``(kk) mobilize trail volunteers as maintenance crews, 
     safety patrols, and trail ambassadors.
       ``(B) Public information campaigns.--
       ``(i) In general.--Of the sums available to the Secretary 
     for the administration of and research and technical 
     assistance under the recreational trails program and for 
     administration of the National Recreational Trails Advisory 
     Committee, $50,000 shall be used for each fiscal year for 
     public information campaigns educating the public about, and 
     encouraging, the safe use of snowmachines.
       ``(ii) Content.--In designing the content of public 
     information campaigns under clause (i), the Secretary shall 
     consult with--

       ``(I) representatives of snowmachine manufacturers and 
     users; and
       ``(II) the Advertising Council.''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hagel, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, and 
        Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 918. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to implement fully 
by September 30, 2004, requirements for additional Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Civil Support Teams; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, 
and the ongoing military action in Iraq have changed the way that our 
country thinks about defense policy, including about how we protect our 
citizens here at home.
  For that reason, it is vitally important that we fully implement 
section 1403 of Public Law 107-314, the Bob Stump National 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, which requires the Secretary of 
Defense to establish an additional 23 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 
Support Teams, WMD-CSTs, and that at least one team be located in each 
State and territory of the United States.
  WMD-CSTs are made up of 22 full-time National Guard personnel who are 
specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, 
chemical, biological, or other threats in support of local first 
responders. There are currently 32 full-time and 23 part-time WMD-CSTs 
across the country.
  Chemical, biological, and other threats present new challenges to our 
military and to local responders. The WMD-CSTs play a vital role in 
assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these 
new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks, and the terror alerts 
issued by the Department of Homeland Security, emphasize the need to 
have full-time WMD-CSTs in each State.
  As the events of September 11 so clearly and tragically demonstrated, 
local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism 
and responding to other large-scale incidents. As we rethink the 
security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an 
additional 23 full-time WMD-CSTs as soon as possible. Establishing 
these additional full-time teams will improve the overall capability of 
Wisconsin and the other 18 States and 4 territories with part-time 
teams to prepare for and respond to potential threats to the future.
  In light of the tragic events of September 11, the ongoing threat of 
terrorist activities, and the military action in Iraq, the presence of 
at least one WMD-CST in each State is all the more imperative.
  The provisions included in last year's Defense authorization bill 
represent an important step forward in the effort to establish WMD-CSTs 
in each State and territory. My bill would build on this progress by 
including a deadline by which these teams have to be established and 
providing the resources necessary to staff, equip, train, and operate 
these teams.
  The legislation that I introduce today, the Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Civil Support Team Implementation Act of 2003, would 
require the Secretary of Defense to fully implement section 1403 by 
September 30, 2004. The costs associated with setting up these new 
teams would be paid for by an across-the-board cut to the fiscal year 
2004 procurement account.
  I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Vermont, 
Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, the 
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Sarbanes, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Senior Senator 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.
  The terrorist attacks and the subsequent mobilization of tens of 
thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists, and the activation of 
hundreds of thousands of guardsmen and reservists for the military 
campaign in Iraq, also underscore the need to provide adequate 
resources for and to ensure full-time manning of the National Guard. As 
we

[[Page S5378]]

move to establish at least one 22-member WMD-CST in each State, we 
should also allocate the necessary resources to ensure adequate 
National Guard personnel end-strengths to provide for full-time manning 
and for the additional personnel necessary for these new teams.
  For that reason, our bill would also authorize an additional 506 
full-time National Guard positions to man these new teams.
  Given the important role that the men and women of the National Guard 
play in our ongoing missions at home and abroad, we should ensure that 
the establishment of these important teams does not put at risk full-
time manning in other vital areas of the National Guard's mission.
  It is important that the additional WMD-CSTs are established as soon 
as possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 918

       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 ``Weapons of Mass Destruction 
     Civil Support Teams Implementation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL 
                   WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT 
                   TEAMS.

       (a) Deadline for Full Implementation.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall fully implement the requirements regarding the 
     establishment and number of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 
     Support Teams under section 1403(a) of the Bob Stump National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 
     107-314; 116 Stat. 2676; 10 U.S.C. 12310 note) not later than 
     September 30, 2004.
       (b) Personnel.--In order to meet the requirement in 
     subsection (a), the authorized end strengths for members of 
     the National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty 
     as of September 30, 2004, shall be increased over the number 
     of such members otherwise authorized by law by the number of 
     such members as follows:
       (1) For the Army National Guard of the United States, 414 
     members of the National Guard.
       (2) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 92 
     members of the National Guard.
       (c) Funding.--(1) From the aggregate amount authorized to 
     be appropriated for procurement for the Armed Forces by title 
     I of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2004, there shall be available (and may be transferred to 
     other authorizations of appropriations, as appropriate) such 
     sums as the Secretary considers appropriate to meet the 
     requirement in subsection (a) in accordance with this 
     section.
       (2) The Secretary shall allocate among the accounts for 
     procurement for the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2004 the 
     reduction in amounts available for such procurement under 
     title I of that Act by reason of the availability of funds 
     under paragraph (1) to meet the requirement in subsection 
     (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 919. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance 
competition among and between rail carriers in order to ensure 
efficient rail service and reasonable rail rates, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. President, I am proud today to join a bipartisan 
and geographically diverse group of Senators to introduce the Railroad 
Competition Act of 2003. When enacted, the Railroad Competition Act 
will benefits rail shippers, retail shoppers, and, I believe, the 
railroad industry itself, by promoting real competition in the nation's 
freight rail transportation sector.
  I am especially proud to be working on this issue alongside two of my 
colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Burns, with whom I have shared this 
effort for many years. This is an issue I have been dealing with since 
my first days as Governor of West Virginia. I cosponsored similar 
bipartisan legislation during my first year as a United States Senator. 
Including today's introduction. I have sponsored legislation in six 
different Congresses going back to 1985 to try to instill competition 
in the freight rail market to invigorate an industry that is essential 
to the commerce of this Nation. This is the fourth straight Congress in 
which Senators Burns and Dorgan have joined me to fight for fairness 
for shippers in our states and throughout the country.
  I frequently say that I have worked on this for my entire Senate 
career, and with little discernible success. Still, I am not dissuaded 
from pursuing this legislation again because I know our cause is right. 
What this bill does is really very simple. We seek nothing more than a 
freight rail industry governed by the principles of capitalism--
competition, service, fair prices, and the ability of sophisticated 
actors to conduct arms-length negotiations for these things. We also 
seek a return--not to the regulated industry that predates the Staggers 
Act--but to the competitive freight rail industry envisioned by the 
Congress that passed it.
  If we are successful in this effort, it will mean a newly level 
playing field for shippers and railroads. It will mean goods being 
picked up on time and being delivered on time. It will mean products 
traveling short distances will not be priced per mile at a price that 
is almost usuriously higher than products traveling great distances. 
Shippers moving small amounts of product will not be unduly 
disadvantaged by railroads who answer to no person or governmental 
entity. What this bill will not do, is re-regulate the railroads.
  The Railroad Competition Act will do the following: clarify that the 
STB shall promote effective competition among rail carriers, helping to 
maintain both reasonable freight rail rates and consistent and 
efficient rail service; create a system if ``final offer'' arbitration 
for matters before the STB; authorize the STB to remove so-called 
``paper barriers'' in place for ten years or more that prevent short-
line and regional railroads from providing improved service to 
shippers; remove the requirement for shippers to demonstrate ``Anti-
Competitive Conduct'' on the part of railroads--retains statutory 
authority for STB to act in the ``public interest''; cap filing fees 
for STB rate cases at the level of Federal district courts, reducing 
filing fee from approximately $65,000; require railroads to quote rates 
to their customers; call for a Department of Transportation, DOT, study 
of rail competition; allow States to petition the STB for declarations 
of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' and creates applicable 
remedies; create position of Rail Customer Advocate at U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA).
  Perhaps the most striking aspect of the freight rail industry that 
the authors of the Staggers Act sought to create, and to which we hope 
to give new life with this bill, is really fairly mundane. Upon 
enactment of this legislation, shippers weighing their transportation 
options will be able to get railroads to do the most basic thing that 
occurs in business relationships--quote a price for the service 
requested. In other words, railroads will tell shippers how much it is 
going to cost to move a certain amount of product from Point A to Point 
B. Hardly remarkable, hardly earth-shattering, but that very simple, 
everyday aspect of business negotiations is so rare in the freight rail 
sector today that it is hardly ever seen.
  How can this be? How can railroads get away with not telling their 
customers how much they are going to be charged for a service? 
Railroads can carry out this bizarre practice, as well as other 
amazingly anti-competitive business practices, because they are one of 
the last unfettered monopolies in our economy. The Staggers Act only 
partially deregulated our freight rail industry, and provided for a 
government entity to protect competition for shippers. That authority 
fell then to the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, ICC, and 
the power should now be exercised by the Surface Transportation Board, 
STB. The ICC did not do a very good job of protecting competition, and 
the STB has fairly consistently chosen not to.
  This has resulted in a freight rail market in which customers have no 
power. In real-world terms, this means that electricity produced from 
coal, and virtually everything you buy in the store--food, medicines, 
paper products, plastics, and anything made from any number of basic 
chemical products--is more expensive than it should be because 
railroads abuse their monopoly power to keep rail rates artificially 
high.

  In fact, even back in the bad, old days of the ICC-regulated rail 
sector,

[[Page S5379]]

many railroads enjoyed ``natural'' monopolies over portions of their 
network. In most cases, this fact could usually be balanced by the 
number of railroads providing service. In the twenty-three years since 
Congress passed the Staggers Act, however, the previous number of Class 
I freight railroads--more than 40--has dwindled down to an all-powerful 
few. This has expanded a handful of scattered ``natural'' monopolies to 
basically four regional monopolies--two in the eastern United States, 
and two in the West (with the smallest of the Class I railroads 
operating its small network of track along the Mississippi). There is 
no balance in the system; there is only the railroad industry charging 
its take-it-or-leave-it prices and providing woefully bad service.
  I would conclude by saying to my colleagues that this legislation has 
laudable goals, but it is not revolutionary. We have seen how 
competition in other industries has strengthened the players willing 
and able to compete. It is not the reactionary, re-regulatory vehicle 
the freight rail industry will try to tell you it is. It is nothing 
more and nothing less than an attempt to implement fairness where it 
has been lacking. The viability of so many of our industries--the 
railroads included--depends on this legislation becoming law.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a bill, the 
Railroad Competition Act of 2003, which, along with Senators Burns, 
Rockefeller, Craig, Baucus, Coleman, and Johnson, I hope will introduce 
a bit of competition and better service in our railroad industry. The 
truth is that our rail system is completely broken; deregulation has 
only led to a system dominated by regional monopolies and both shippers 
and consumers are paying the price.
  Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the 
number of major Class I railroads has been allowed to decline from 
approximately 42 to only 4 major U.S. railroads today. Four mega-
railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 
percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, 
controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all 
grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This 
drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two 
major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far 
exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
  But consolidation has not happened in a vacuum. Over the years, 
regulators have systematically adopted policies that so narrowly 
interpret the procompetitive provisions of the 1980 statute that 
railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with 
each other. As a consequence rail users to have no power to choose 
among carriers either in terminal areas where switching infrastructure 
makes such choices feasible, nor can rail users even get a rate quoted 
to them over a ``bottleneck'' segment of the monopoly system.
  The negative results of this approach have been astonishing in North 
Dakota. It costs $2,600 to move one rail car of wheat to Minneapolis, 
approximately 400 miles. Yet for a similar 400 mile move between 
Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $918 to deliver that car. Not 
only is that totally unfair to the captive farmer, but in the long run 
it is unsustainable.
  It is actually $500 per car cheaper to ship a carload of corn from 
Iowa to the PNW, through North Dakota, than it is if that carload were 
to originate in North Dakota. The farmer in Iowa pays $2,900, while the 
farmer in North Dakota is charged $3,400.
  The same pattern is true with shipments going to the Gulf of Mexico. 
Minot, ND is 1,732 miles from the gulf whereas the distance to the gulf 
from Herman, MN is 1,430 miles, a difference of only 332 miles. But 
when it comes to paying the shipping costs the farmer in Minot pays 
$1,630 more per car because Minot is just isolated enough that it 
cannot take advantage of trucks and barges the way Herman, MN, can 
meaning the price of being captive is $1,600 per carload from central 
North Dakota.
  Another example is Hastings, NE. Hastings is 1,700 miles from the 
Pacific Northwest, PNW, grain markets in Portland, OR. But, if an 
elevator from Hastings wants to ship a carload of wheat to the PNW they 
will pay $4,316. Meanwhile, Minot, ND, is 1,300 miles from Portland, 
450 miles closer than Hastings, NE, yet the farmer in Minot will have 
to pay $4,442 to ship the same carload of wheat to the PNW, a surcharge 
of $126 for a shipment that is shorter by 400 miles.
  How has this happened? Since the deregulation of the railroad 
industry, it has been the responsibility of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, later renamed, the Surface Transportation Board, to make 
sure that the pro-competitive intent of the law was being upheld. It is 
the STBs charge to protect captive shippers through ``regulated 
competition.''
  In 1999 the GAO reported on how complicated it is for a shipper to 
get rate relief under the ``regulated competition'' approach at the 
STB. The GAO found that this process takes up to 500 days to decide, 
and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is hardly a rate 
relief process, but it is the only relief shippers have under the law.
  According to the North Dakota Public Service Commission ``while the 
Staggers Rail Act uses a revenue-to-variable cost ratio of 180 percent 
as a benchmark for reasonableness, North Dakota's rail rates on wheat 
often generate ratios of 270 to 400 percent. On an annual basis, North 
Dakota's farmers and grain shippers pay $50 to $100 million in excess 
freight rates [each year].''
  The Railroad Competition Act of 2003 will seek to improve things by 
reaffirming the strong role the STB should play in protecting shippers 
by: clarifying national rail policy; requiring railroads to quote a 
rate of any given segment; facilitating terminal access and the ability 
to transfer goods among railroads in terminal areas; removing paper 
barriers to competition; capping filing fees; creating a Rail Customer 
Advocacy Office in the Department of Agriculture; designating Areas of 
Inadequate Rail Competition; and by making the rate relief process 
cheaper, faster and easier through a streamlined arbitration process.
  All Americans, whether they are farmers who need to ship their crops 
to market, businesses shipping factory goods, or consumers that buy the 
finished product, deserve to have a rail transportation system with 
prices that are fair. It is time for Congress to stand up for farmers, 
businesses, and consumers by making it very clear that the STB has to 
be a more aggressive defender of competition and reasonable rates.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 920. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce today the 
Federal Judgeship Act of 2003. This bill will alleviate some of the 
strain on the vastly overburdened Federal courts by creating a total of 
57 new judgeships: Eleven new circuit judgeships and 46 new district 
judgeships. It also converts five existing temporary judgeships to 
permanent positions. In addition, the bill confers Article III status 
on the judgeships authorized for the Northern Mariana Islands and the 
Virgin Islands.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States endorses the provisions 
in this bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 921. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
make grants to reimburse State and local governments and Indian tribes 
for certain costs relating to the mobilization of Reserves who are 
first responder personnel of such governments or tribes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and 
Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill 
would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs 
they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National 
Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months.

[[Page S5380]]

  I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators 
Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer.
  The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves 
are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 
percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, 
or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel.
  Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical 
service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in 
the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are 
being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now 
because of the war with Iraq.
  It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and 
abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security 
at home.
  Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are 
concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on 
emergency preparedness.
  It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups 
can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood, 
for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS, 
emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace 
him.
  Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of 
9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We 
shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders 
get called to active duty for months at a time.
  My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of 
government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs 
associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6 
months or more.
  Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated 
with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other 
emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to 
active duty.
  If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to 
hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs'' 
would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be 
reimbursable.
  My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and 
across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist 
attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
  A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it 
cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.''
  The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be 
necessary.''
  The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called 
to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the 
costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is 
administratively feasible.
  I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many 
first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It 
appears that no one is really keeping track.
  The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is 
overwhelming.
  According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186 
Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now. 
Many of them, obviously, are first responders.
  According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002 
law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so 
far have lost personnel to call-ups.
  The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the 
44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel 
shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups.
  Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by 
call-ups.
  According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these 
departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many 
are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of 
these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.''
  The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/
April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most 
vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100 
reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach, 
which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3. 
Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the 
force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the 
force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of 
the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4 
percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make 
up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists 
who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41 
reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans, 
which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force.

  The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The 
City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150 
officers, to active duty call-ups.
  So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments 
desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our 
own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brownback, 
        Mr. Coleman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, 
        and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 922. A bill to change the requirements for naturalization through 
service in the Armed Forces of the United States, to extend 
naturalization benefits to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready 
Reserve of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, to extend 
posthumous benefits to surviving spouses, children, and parents, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Brownback, Senator Coleman, Senator McCain, 
Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Hagel to 
introduce this bill, the Naturalization and Family Protection for 
Military Members Act of 2003, which will expedite the naturalization 
process for noncitizen soldiers serving in active duty and in the 
select reserves and enact safeguards to protect noncitizen immediate 
relatives of American soldiers who are killed in action.
  More than 48,900 noncitizens are currently serving in the United 
States military and hundreds are serving from the State of Nevada. They 
place their lives on the line for our country every day. In recognition 
and appreciation of their service, they deserve a naturalization 
process that does not unnecessarily delay the grant of citizenship or 
impose other restraints because they are stationed in another country.
  These noncitizen soldiers love America so much they are willing to 
make great sacrifices to protect us and promote our values and even 
defend the Constitution--although they do not fully enjoy its 
protections. They deserve better treatment than they currently receive. 
Like many Americans, I was moved by the story of Corporal Jose Angel 
Garibay, who came to the United States from Mexico at the age of two 
months in the arms of a stranger because the trip was too rough for his 
mother to carry him through the hills near Tijuana herself. At the age 
of 11 he announced to his brother that he planned to join the United 
States military. Although a noncitizen, he believed anything was 
possible in this land of opportunity and hoped to become a police 
officer. The proudest day for the Garibay family was the day Jose 
joined the Marines. Sadly, on March 23, at the young age of 21, he died 
near Nasirivah, Iraq. Who can say that Corporal Garibay, citizen or 
not, is any less of a hero? Our noncitizen soldiers deserve a system 
that does not drop current applications or disallow eligible 
applications for legal permanent residency by their immediate 
relatives.
  This Act will provide necessary relief to current noncitizens serving 
in active

[[Page S5381]]

duty and the ready reserves within the United States military by 
setting forth an expedited process of naturalization. This Act will 
also provide protections for noncitizen spouses, unmarried children, 
and parents of citizen and noncitizen soldiers who are killed as a 
result of their service to file or preserve their application for 
lawful permanent residence.
  I rise today in support of action that will recognize and honor 
current noncitizen soldiers in the United States armed forces and will 
honor the legacy of all of our soldiers who have been killed in action 
by providing fair and sympathetic treatment of their immediate 
relatives seeking legal permanent residency.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                 S. 922

       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 ``Naturalization and Family 
     Protection for Military Members Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION THROUGH SERVICE IN 
                   THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Reduction of Period for Required Service.--Section 
     328(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1439(a)) is amended by striking ``three years'' and inserting 
     ``2 years''.
       (b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to 
     Naturalization.--Title III of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 328(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``honorable. The'' and inserting 
     ``honorable (the''; and
       (ii) by striking ``discharge.'' and inserting ``discharge); 
     and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee 
     shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a 
     petition for naturalization or for the issuance of a 
     certificate of naturalization upon citizenship being granted 
     to the applicant, and no clerk of any State court shall 
     charge or collect any fee for such services unless the laws 
     of the State require such charge to be made, in which case 
     nothing more than the portion of the fee required to be paid 
     to the State shall be charged or collected.''; and
       (2) in section 329(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee 
     shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a 
     petition for naturalization or for the issuance of a 
     certificate of naturalization upon citizenship being granted 
     to the applicant, and no clerk of any State court shall 
     charge or collect any fee for such services unless the laws 
     of the State require such charge to be made, in which case 
     nothing more than the portion of the fee required to be paid 
     to the State shall be charged or collected.''.
       (c) Naturalization Proceedings Overseas for Members of the 
     Armed Forces.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, 
     and the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that any 
     applications, interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies, or 
     other proceedings under title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) relating to 
     naturalization of members of the Armed Forces are available 
     through United States embassies, consulates, and as 
     practicable, United States military installations overseas.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 328(b)(3) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(3)) 
     is amended by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.

     SEC. 3. NATURALIZATION BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
                   RESERVE OF THE READY RESERVE.

       Section 329(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1440(a)) is amended by inserting ``as a member of the 
     Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or'' after ``has served 
     honorably''.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF POSTHUMOUS BENEFITS TO SURVIVING 
                   SPOUSES, CHILDREN, AND PARENTS.

       (a) Treatment as Immediate Relatives.--
       (1) Spouses.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of 
     section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), in the case of an alien who 
     was the spouse of a citizen of the United States at the time 
     of the citizen's death and was not legally separated from the 
     citizen at the time of the citizen's death, if the citizen 
     served honorably in an active duty status in the military, 
     air, or naval forces of the United States and died as a 
     result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by that 
     service, the alien (and each child of the alien) shall be 
     considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of such Act, to 
     remain an immediate relative after the date of the citizen's 
     death, but only if the alien files a petition under section 
     204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act within 2 years after such date 
     and only until the date the alien remarries. For purposes of 
     such section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii), an alien granted relief under 
     the preceding sentence shall be considered an alien spouse 
     described in the second sentence of section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) 
     of such Act.
       (2) Children.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of an alien who was the child 
     of a citizen of the United States at the time of the 
     citizen's death, if the citizen served honorably in an active 
     duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the 
     United States and died as a result of injury or disease 
     incurred in or aggravated by that service, the alien shall be 
     considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)), to remain an 
     immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death 
     (regardless of changes in age or marital status thereafter), 
     but only if the alien files a petition under subparagraph (B) 
     within 2 years after such date.
       (B) Petitions.--An alien described in subparagraph (A) may 
     file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     classification of the alien under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act, such a petition 
     shall be considered a petition filed under section 
     204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
       (3) Parents.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of an alien who was the parent 
     of a citizen of the United States at the time of the 
     citizen's death, if the citizen served honorably in an active 
     duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the 
     United States and died as a result of injury or disease 
     incurred in or aggravated by that service, the alien shall be 
     considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)), to remain an 
     immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death 
     (regardless of changes in age or marital status thereafter), 
     but only if the alien files a petition under subparagraph (B) 
     within 2 years after such date.
       (B) Petitions.--An alien described in subparagraph (A) may 
     file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     classification of the alien under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act, such a petition 
     shall be considered a petition filed under section 
     204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
       (C) Exception.--Notwithstanding section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), for purposes of this paragraph, a citizen 
     described in subparagraph (A) does not have to be 21 years of 
     age for a parent to benefit under this paragraph.
       (b) Applications for Adjustment of Status by Surviving 
     Spouses, Children, and Parents.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c) of 
     section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255), any alien who was the spouse, child, or parent of an 
     alien described in paragraph (2), and who applied for 
     adjustment of status prior to the death described in 
     paragraph (2)(B), may have such application adjudicated as if 
     such death had not occurred.
       (2) Alien described.--An alien is described in this 
     paragraph if the alien--
       (A) served honorably in an active duty status in the 
     military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
       (B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or 
     aggravated by that service; and
       (C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
       (c) Spouses and Children of Lawful Permanent Resident 
     Aliens.--
       (1) Treatment as immediate relatives.--
       (A) In general.--A spouse or child of an alien described in 
     paragraph (3) who is included in a petition for 
     classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 
     203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(a)(2)) that was filed by such alien, shall be considered 
     (if the spouse or child has not been admitted or approved for 
     lawful permanent residence by such date) a valid petitioner 
     for immediate relative status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). Such spouse or child shall be eligible for 
     deferred action, advance parole, and work authorization.
       (B) Petitions.--An alien spouse or child described in 
     subparagraph (A) may file a petition with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for classification of the alien under 
     section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act, 
     such a petition shall be considered a petition filed under 
     section 204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
       (2) Self-petitions.--Any spouse or child of an alien 
     described in paragraph (3) who is not a beneficiary of a 
     petition for classification as a family-sponsored immigrant 
     may file a petition for such classification under section 
     201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, but only if the spouse or child files a petition 
     within 2 years after such date. Such spouse or child shall be 
     eligible for deferred action, advance parole, and work 
     authorization.

[[Page S5382]]

       (3) Alien described.--An alien is described in this 
     paragraph if the alien--
       (A) served honorably in an active duty status in the 
     military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
       (B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or 
     aggravated by that service; and
       (C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
       (d) Parents of Lawful Permanent Resident Aliens.--
       (1) Self-petitions.--Any parent of an alien described in 
     paragraph (2) may file a petition for classification under 
     section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), but only if the parent files 
     a petition within 2 years after such date. For purposes of 
     such Act, such petition shall be considered a petition filed 
     under section 204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(A)). Such parent shall be eligible for deferred 
     action, advance parole, and work authorization.
       (2) Alien described.--An alien is described in this 
     paragraph if the alien--
       (A) served honorably in an active duty status in the 
     military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
       (B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or 
     aggravated by that service; and
       (C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
       (e) Adjustment of Status.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) 
     and (c) of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1255), an alien physically present in the United 
     States who is the beneficiary of a petition under paragraph 
     (1), (2)(B), or (3)(B) of subsection (a), paragraph (1)(B) or 
     (2) of subsection (c), or subsection (d)(1) of this section, 
     may apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence.
       (f) Waiver of Certain Grounds of Inadmissibility.--In 
     determining the admissibility of any alien accorded an 
     immigration benefit under this section, the grounds for 
     inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (4), (6), (7), and 
     (9) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall not apply.
       (g) Benefits to Survivors; Technical Amendment.--Section 
     329A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e); and
       (2) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
       (h) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 319(d) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, child, or parent'' after ``surviving 
     spouse'';
       (2) by inserting ``, parent, or child'' after ``whose 
     citizen spouse''; and
       (3) by striking ``who was living'' and inserting ``who, in 
     the case of a surviving spouse, was living''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect as if enacted on September 11, 2001.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, my colleagues and I are 
introducing legislation to recognize the enormous contributions of 
immigrants in the military. The Naturalization and Family Protection 
for Military Members Act of 2003 will enable immigrant men and women of 
our Armed Forces to obtain easier access to naturalization, and it will 
establish immigration protections for their families if they are killed 
in action.
  In all our wars throughout our history, immigrants have fought side 
by side and have given their lives to defend America's freedom and 
ideals. One out of every five recipients of the Congressional Medal of 
Honor, the highest honor our Nation bestows on our war heroes, have 
been immigrants. Their bravery is unequivocal proof that immigrants are 
as dedicated as any other Americans to defend our country.
  Today, 37,000 men and women have the status of permanent residents, 
who are not yet citizens, but are serving in the Army, Navy, Marine, 
Air Force, and Coast Guard. Another 20,000 permanent residents are 
serving in the Reserves and the National Guard. Since the war in Iraq 
began two and a half weeks ago, eight of the dead, two of the missing, 
and two prisoners of war are immigrants to the United States. Only four 
were naturalized U.S. citizens.
  Granting these men and women posthumous citizenship is the right 
thing to do, but we must do more. This bill gives members of the armed 
services who are already lawful permanent residents, easier access to 
naturalization. It gives certain immigration benefits to their 
immediate family members in the event of their death. It would amend 
immigration laws: to allow lawful permanent resident military personnel 
to naturalize after serving 2 years in the military. They can 
participate in naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at 
U.S. embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations. 
Naturalization fees would be waived.
  Recruiting needs are immediate in wartime and readiness is essential. 
As the war in Iraq goes on and our commitment to ending global 
terrorism continues, more and more of these brave men and women are 
being called to active duty. Many of them are members of the Selected 
Reserve--Reserve and National Guard members subject to recall to active 
duty during a war or other national emergency. Many reservists have 
already been activated, and many more expect to be called up at a 
moment's notice to defend our country and assist in the war effort. 
They too deserve special recognition for their bravery and sacrifice. 
Our bill does just that. Lawful permanent residents who are members of 
the Selected Reserve will have naturalization benefits similar to those 
conferred on members of the regular forces on duty. They will have 
expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile military 
operations.
  Finally, our bill will protect the immigration status of immediate 
family members who were dependent upon their citizen or noncitizen's 
relative, if the relative was honorably serving in the military and was 
killed as a result of the service. We know the tragic losses endured by 
these families for the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made. 
It is unfair that they should have to lose their immigration status as 
well.
  Our legislation will amend the immigration laws to ensure that 
grieving immediate family members are given the opportunity to legalize 
their immigration status and not be threatened with deportation. 
Specifically, these family members--noncitizen spouses, children, 
parents of citizens and parents of noncitizens serving in the military 
who are killed as a result of their service--will be able to file or 
preserve their application for lawful permanent residence.
  The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is 
a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already 
making now for their adopted country. They deserve this important 
benefit, and we urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the American people are united in support 
of our service members, many of whom are serving today in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and elsewhere abroad. We have the finest Armed Forces in 
the world, and we have asked them to bear a heavy burden. The Senate 
has justly expressed our support for the troops, but we have an 
obligation to do more than just pass resolutions. We have to back up 
our words with actions.
  That is why I recently introduced an amendment, which the Senate 
unanimously approved, to raise combat pay and increase family support 
for our service members. That is why I joined several of my 
distinguished colleagues today in introducing a bill that would help 
immigrant soldiers and their families. The Naturalization and Family 
Protection for Military Members Act of 2003 would expedite 
naturalization for legal permanent residents in the military and 
preserve the rights of noncitizen family members of deceased service 
members.
  There are over 37,000 legal permanent residents on active duty and 
over 20,000 on reserve duty. These brave men and women have willingly 
put themselves in harm's way to defend our country. They are living 
proof that immigration is good for our country.
  On the battlefield, there is no distinction between American citizens 
and noncitizens--everyone is an American service member sworn to defend 
our Nation. We owe a debt of gratitude to all service members, whether 
citizen or noncitizen, who have put their lives on the line to keep us 
all safe and free.
  But legal resident service members, who have voluntarily taken on a 
burden that many Americans will never know, face unnecessary hurdles on 
the path to citizenship. Even more tragically, if, God forbid, they are 
killed in combat, the law can prevent their immediate family members 
from naturalizing. This is a cruel and unjust manner in which to treat 
the families of legal immigrants who gave their lives for our country.

[[Page S5383]]

  The sacrifices of these immigrant service members are a poignant 
reminder that too often our immigration law treats immigrants callously 
and unfairly, ignoring the tremendous contributions that they make to 
American society. While preserving the integrity of our naturalization 
process, we should do everything we can to correct legal technicalities 
that make it difficult for immigrant soldiers to become citizens and 
prevent their surviving family member from naturalizing.
  It is important to note that this bill would not in any way 
compromise the naturalization process or national security. It would 
not automatically confer citizenship. Service members and their 
families would still be required to petition for naturalization, at 
which time they would be subjected to a full background check.
  For legal permanent residents in military service, the bill would 
reduce the required period of military service to apply for 
naturalization during peacetime from 3 years to 2 years. The bill would 
also allow them to naturalize overseas, and waive the filing fee for 
their naturalization applications. For service members who are posted 
overseas for long periods and are struggling to make ends meet, these 
provisions are vitally important.
  Currently, immediate family members of service members who are killed 
in the line of duty lose their right to file for citizenship. It is 
wrong and unjust to penalize people because their spouse, parent, or 
child made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. The bill would 
preserve the rights to petition for citizenship of noncitizen spouses, 
unmarried children, and parents of citizen soldiers who are killed as a 
result of such service.
  Passing this bill is the least that we can do to honor and support 
the brave immigrant men and women who are serving our country during 
these dangerous times. I urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy 
today in introducing legislation to honor the contributions of 
immigrants who have shown their dedication both to this country and to 
creating a better future for themselves by joining the military. The 
Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003 
will do two important things: it will offer easier access to 
naturalization for immigrant men and women of our Armed Forces, and it 
will establish immigration protections for their families if they are 
killed in action.
  In this time of war, it is especially important to recognize those 
who are fighting as we speak to preserve our freedom and our way of 
life. This is particularly true for those immigrants who have too often 
given their lives to defend our principles. In fact, after just 2\1/2\ 
weeks of our current conflict, of the 71 U.S. service members killed, 
seven missing and seven captured, eight of those killed, two of the 
missing, and two of the captured are immigrants. Most important, only 
four of the immigrants were U.S. citizens when the war began.
  There are more than 30,000 noncitizens on active duty in the U.S. 
military--approximately 2 percent of the total U.S. forces. In the 
Reserves and the National guard are another 20,000 noncitizens. These 
immigrants have proven a dedication to our country by joining the 
military or the Reserves or National Guard, a dedication which should 
be recognized and rewarded.
  The bill we are introducing will do that. First, it provides easier 
access to naturalization to members of the armed service who are 
already lawful permanent residents. Currently, being a member of the 
armed service allows a permanent legal resident to reduce their wait 
time for naturalization from 5 years to 3 years--our legislation would 
reduce the time to only 2 years. It would also ease this process by 
allowing naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at U.S. 
embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations, and by 
waiving naturalization fees.
  In addition, the bill provides for the immediate families of 
immigrant service personnel killed in action by either giving them the 
opportunity to legalize their immigration status or by allowing them to 
proceed with their own applications for naturalization as if the death 
had not happened. By protecting their immigration status, this element 
provides critical acknowledgment of the sacrifices that the families of 
our military members make as well.
  Finally, the bill also remembers those courageous men and women who 
ensure that in times of war or hostility, our country is ready and our 
recruiting needs are met. While we have seen success in Iraq in recent 
days, this war is not yet over--in fact, we have truly only reached the 
beginning of the end, not the end. As such, we must keep in mind that 
more and more Reserve and National Guard units are being called to 
active duty. Therefore, we have not forgotten the bravery of those who 
have immigrated and filled our ranks. Our legislation says that 
naturalization benefits similar to those conferred on members of the 
regular forces on duty will also apply to lawful permanent residents 
who are members of the Reserves or National Guard. In other words, they 
will have expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile 
military operations.
  This Nation has long reserved the Congressional Medal of Honor for 
those select war heroes of unsurpassed courage. It is our highest honor 
and our greatest praise--and one out of every five recipients of this 
honor have been immigrants. This accounting of the bravery and spirit 
of the immigrants in our Armed Forces speaks to the fact that they are 
as dedicated and as willing to sacrifice on our Nation's behalf.
  The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is 
an important piece of legislation that both honors and rewards 
immigrants to this Nation. They are already legal permanent residents--
this simply ensures that they have the opportunity to truly become a 
part of this country through citizenship. I urge the Senate to give its 
full consideration to this bill and to lend its support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 923. A bill to provide for additional weeks of temporary extended 
unemployment compensation, to provide for a program of temporary 
enhanced regular unemployment compensation, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The economy continues to falter. Hundreds of thousands 
of hard-working men and women have lost their jobs, and consumer 
confidence is the lowest in 9 years. Americans are suffering. College 
graduates can't find jobs. Americans who have worked all their lives 
are out of work. Their unemployment benefits are running out. They are 
losing their savings, and watching their 401(k) plans plummet. They are 
being forced to take desperate measures--selling their homes, moving 
back in with their parents, or cashing in their retirement savings.
  Our first domestic priority should be to get America back to work. 
Democrats have a plan to do just that. The Senate Democratic proposal 
for economic growth will create more than 1 million jobs next year, 
three times as many as President Bush's plan. It will provide fiscal 
relief to states to avoid further lay-offs and make vital investments 
in the economy to achieve growth.
  But out-of-work Americans also need help and they need it now. The 
Economic Security Act I am introducing today will extend temporary 
Federal unemployment benefits for 6 months past the May expiration 
date. It will provide additional weeks of benefits as in past 
recessions and provide extended benefits to the more than 1 million 
Americans who have run out of benefits but still cannot find work. It 
will also give states the option to use Federal funds to extend 
coverage to part-time workers and low-wage workers. This bill will help 
more than 4 million workers, including 150,000 in Massachusetts.
  The unemployment rate remains high at 5.8 percent, with 8.4 million 
Americans out of work, and those numbers don't include discouraged 
workers, who have dropped out of the labor force, or those working 
part-time because they can't find a full-time job. When these workers 
are included, the true unemployment rate is 10.4 percent.

[[Page S5384]]

  Over the last two months, the economy has lost nearly half a million 
jobs. More than 330,000 jobs have been lost in Massachusetts, including 
20,000 in Boston and 23,000 in Worcester. Such severe, persistent loss 
of jobs 2 years after the beginning of a recession is unheard of since 
the Great Depression.
  Richard Wilcox of Canton, MA has taken to standing on a street corner 
holding up a sign that says ``I need a job . . . 36 years experience: 
Insurance/Management.'' Thirty-six years of experience, and he has had 
only two interviews after a year of sending out hundreds of resumes.
  Mr. Wilcox is not alone. The crisis in our labor market has continued 
to worsen under the current administration's watch. Two and a half 
million more Americans have lost their jobs since the Bush 
administration took office, and the number of long-term unemployed has 
nearly tripled.
  The economy is still not showing clear signs of recovery, and the 
number of unemployed continues to grow. The administration's own budget 
predicts an average of 5.7 percent unemployment for this year. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be 5.9 percent.
  In this bleak condition, unemployed workers deserve to be able to 
count on a further extension of benefits when the current one expires 
at the end of May. In the last recession, we enacted an extension of 
benefits five times with overwhelming bipartisan support. Now as then, 
out-of-work Americans need our help.
  In the last recession we also made sure that workers who ran out of 
Federal benefits but still could not find work were not left in the 
cold. Today, one in five unemployed workers has been out of work for 
more than 6 months. One million of these long-term unemployed are 
without jobs and without any safety net. With three unemployed workers 
vying for every job, workers across the county are losing hope.
  The current unemployment insurance system clearly needs to be 
modernized to cover today's workers. Two glaring defects stand out. In 
1975, 75 percent of unemployed workers were eligible for unemployment 
benefits, compared to only half of such workers last year. Many of the 
unemployed who fail to receive benefits are part-time and low-wage 
workers. Only eight States provide benefits to unemployed residents 
seeking part-time work on the same basis as the benefits they provide 
to full-time workers. In addition, in all but a handful of States, low-
wage workers are ineligible for benefits because their most recent 
earnings are not counted. Part-time and low-wage workers pay into the 
system, and they should be able to rely on it while searching for a new 
job.
  We must pass another extension of unemployment benefits before the 
current one expires at the end of May. We must not allow a repeat of 
last year, when Democrats asked eight times for an extension and eight 
times were told no. Ultimately, we were able to work on a bipartisan 
basis to provide benefits for out-of-work Americans, and I hope we can 
do so again this time. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
see that Americans here at home who've been hit by these troubled 
economic times receive the support they need and deserve.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of The 
Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of which I am a proud cosponsor. 
The purpose of this bill is to extend the Temporary Extended 
Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program, for an additional 6 months 
through the end of November. Currently, extended umeployment insurance 
benefits are scheduled to expire at the end of May. Beginning June 
first, individuals whose regular unemployment benefits expire will no 
longer be eligible for extended benefits.
  Extending the existing unemployment insurance benefits program for an 
additional 6 months is estimated to provide assistance to between 2 to 
2.5 million working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault 
of their own. This legislation also provides an additional 13 weeks of 
benefits to unemployed workers who have already exhausted their 
extended benefits prior to enactment and remain unable to find work. 
The bill also provides tempory Federal funding, through July 2004, for 
States to implement alternative base periods, which could a worker's 
most recent wages when determining eligibility, and to allow displaced 
part-income workers to seek part-time employment while receiving 
unemployment insurance workers. Improving the unemployment insurance 
system for part-time workers is important. A recent op-ed in the 
Baltimore Sun makes the point that:

       The old rationale for excluding part-time workers from 
     unemployment insurance eligibility was that part-time workers 
     were not working to support their families. But this is not 
     true today.

  I am convinced that we are going to still be in very difficult shape 
when the current extension of unemployment insurance benefits expires 
at the end of May. There is little chance that the labor market will 
significantly improve for unemployed workers between now and then. 
There is growing evidence that the labor market is still in fact 
deteriorating. The Federal Open Markets Committee's most recent 
statement on interest rates concluded that, ``recent labor market 
indicators have proven disappointing.''
  That is an understatement. Last month the economy lost 108,000 jobs 
in addition to losing 357,000 jobs in February. There are 1.8 million 
workers who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks and are 
looking for work but cannot find a job. The unemployment rate at 5.8 
percent is higher today than when extended benefits were first enacted 
in March, 2002. Over 3.48 million Americans are currently drawing 
unemployment benefits. We have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs 
since President Bush took office. No President in over 50 years has 
failed to create jobs during a 4-year term in office, let alone lose 
jobs during an administration. But it would take private sector job 
creation of over 100,000 per month, every month, for the next 2 years, 
in order for the economy to dig out of the jobs deficit created during 
this administration.

  Yet instead of abandoning the economic policies which have failed, 
the administration continues to pursue the same fundamental policy--
large tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. The 
administration, whose budget contained nothing to further extend the 
unemployment benefits program, remains out of touch with today's 
economic realities. Over 8.5 million Americans are unemployed and 
looking for work but cannot find a job because there are no jobs to be 
had. In situations like this the Congress has always provided extended 
unemployment benefits. In the last recession these benefits were 
provided for 29 months. During the recession before that, they lasted 
for 33 months. In both of those recessions extended benefits were 
discontinued only after a pronounced strengthening in the labor market.
  Today these benefits are set to expire after only 15 months, well 
before the labor market has improved. If this happens it will mark not 
only a departure from prudent fiscal policy that has been implemented 
in a bipartisan fashion in the past but will also harm economic growth 
and hurt millions of Americans. Extended unemployment insurance 
benefits, already enacted by the Congress, have assisted 4.7 million 
workers and provided $12 billion of stimulus into the economy. Federal 
Reserve Chairman Greenspan has testified that, ``extended unemployment 
insurance provided a timely boost to disposable income.''
  This legislation also allows for all Americans who qualify to receive 
an additional 13 weeks of benefits. This would include the 1 million 
workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. These 
workers need help. They want to find work but cannot find a job because 
there are simply no jobs to be had.
  I know that some of my colleagues oppose providing extended benefits 
for more than 13 weeks to anyone. I have a differing viewpoint. I point 
out that at this stage of the last recession, a minimum of 20 weeks of 
additional Federal benefits were provided for all Americans in every 
State. In the previous recession and jobless recovery extended 
unemployment insurance benefits lasted for 29 months and for much of 
that time provided benefits for 26 to 33 weeks. In this recession and 
jobless recovery, benefits are scheduled to expire only after 15 months 
and have provided only 13 weeks of extended benefits to the vast 
majority of Americans.

[[Page S5385]]

  Under normal circumstances with a growing labor market there is a 
case to be made that providing too long of a duration of unemployment 
insurance benefits would be harmful. However, in times when the labor 
market is weak and the job base is shrinking, the situation is very 
different. Even Fed Chairman Greenspan acknowledged this in testimony 
before the Joint Economic Committee, stating: ``in periods like this [a 
shrinking labor market], that the economic restraints on the 
unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to be eased.'' 
Unfortunately, many are forecasting continued weaknesses in the labor 
market.
  Today's Washington Post reports that the International Monetary Fund 
is forecasting economic growth of only 2.2 percent for the United 
States in 2003, which the IMF's chief economist, Kenneth Rogoff noted 
is ``not yet enough to make a meaningful dent in unemployment.'' The 
article goes on to state that: ``the jobless rate stood last month at 
5.8 percent, and the IMF projected that it will average 6.2 percent 
this year.'' Considering the weak labor market that we face today and 
the troubling forecasts for the remainder of the year, it appears to me 
that we most certainly are in such a period as described by Chairman 
Greenspan and that the restraints on the unemployment insurance system 
ought to be eased. This legislation accomplishes this goal in a 
fiscally responsible manner with an estimated cost of $16 billion, 
which is below the unemployment insurance trust funds current surplus 
of $20 billion.
  Last year this issue was not properly dealt with, and as a result 
millions of Americans suffered through the holiday season believing 
that their benefits were going to expire. Yet when Congress reconvened, 
extended benefits were retroactively restored, 11 days after they had 
expired. Let's not put these people through this again. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and to work expeditiously and 
prudently to enact it before the current program expires, less than 8 
weeks from today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 924. A bill to authorize the exchange of lands between an Alaska 
Native Village Corporation and the Department of the Interior, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak 
about a small community in the southwestern part of my State of Alaska.
  Newtok, a Village with about 300 Yupik Alaska Native residents, is 
located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta near the Ninglick River. Erosion 
from the Ninglick is slowly threatening Newtok, and the Village will be 
under water in less than a decade and the Village airstrip in less 
time. Once the Village airstrip--Newtok's only connection with the 
outside world--is flooded, the Village will not be able to survive.
  The Village is surrounded by land owned by the Federal Government in 
the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge. In 1997 the Newtok Native Corporation 
attempted to exchange land on higher ground with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, administratively, but these negotiations failed. Therefore, 
action by Congress is required to ensure the future of Newtok and its 
residents.
  Today I am introducing legislation to begin the process of moving 
Newtok to a location that is not threatened by erosion or flooding. The 
Newtok Native Corporation has identified a 10,943 acre tract of land on 
Nelson Island for the location of the new Village. Newtok Native 
Corporation is willing to accept this land in the Yukon Delta Wildlife 
Refuge from the Fish and Wildlife Service in exchange for a 996 acre 
piece of land on Baird Inlet Island and another 11,105 acre plot 
northeast of the present location of Newtok.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service desires the Newtok owned land for 
ecological reasons and Newtok needs the Federal land because of its 
geology that keeps it safe from erosion. Both parties win in this 
exchange; the Federal Government improves the Yukon Delta Wildlife 
Refuge for the benefit of the American people, and villagers of Newtok 
have the opportunity to move to a safe location and see that their 
culture and community endure.
  Newtok needs to be moved before it is too late, and my bill is an 
important first step in the process of protecting this community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                 S. 924

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) The continued existence of the village of Newtok, 
     Alaska is threatened by the eroding banks of the Ninglick 
     River.
       (2) A relocation of the village will become necessary for 
     the health and safety of the residents of Newtok within the 
     next 8 years.
       (3) Lands previously conveyed to the Newtok Native 
     Corporation contain habitat of high value for waterfowl.
       (4) An opportunity exists for an exchange of lands between 
     the Newtok Native Corporation and the Yukon Delta National 
     Wildlife Refuge that would address the relocation needs of 
     the village while enhancing the quality of waterfowl habitat 
     within the boundaries of the Refuge.
       (5) An exchange of lands between Newtok and the United 
     States on an other than equal value basis pursuant to the 
     terms of this Act is in the public interest.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``ANCSA'' means the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
       (2) ``ANILCA'' means the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410hh-3233, 43 USC 1602 et 
     seq.);
       (3) ``Calista'' means the Calista Corporation, an Alaska 
     Native Regional Corporation established pursuant to ANCSA;
       (4) ``Identified Lands'' means approximately 10,943 acres 
     of lands (including surface and subsurface) designated as 
     ``Proposed Village Site'' upon a map entitled ``Proposed 
     Newtok Exchange,'' dated September, 2002, and available for 
     inspection in the Anchorage office of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service;
       (5) ``limited warranty deed'' means a warranty deed which 
     is, with respect to its warranties, limited to that portion 
     of the chain of title from the moment of conveyance from the 
     United States to Newtok to and including the moment at which 
     such title is validly reconveyed to the United States of 
     America and its assigns;
       (6) ``Newtok'' means the Newtok Native Corporation, an 
     Alaska Native Village Corporation established pursuant to 
     ANCSA;
       (7) ``Newtok lands'' means approximately 12,101 acres of 
     surface estate comprising conveyed lands and selected lands 
     identified as Aknerkochik on the map referred to in paragraph 
     (4) and that surface estate selected by Newtok on Baird Inlet 
     Island as shown on said map; and
       (8) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. LANDS TO BE EXCHANGED.

       (a) Lands Exchanged to the United States.--If, within 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, Newtok 
     expresses to the Secretary in writing its intent to enter 
     into a land exchange with the United States, the Secretary 
     shall accept from Newtok a valid, unencumbered conveyance, by 
     limited warranty deed, of the Newtok lands previously 
     conveyed to Newtok. The Secretary shall also accept from 
     Newtok a relinquishment of irrevocable prioritized selections 
     for approximately 4,956 acres for those validly selected 
     lands not yet conveyed to Newtok. The reconveyance of lands 
     by Newtok to the United States and the prioritized, 
     relinquished selections shall be 1.1 times the number of 
     acres conveyed to Newtok under this Act. The number of acres 
     reconveyed to the United States and the prioritized, 
     relinquished selections shall be charged to the entitlement 
     of Newtok.
       (b) Lands Exchanged to Newtok.--In exchange for the Newtok 
     lands conveyed and selections relinquished under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall, subject to valid existing rights 
     and notwithstanding section 14(f) of ANCSA, convey to Newtok 
     the surface and subsurface estate of the Identified Lands. 
     The conveyance shall be by interim conveyance. Subsequent to 
     the interim conveyance, the Secretary shall survey the 
     Identified Lands at no cost to Newtok and issue a patent to 
     the Identified Lands subject to the provisions of ANCSA and 
     this Act. At the time of survey the charge against Newtok's 
     entitlement for acres conveyed or irrevocable priorities 
     relinquished by Newtok may be adjusted to conform to the 
     standard of 1.1 acres relinquished by Newtok for each one 
     acre received.

     SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Timing.--The Secretary shall issue interim conveyances 
     pursuant to subsection 3(b) at the earliest possible time 
     after acceptance of the Newtok conveyance and relinquishment 
     of selections under subsection 3(a).
       (b) Relationship to ANCSA.--Lands conveyed to Newtok under 
     this Act shall be deemed to have been conveyed under the 
     provisions of ANCSA, except that the provisions of 14(c) of 
     ANCSA shall not apply to these lands, and to the extent that 
     section 22(g) of ANCSA would otherwise be applicable to these 
     lands, the provisions of 22(g) of ANCSA shall also not apply 
     to these lands. Consistent with section 103(c) of ANILCA, 
     these lands shall not be deemed to be included as a portion 
     of the Yukon National Wildlife Refuge and shall not be 
     subject to regulations applicable solely to public lands 
     within this Conservation System Unit.

[[Page S5386]]

       (c) Effect on Entitlement.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to change the total acreage of land to which Newtok 
     is entitled under ANCSA.
       (d) Effect on Newtok Lands.--The Newtok Lands shall be 
     included in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge as of 
     the date of acceptance of the conveyance of those lands from 
     Newtok, except that residents of the Village of Newtok, 
     Alaska, shall retain access rights to subsistence resources 
     on those public lands as guaranteed under ANILCA section 811 
     (16 U.S.C. 3121), and to subsistence uses, such as 
     traditional subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering, 
     consistent with ANILCA section 803 (16 U.S.C. 3113).
       (e) Adjustment to Calista Corporation ANCSA Entitlement for 
     Relinquished Newtok Selections.--To the extent that Calista 
     subsurface rights are affected by this Act, Calista shall be 
     entitled to an equivalent acreage of in-lieu subsurface 
     entitlement for the Newtok selections relinquished in the 
     exchange as set forth in subsection 3(a) of this Act. This 
     additional entitlement shall come from subsurface lands 
     already selected by Calista, but which have not been 
     conveyed. If Calista does not have sufficient subsurface 
     selections to accommodate this additional entitlement, 
     Calista Corporation is hereby authorized to make an 
     additional in lieu selection for the deficient acreage.
       (f) Adjustment to Exchange.--If requested by Newtok, the 
     Secretary is authorized to consider and make adjustments to 
     the original exchange to meet the purposes of this Act, 
     subject to all the same terms and conditions of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S.J. Res. 12. A joint resolution recognizing the Dr. Samuel D. Harris 
National Museum of Dentistry located at 31 South Greene Street in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in 
the United States; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
together with Senator Mikulski, to recognize the Dr. Samuel D. Harris 
National Museum of Dentistry, in Baltimore, as the official national 
museum of dentistry in the United States.
  The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the 
public about the critical importance of oral health to the overall 
health of all Americans. Three years ago, United States Surgeon General 
David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in 
America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a 
``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report found that tooth 
decay is the most common chronic childhood disease, which often 
interferes with vital functions such as eating, swallowing, and speech. 
Children around the country miss an estimated 51 million hours of 
school each year due to dental illness. Despite Federal law mandating 
that children eligible for Medicaid be given access to dental services, 
fewer than one in five of these children actually receive dental care. 
In addition, close to one in four Americans between the ages of 65 and 
74 were found to suffer from periodontal disease, and over 8,000 men 
and women die from oral and pharyngeal cancers each year.
  The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan, 
and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding 
oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted 
component of general health.'' By designating an official national 
museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation 
takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal.
  The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National museum of Dentistry is the largest 
and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and, 
indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the 
Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, 
founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. Many of the 
museum's permanent exhibits come directly from the College's vast 
historical collections. Housed in a building that served as the 
University of Maryland Dental Department from 1904 to 1929, the Museum 
is located directly adjacent to historic Davidge Hall, the Western 
Hemisphere's oldest medical building in continuous use.
  In 1992, a retired pediatric dentist, Dr. Samuel D. Harris of 
Detroit, contributed $1 million of his personal funds toward the 
development of the Museum. He has since made further considerable gifts 
to the Museum's endowment, reaffirming his belief that education is the 
hallmark of preventive oral care. The Museum's name honors both his 
generosity and his mission.
  With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases 
the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental 
profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures. 
The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for 
research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique 
collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind 
documents. Included in these collections are the first known dental 
degree and dental license.
  While its informative presentation of dentistry's history constitutes 
an important part of the Museum's exhibitions, its mission extends much 
further, with the ultimate goal of educating the public about the 
critical importance of oral health. The Museum's interactive exhibits 
make it particularly effective in this regard, and over 26,000 students 
have benefited from the Museum's vigorous educational programs since 
its opening in 1996.
  By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as 
the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize 
the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have 
played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance 
awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public 
health.
  The Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry has been endorsed 
by the American Dental Association, the American Association of Dental 
Schools, Oral Health America, the Pierre Fauchard Academy, the American 
College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and the 
American Academy of the History of Dentistry. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of a letter from the American Dental Association in 
support of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   American Dental Association

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the 147,000 members of 
     the American Dental Association, we write to express our 
     strong support for your resolution to recognize the Dr. 
     Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, located in 
     Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of 
     dentistry in the United States.
       As the most comprehensive dental museum in the world, it is 
     a national and international resource whose primary mission 
     is to educate people, especially children, about the history 
     of dentistry and the importance of good oral hygiene. The 
     museum uses state-of-the-art, interactive exhibitions and 
     expert presentations to deliver the message that oral health 
     is important to achieve overall health. Currently, the museum 
     is displaying an exhibit entitled, ``The Future is Now! 
     African Americans in Dentistry.''
       The museum is affiliated with the University of Maryland at 
     Baltimore, home of the world's first dental school, founded 
     in 1840. it contains hundreds of interesting and significant 
     dental artifacts, not the least of which is George 
     Washington's dentures. It also serves as a national center of 
     learning with an extensive library from which scholars may 
     study the evolution of dental treatment and learn of the 
     numerous accomplishments of the dental profession over the 
     years.
       The museum is endorsed by the American Dental Association, 
     National Dental Association, American Dental Education 
     Association, American College of Dentists, International 
     College of Dentists, and the American Academy of the History 
     of Dentistry among others.
       Thank you for recognizing the museum, which is truly a 
     national treasure.
           Sincerely,
     T. Howard Jones, D.M.D.,
       President.
     James B. Bramson, D.D.S.,
       Executive Director.

                          ____________________