[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6708-S6715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1083. A bill to give States the flexibility to reduce bureaucracy 
by streamlining enrollment processes for the medicaid and State 
children's health insurance programs through better linkages with 
programs providing nutrition and related assistance to low-income 
families; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's 
Express Lane to Health Coverage Act of 2003. This bill will give States 
greater flexibility in the ways they can enroll uninsured children into 
Medicaid and SCHIP while at the same time increasing government 
efficiency. Furthermore, it will help States reduce bureaucracy and 
red-tape.
  In 1999, 4.4 million low-income uninsured children were in families 
that received benefits through Food Stamps, the National School Lunch 
Program, or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants and Children, WIC. Recognizing this, I worked to include a 
provision in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000,

[[Page S6709]]

which allowed schools and school districts to share school lunch 
information with State health insurance agencies for outreach and 
enrollment activities.
  The good news is that this provision has inspired numerous States to 
share information with Medicaid and SCHIP for the purposes of 
enrollment and outreach. Some States and communities have gone even 
further and simplified the health insurance application process by 
utilizing information provided in another program application to make 
the eligibility or renewal determination for Medicaid and or SCHIP.
  Some States would like to go further still, and determine that a 
child is income eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP based on the fact that 
they have already been found eligible for a nutrition or other 
comparable program that operates under similar financial guidelines. 
Unfortunately, they have found Federal law not flexible enough.
  The Express Lane Act would give States the option of establishing 
that their Medicaid or SCHIP financial eligibility rules are satisfied 
when a family presents proof that their child is already enrolled in 
another public program with comparable income guidelines. Express lane 
does not affect other, non-income eligibility requirements and 
maintains existing quality control measures.
  If given the ability to adopt automatic income eligibility, as set 
out in The Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act of 2003, 
States could reach a tangible population of uninsured children, build 
upon the initiative already taken by families, eliminate multi-agency 
duplicative efforts to collect and verify income and resource 
eligibility, and at the same time maintain program integrity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 1084. A bill to establish formally the United States Military 
Cancer Institute Center of Excellence, to provide for the maintenance 
of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, 
to provide for a study of the epidemiological causes of cancer among 
various ethnic groups for prevention efforts, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the United States 
Military Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Research Collaborative 
Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to formally establish the United 
States Military Cancer Institute, Center of Excellence and seeks 
support for the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in 
cancer epidemiology, prevention, and control. The mission of the 
Institute is to provide for the maintenance of health in the military 
by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and to study the 
epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By 
formally establishing the USMCI as a Center of Excellence it will 
better unite military research efforts with other cancer research 
centers.
  Cancer prevention and treatment for the military population is a 
significant issue, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the 
military cancer assets already established. The USMCI has a 
comprehensive database on its beneficiary population of 9 million 
people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central 
Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 
years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military 
personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is 
predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.
  The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is also a Professor of 
Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 
USUHS. A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has 
also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.
  The USMCI currently functions in the Washington, D.C. area, and its 
components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the 
Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 
and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Currently there 
are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of 
Defense civilian scientists, in the USMCI.
  The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military 
medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on 
the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among 
the entire population including Asian, Causasian, African-American and 
Hispanic populations.
  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. 1084

       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 ``United States Military 
     Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. RESEARCH BY UNITED STATES MILITARY CANCER INSTITUTE 
                   CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.

       (a) Formal Establishment of United States Military Cancer 
     Institute Center of Excellence.--(1) There is hereby 
     established the United States Military Cancer Institute 
     Center of Excellence in the Uniformed Services University of 
     the Health Sciences (USUHS).
       (2) The Center shall consist of the United States Military 
     Cancer Institute (USMCI) and such other elements of the 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as the 
     President of the University considers appropriate.
       (b) Research.--(1) The United States Military Cancer 
     Institute Center of Excellence shall carry out a research 
     study on the epidemiological causes of cancer among 
     populations of various ethnic origins, including an 
     assessment of the carcinogenic effect of various genetic and 
     environmental factors, and of disparities in health, inherent 
     or common among populations of various ethnic origins.
       (2) The research study shall include complementary research 
     on oncologic nursing.
       (c) Collaborative Research.--The United States Military 
     Cancer Institute Center of Excellence shall carry out the 
     research study required pursuant to subsection (b) in 
     collaboration with other cancer research organizations and 
     entities selected by the Center for purposes of the research 
     study and construction.
       (d) Reports.--(1) Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Director of the United States Military Cancer Institute 
     Center of Excellence shall submit to the President of the 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences a report 
     on the results of the research study required pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Not later than 60 days after the receipt of a report 
     under paragraph (1), the President of the University shall 
     transmit such report to Congress, together with such 
     additional information and recommendations as the President 
     of the University considers appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
        Dorgan):
  S. 1085. A bill to provide for a Bureau of Reclamation program to 
assist states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural 
and small community water supply systems, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Reclamation Rural and Small Community Water Enhancement Act, which is 
being co-sponsored by my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, 
and Senator Baucus.
  In introducing this bill, let me note that the Economic Research 
Service at the Agriculture Department estimates that 56 million 
Americans--around 20 percent of the population--live in nonmetropolitan 
areas. In the arid west, this percentage is likely much higher. In my 
home State of New Mexico, for example, over 50 percent of the 
population resides outside the four major metropolitan areas--clearly a 
significant number of people.
  This bill is intended to address a critical issue facing many small 
towns and rural areas--access to adequate water supplies to provide for 
present and future needs. A stable and reliable water supply is the 
foundation for the economic activity that sustains our communities. 
Addressing this most basic need, however, poses a challenge that many 
of these localities simply cannot meet on their own. The challenge is 
magnified by the prolonged drought that many are predicting for the 
arid West.
  For a number of reasons, including limited access to water supplies 
and the requirements of the Federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 
Acts, many small communities in the western United States are taking a 
regional approach to water that involves the cooperative development of 
water

[[Page S6710]]

projects serving several communities over a large area. In New Mexico, 
the State Water Trust Board prioritizes funding assistance to those 
projects that represent a partnership of communities on a regional 
basis. Currently, there are three such projects rapidly taking shape in 
1. Eastern New Mexico; 2. the Santa Fe Area; and 3. the Espanola 
Valley.
  In other areas of the country, this regional approach has already 
taken root. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
construct seven rural water supply projects--most of these in the Great 
Plains region. The authorized cost of these projects is approximately 
$1.8 billion. In just two years, however, the administration has cut 
back the appropriations requests for authorized rural water projects by 
80 percent, or almost $60 million. This includes zeroing out the 
funding for most of these projects--a policy choice severely impacting 
those communities relying on this infrastructure.
  The bill being introduced today is intended to ensure there exists an 
active Federal program to address water needs in the rural West. It 
does so in a manner that respects the role of the States in water 
resources management and is fiscally responsible by requiring a 
financial partnership between Federal, State, and local entities. The 
bill utilizes the experience and expertise of the Bureau of Reclamation 
to implementation a rural water program that complements, not 
duplicates, existing Federal programs at the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Department of Agriculture; ensures that existing 
projects move towards full and timely implementation; and ensures that 
Reclamation is fully authorized to provide assistance in evaluating all 
water supply options if requested by rural communities.
  I believe that this is a bill for which there should be strong 
bipartisan support. Having helped to reclaim the West during the 20th 
century, the Bureau of Reclamation should help sustain it in the 21st 
century. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation 
and, by that, support rural and small communities within our States.
  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. 1085

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reclamation Rural and Small 
     Community Water Enhancement Act.''

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Federal reclamation laws.--The term ``Federal 
     reclamation laws'' means the Reclamation Act and Acts 
     amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto;
       (2) Regional rural water supply system.--The term 
     ``regional rural water supply system'' means a water supply 
     system that serves multiple towns or communities in a rural 
     area (including Indian reservations) where such towns or 
     communities have a population for exceeding 40,000 persons.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       (A) In General.--The Secretary, acting pursuant to the 
     Federal reclamation laws, is directed to undertake a program 
     to investigate and identify opportunities to ensure safe and 
     adequate regional rural water supply systems for municipal 
     and industrial use in small communities and rural areas 
     through the construction of new regional rural water supply 
     systems and the enhancement of existing rural water supply 
     systems.
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In conducting the investigations and studies authorized 
     by this Act, the Secretary may include a town or community 
     with a population in excess of 40,000 persons if, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, such town or community is considered 
     to be a critical partner in the proposed regional rural water 
     supply system.
       (2) In conducting a feasibility study of a regional rural 
     water supply system that includes a community with a 
     population in excess of 40,000 persons, the Secretary may 
     consider a non-federal cost share in excess of the percentage 
     set forth in sections 6(a) and 6(b)(5).
       (c) Limitation.--Such program shall be limited to the 
     States and areas referred to in section 1 of the Reclamation 
     Act of 1902 (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388), as amended, 
     and Indian reservation lands within the external boundaries 
     of such States and areas.
       (d) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     such agreements and promulgate such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 4. COORDINATION AND PLANNING.

       (a) Coordination.--
       (1) Consultation.--In undertaking this program, the 
     Secretary shall consult and coordinate with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, and the Director of the Indian Health 
     Service, in order to develop criteria to ensure that the 
     program does not duplicate, but instead complements, 
     activities undertaken pursuant to the authorities 
     administered by such agency heads.
       (2) Report on authorities.--Within one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, a 
     report setting forth the results of the consultation required 
     in paragraph (1) and criteria developed pursuant to such 
     consultation.
       (b) Report and Action on Authorized Projects.--
       (1) Within one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report setting 
     forth--
       (A) the status of all rural water projects within the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary authorized prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) the Secretary's plan, including projected financial and 
     workforce requirements, for the completion of the rural water 
     projects within the time frames set forth in the public laws 
     authorizing the projects of the final engineering reports 
     submitted pursuant thereto.
       (2) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to 
     complete the projects within the time frames identified in 
     subsection (1)(B).

     SEC. 5. APPRAISAL INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Appraisal Investigations.--Based on evidence of local 
     interest and upon the request of a local sponsor, the 
     Secretary may undertake appraisal investigations to identify 
     opportunities for the construction of regional rural water 
     supply systems and the enhancement of existing rural water 
     supply systems for small communities and rural areas. Each 
     such investigation shall include recommendations as to the 
     preparation of a feasibility study of the potential system or 
     system enhancement.
       (b) Considerations.--Appraisal investigations undertaken 
     pursuant to this Act shall consider, among other things--
       (1) whether an established water supply exists for the 
     proposed regional water supply system;
       (2) the need for the regional rural water supply system or 
     for enhancements to an existing rural water system, including 
     but not limited to, alternative water supply opportunities 
     and projected demand for water supply;
       (3) environmental considerations relating to the regional 
     rural water supply system or rural water system enhancement;
       (4) public health and safety considerations relating to the 
     regional rural water supply system or rural water system 
     enhancement;
       (5) Indian trust responsibility considerations relating to 
     the regional rural water supply system or rural water system 
     enhancement; and
       (6) the availability of other Federal authorities or 
     programs to address the water supply needs identified.
       (c) Consultation and Cooperation.--The Secretary shall 
     consult and cooperate with appropriate Federal, state, 
     tribal, regional, and local authorities during the conduct of 
     each appraisal investigation conducted pursuant to this Act.
       (d) Costs Nonreimbursable.--The costs of such appraisal 
     investigations shall be nonreimbursable.
       (e) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make 
     available to the public, upon request, the results of each 
     appraisal investigation undertaken pursuant to this Act, and 
     shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     the availability of those results.

     SEC. 6. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       (a) Feasibility Studies.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     participate with appropriate Federal, state, tribal, 
     regional, and local authorities in studies to determine the 
     feasibility of regional rural water supply systems and rural 
     water supply system enhancements where an appraisal 
     investigation so warrants. The Federal share of the costs of 
     such feasibility studies shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
     total, except that the Secretary may increase the Federal 
     share of the costs of such feasibility study if the Secretary 
     determines, based upon a demonstration of financial hardship, 
     that the non-Federal participant is unable to contribute at 
     least 50 percent of the costs of such study. The Secretary 
     may accept as part of the non-Federal cost share the 
     contribution of such in-kind services by the non-Federal 
     participant that the Secretary determines will contribute 
     substantially toward the conduct and completion of the study.
       (b) Considerations.--In addition to the requirements of 
     other Federal laws, feasibility studies authorized under this 
     Act shall consider, among other things--
       (1) whether an established water supply exists for the 
     proposed regional rural water supply system;

[[Page S6711]]

       (2) near- and long-term water demand and supplies in the 
     study area including any opportunities to treat and utilize 
     impaired water supplies through innovative and economically 
     viable treatment technologies;
       (3) public health and safety and environmental quality 
     issues related to the regional rural water supply system or 
     rural water system enhancement;
       (4) opportunities for water conservation in the study area 
     to reduce water use and water system costs;
       (5) the construction costs and projected operation and 
     maintenance costs of the proposed regional rural water supply 
     system and an assessment of participating communities' 
     ability to pay 20 percent to 50 percent of the construction 
     costs and the full share of the system operation and 
     maintenance costs;
       (6) opportunities for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
     losses incurred as a result of the construction of the 
     regional rural water supply system or rural water system 
     enhancement on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological 
     equivalency, concurrent with system construction; and
       (7) the extent to which assistance for rural water supply 
     is available pursuant to other Federal authorities and the 
     likely effectiveness of efforts to coordinate assistance 
     provided by the Secretary with other available Federal 
     programs and assistance.
       (c) Use of Other Reports.--In conducting a feasibility 
     study pursuant to this section, or an appraisal investigation 
     under section 5, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, utilize, in whole or in part, any engineering or 
     other relevant report submitted by a state, tribal, regional, 
     or local authority associated with the proposed regional 
     rural water supply system.
       (d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make 
     available to the public, upon request, the results of each 
     feasibility study undertaken pursuant to this Act, and shall 
     promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of the 
     availability of those results.
       (e) Disclaimer.--Nothing contained in this section shall be 
     interpreted as requiring a feasibility study or imposing any 
     other new requirement for rural water projects or programs 
     that are already authorized.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Bingaman, in introducing the Reclamation Rural and Small 
Community Water Enhancement Act, S. 1085.
  The Bureau of Reclamation has accomplished a great deal over the last 
century, starting with the early irrigation and water development 
programs that opened the West to settlement and economic growth. Clean, 
abundant water supplies were integral to our Nation's westward 
expansion. Without the vision and effort of the Bureau over the last 
century, the West would be a vastly different, and less hospitable, 
place.
  Though the role of the Bureau has changed over the years, it is still 
the premier Federal water development agency. Today, one of its primary 
duties is the building of rural water projects in South Dakota and 
other Western States. Rural areas often lack the resources and 
infrastructure necessary to provide stable water supplies to their 
residents. Most families, farmers, and ranchers rely on inadequate 
wells, or live in areas where the water quality is so poor they are 
required to truck or haul water over long distances. Rural water 
projects conducted by the Bureau have helped overcome these obstacles, 
tackling the problem on a regional level and vastly improving the 
quality of water and the quality of life in much of my State. Rural 
water systems have become an indispensable lifeline to help deal with 
the severe drought that has affected much my State.
  The bill we are introducing today takes the next, logical step to 
bring the Bureau's rural water projects into the 21st century. The 
Reclamation Rural and Small Community Water Enhancement Act will create 
a new program within the Bureau of Reclamation to help rural and tribal 
communities develop water supply solutions, like rural water systems, 
to address regional water needs. The Bureau's experience in 
administering other rural water systems will ensure this program 
compliments existing Federal drinking water programs, like those 
operated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Agriculture, and provide rural communities with the tools they need to 
plan for the future.
  As we look forward, however, it is equally important that we not 
ignore those projects that have already received approval by Congress. 
In South Dakota, the Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota, Perkins County, and Lewis 
and Clark rural water systems will serve thousands of families, farms, 
and businesses. Their timely completion is integral to the health, 
welfare, and economic security of my State. Unfortunately, the 
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request drastically cuts 
funding for these and other rural water projects throughout the country 
by more than 80 percent. This will lead to unnecessary delays in the 
provision of drinking water to homes and families and will only serve 
to increase the cost of the projects.
  That is why this legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
take all necessary steps to complete these and all other rural water 
projects that have already received congressional authorization. The 
bill recognizes the hard work that has already gone into the 
development of these projects, and will help ensure that they are 
completed on schedule. At the same time, this new program will aid in 
the development of future projects so that other communities can 
finally realize the benefits that a well-run rural water system can 
provide.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Lautenberg):
  S. 1086. A bill to repeal provisions of the PROTECT Act that do not 
specifically deal with the prevention of the exploitation of children; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing this legislation on fairness in our Federal sentencing 
system. The Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in 
Sentencing Act, or the JUDGES Act, will repeal a number of 
controversial sentencing provisions that were added at the last moment 
to the recently enacted ``AMBER Alert law'' on missing, abducted, and 
exploited children.
  These provisions--called the ``Feeney Amendment''--have nothing to do 
with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges 
and eliminating fairness in our Federal sentencing system. As Chief 
Justice Rehnquist said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure 
of the sentencing guidelines system and . . . seriously impair the 
ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.''
  The Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar 
Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and many prosecutors, 
defense attorneys, law professors, civil rights organizations, and 
business groups vigorously opposed them. Now that the child-abduction 
legislation has passed, it is the responsibility of Congress to repeal 
these extraneous and ill-considered provisions and begin a serious and 
thorough review of the current sentencing guidelines system.
  The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was the result of extraordinary 
bipartisan cooperation. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a ten-
year period, Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and I 
worked with the Carter and Reagan administrations to strike the best 
balance between the goal of consistent sentencing in Federal law and 
the need to give Federal judges discretion to make the sentence fit the 
crime in individual cases. There was also strong bipartisan cooperation 
in the House Judiciary Committee, and we worked together over several 
years to enact a strong, balanced, and bipartisan bill.
  Many judges think the 1984 Act went too far in limiting their 
discretion. Over the years, I have heard many Senators suggest that we 
should give judges more authority to consider the circumstances of each 
offender and the facts of each offense. Enacted without hearings or 
meaningful debate, the Feeney Amendment was a giant step in the wrong 
direction.
  The Feeney Amendment effectively strips Federal judges of discretion 
to impose individualized sentences, and transforms the longstanding 
sentencing guidelines system into a mandatory minimum sentencing 
system. It limits in several ways the ability of judges to depart 
downwards from the guidelines. It overturns a unanimous 1996 Supreme 
Court decision, Koon v. United States, which established a deferential 
standard of review for departures from the guidelines based on the 
facts of the case--thereby undermining what the Court described as the 
``traditional sentencing discretion'' of trial

[[Page S6712]]

courts and the ``institutional advantage'' of Federal district courts 
over appellate courts to make fact-based sentencing determinations.
  The Feeney Amendment also limits the number of judges who can serve 
on the Sentencing Commission, and directs the Commission to amend the 
guidelines and policy statements under them ``to ensure that the 
incidence of downward departures are [sic] substantially reduced.'' It 
also requires the Attorney General to establish a ``judicial 
blacklist'' by informing Congress whenever a district judge departs 
downward from the guidelines. It imposes new, burdensome record-keeping 
and reporting requirements on Federal judges, and requires the 
Sentencing Commission to disclose confidential court records to the 
House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon request. Earlier this month, 
Chief Justice Rehnquist specifically criticized these record-keeping 
and reporting requirements as potentially amounting ``to an unwarranted 
and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the 
performance of their judicial duties.''
  It was an extreme step for Congress to insist that Federal judges--
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--should not have 
discretion to impose lower sentences in unusual cases, subject to 
appeal. It was even more extreme to pass such a sweeping proposal 
without the benefit of hearings and full debate in either House of 
Congress.
  Because the Feeney Amendment was introduced at the last possible 
moment, Congress was deprived of full and balanced information on 
whether departure decisions are made in inappropriate instances. The 
Justice Department compounded that problem by submitting a highly 
misleading letter on April 4th expressing its ``strong support'' for 
the Amendment. The Department argued that the Amendment was justified 
because an epidemic of lenient sentences was undermining the Sentencing 
Reform Act. It failed, however, to mention that the committee report 
accompanying the 1984 Act anticipated a departure rate of about 20 
percent. Today, the rate at which judges depart from the guidelines 
over the objection of the government is slightly more than 10 percent--
well within acceptable rates.
  The Department claimed that there are too many downward departures 
from the sentencing guidelines, but it failed to mention that, 
according to the American Bar Association, almost 80 percent of these 
departures are requested by the Justice Department itself. In arguing 
for the abrogation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Boon v. United 
States, the Department also failed to mention that it wins 78 percent 
of all sentencing appeals, or that 85 percent of all defendants who 
receive downward departures based on grounds other than cooperation 
with the government nevertheless receive prison time.
  Last week, I asked Michael Chertoff, a nominee to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, about his involvement in 
drafting the Justice Department's letter of support for the Feeney 
Amendment. He said that he had ``no part in drafting'' the letter, and 
that he did not review the letter before it was sent. In his current 
position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal 
Division in the Department, Mr. Chertoff is chiefly responsible for 
formulating criminal law enforcement policy and advising the Attorney 
General and the White House on matters of criminal law. The fact that 
the Department's leading authority on criminal law did not participate 
in writing its influential letter demonstrates the travesty of the 
process that led to the Feeney Amendment's enactment.
  It is important for Congress to undo the damage done to the Federal 
criminal justice system. The JUDGES Act, which we are introducing today 
and which Congressman Conyers is introducing in the House, repeals the 
provisions of the Feeney Amendment that do not specifically involve sex 
crimes or crimes against children--the purpose of the underlying child-
abduction legislation to which it was attached. In the place of these 
ill-advised changes to Federal sentencing law, the JUDGES Act directs 
the Sentencing Commission to report to Congress within 180 days on the 
incidence of downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. The 
Commission's report will provide Congress with useful information to 
evaluate the need for reform, including information on rates of 
departures by district, circuit, offense, and departure ground. It will 
also provide a review of departure appeals, an assessment of the extent 
to which departures affect the guideline system, and an assessment of 
variations in the magnitude of departures and the frequency with which 
the final sentences result in imprisonment, other conditions of 
confinement, or release.
  When completed, the Commission's report will provide a solid basis 
for further action by Congress. We need to hold hearings; collect the 
relevant data; consult with the judges, the Sentencing Commission, the 
Justice Department, the defense bar, and other authorities; and decide 
whether legislation is needed to improve the sentencing guidelines. If 
judges are abusing their discretion, we should limit it. If more 
discretion is appropriate, we should provide it. In the words of Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, ``Before such legislation is enacted there should, 
at least, be a thorough and dispassionate inquiry into the consequences 
of such action.''
  It was a serious mistake for Congress to enact the Feeney Amendment 
over the strong objections of the Chief Justice, the Judicial 
Conference, the American Bar Association, the Sentencing Commission, 
and the overwhelming majority of prosecutors and defense attorneys who 
deal with the guidelines on a daily basis. The JUDGES Act will correct 
this mistake and set us on the right path to achieving any necessary 
reforms. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the 
National Association of Federal Defenders, and Families Against 
Mandatory Minimums be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                     May 20, 2003.
     The Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The undersigned organizations write 
     to express our strong support for the JUDGES Act. Under the 
     guise of addressing crimes against children, the recently 
     enacted PROTECT Act (S. 151) effected broad and ill-
     considered changes to our federal sentencing system. In 
     repealing those provisions that are not limited to child-
     related and sexual offenses, the JUDGES Act would help 
     restore judicial discretion to impose just sentences in most 
     federal cases.
       Enacted without hearings or meaningful debate, Title IV of 
     the PROTECT Act (the ``Feeney Amendment'') represents the 
     most dramatic change to federal sentencing law since passage 
     of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It threatens to deprive 
     judges of discretion to impose individualized sentences and 
     transform the federal sentencing guidelines into a near-
     mandatory minimum sentencing systems. As with mandatory 
     sentences, Title IV will increase unwarranted sentencing 
     disparities and disproportionate sentences, and erode public 
     confidence in our federal justice system.
       No reliable evidence was offered to justify this 
     curtailment of judicial discretion. On the contrary, 
     statistics indicate that the overwhelming majority of 
     sentences, other than those requested by the government to 
     reward defendants for assisting in the prosecution of others, 
     are within the range specified by the sentencing guidelines. 
     Significantly, nearly 80 percent of all downward departures 
     are requested by the government to reward assistance to the 
     government or to manage the high volume of immigration cases 
     in certain border districts.
       These statistics solidly discredit title IV's most 
     disastrous provision--Section 401(m), which orders the 
     Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines so as to 
     substantially reduce the number of departures. The JUDGES Act 
     repeals that provision in favor of a neutral study of 
     departures by the Sentencing Commission.
       In carefully considering and enacting the Sentencing Reform 
     Act of 1984 and eventually approving the Sentencing 
     Guidelines, Congress struck a careful balance between 
     sentencing uniformity and judicial discretion. Title IV of 
     the PROTECT Act upsets this balance without justification and 
     without due consideration for the opposing views of the 
     federal judiciary, the Sentencing Commission, the bar and 
     many diverse groups from the left and right.
       We appreciate your leadership in this area, and we look 
     forward to working with you in support of the JUDGES Act.
         Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National 
           Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal 
           Aid and

[[Page S6713]]

           Defender Association, National Association of Federal 
           Defenders, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg in 
introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in 
Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES Act. This bill will restore 
judicial discretion in Federal criminal sentencing, a responsibility 
that was all but stripped away in controversial, extraneous provisions 
that were added to the AMBER Alert law enacted last month.
  I was deeply disappointed when the Republicans took the bipartisan, 
non-controversial AMBER Alert bill and added numerous unrelated and 
ill-considered provisions. One set of provisions, collectively called 
the Feeney Amendment, blithely overturned the basic structure of the 
carefully crafted sentencing guideline system without any serious 
process in either the House or the Senate, and over the strong 
objections of the Nation's most senior jurists. Speaking about the 
original Feeney Amendment, the Chief Justice of the United States 
wrote: ``This legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the 
basic structure of the sentencing system and would seriously impair the 
ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' I commend 
Senator Kennedy for trying to repair the harm done in the Feeney 
Amendment by introducing the JUDGES Act today.
  Rather than directly address important measures to protect our 
children, the AMBER Alert conference committee effectively rewrote the 
criminal code on the back of an envelope. First, the final language 
established one set of sentencing rules for child pornographers and a 
more flexible set of sentencing rules for other Federal defendants, 
including terrorists, murderers, mobsters, civil rights violators, and 
white collar criminals. No one here believes that sex offenders deserve 
anything less than harsh sentences, but I cannot understand why we 
would treat the terrorists better.
  Second, the conference report overturned a unanimous Supreme Court 
decision, Koon v. United States, by establishing a new standard of 
appellate review in all departure cases. This provision, like so many 
others in the Feeney Amendment, is not limited to cases involving 
children. The Court in Koon interpreted the departure standard in a way 
that limited departures but left some room for judicial discretion. By 
contrast, the enacted provision appears to require appellate courts to 
consider the merits of a departure before it can decide what standard 
of review to apply to the merits. This sloppy drafted, circular 
provision is likely to tie up the courts in endless litigation, 
draining already scarce judicial resources, and costing the taxpayers 
money.
  In addition, the Feeney Amendment effectively created a ``black 
list'' of judges that stray from the draconian mandates of the new law. 
The enacted amendment attempt to intimate the Federal judiciary by 
compiling a list of all judges who impose sentences that the Justice 
Department does not like. Again, this provision is not limited to 
crimes against children, but applies in any type of criminal case. It 
takes a sledge hammer to the concept of separation of powers.

  In justifying this assault on Federal judges, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle claimed that there was a ``crisis'' of downward 
departures in sentencing. In fact, downward departure rates are well 
below the range contemplated by Congress when it authorized the 
Sentencing Guidelines, except for departures requested by the 
government. The overwhelming majority of downward departures are 
requested by federal prosecutors to reward cooperation by defendants or 
to manage the high volume of immigration cases in certain border 
districts. When the government does not like a specific downward 
departure, it can appeal that decision, and it often wins--
approximately 80 percent of such appeals are successful. The Feeney 
Amendment, forced through Congress with virtually no debate, was a 
solution in search of a problem.
  The legislation that I join Senator Kennedy in introducing today will 
repeal those provisions of the Feeney Amendment that veered from the 
underlying purpose of the AMBER Alert bill. Specifically, it will annul 
those sections that do not specifically involve crimes against children 
or sex crimes, effectively reversing the Feeney Amendment's attack on 
judicial discretion.
  The JUDGES Act will provide accurate and complete information on the 
incidence of downward departures in sentencing--a set of data that we 
were denied when the Feeney Amendment was adopted in the AMBER 
conference. This bill directs the Sentencing Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress 
within 180 days. This is the type of review Chief Justice Rehnquist 
called for in his letter opposing the original Feeney language. He 
urged the Congress to engage in a ``thorough and dispassionate 
inquiry'' before changes were made to the Federal sentencing structure. 
That request was dismissed by supporters of the Feeney Amendment, but 
still deserves full consideration by the Congress.
  Finally, the JUDGES Act will reverse a provision that goes beyond the 
Feeney Amendment, having been added to the AMBER Alert bill during the 
conference committee's one meeting. This provision limits the number of 
Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. I, for one, 
believe that judges are extremely valuable members of the Commission. 
They bring years of highly relevant experience, not to mention reasoned 
judgment, to the table. The Republicans apparently believe that their 
expertise is of limited value.
  The JUDGES Act is a reasoned correction to the far-reaching 
provisions enacted in the Feeney Amendment. It will restore the 
integrity of the Federal sentencing system by allowing judges to impose 
just and responsible sentences. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1087. A bill to provide for uterine fibroid research and 
education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid 
Research and Education Act. This bill expands and coordinates research 
on uterine fibroids at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and 
creates an education campaign to make sure women and their doctors have 
the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to 
thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this 
legislation in the House of Representatives and Senator Clinton for 
joining me as an original cosponsor.
  Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. Three 
quarters of all reproductive age women, and an even greater number of 
African American women, have uterine fibroids. Although many women with 
fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is estimated that a quarter of all 
women in their thirties and forties seek medical care for the abnormal 
or heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine 
fibroids cause.
  Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and 
few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. 
Right now, hysterectomy--the surgical removal of the uterus--is the 
most common treatment for uterine fibroids. More than 200,000 women 
undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids, which 
requires a six week recovery, has a 20 to 40 percent risk of 
complications, and means a women can no longer bear children. Less 
invasive treatment options, like drug regimes or fibroid embolyzation, 
are promising, but many have not undergone the rigorous testing that 
women expect. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 
at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable 
lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most 
interventions for symptomatic fibroids.''
  Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the uterine Fibroid 
Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or 
even cure uterine fibroids.
  This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the 
National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine 
fibroids every year for the next five years. Despite a budget of

[[Page S6714]]

over $27 billion, NIH spent just $5 million on uterine fibroids 
research in 2002. This legislation authorizes $50 million over five 
years to provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research and 
lay the groundwork to find a cure.

  This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many 
women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are 
disproportionately affected, what tests women can take to prevent 
uterine fibroids, and what are the best ways to treat them.
  Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids 
through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a 
decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat 
at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This 
bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research 
effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to 
make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop 
shop to find out what the Federal Government is doing to combat uterine 
fibroids.
  Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and 
health care providers. According to a 1999 survey conducted by the 
Society for Women's Health Research, as many as one-third of women who 
have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives 
with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their 
doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine 
fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good 
health care decisions and take control of their health.
  Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure 
women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. 
From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for 
mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are 
treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these 
past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women.
  The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the 
National Uterine Fibroid Foundation, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Medical Association, the 
American Nurses Association, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the 
Center for Uterine Fibroids at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the 
National Urban League,, Delta Sigma Theta, and the Society for Women's 
Health Research. I look forward to working with these advocates and my 
colleagues to get this bill signed into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. By Mrs. BOXER.
  S. 1088. A bill to enhance penalties for fraud in connection with 
identification documents that facilitates an act of domestic terrorism; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to 
increase penalties for terrorists using false identification.
  This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates 
prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a 
fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there 
is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession, 
or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those 
involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at 
any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a 
fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID, 
that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle 
is reflected in Federal law.
  Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties 
for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism, 
but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses 
related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those 
relating to international terrorism.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN:
  S. 1089. A bill to encourage multilateral cooperation and authorize a 
program of assistance to facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. ENSIGN: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
my bill, the ``Cuba Transition Act of 2003,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1089

       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 ``Cuba Transition Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Cuban people are seeking change in their country, 
     including through the Varela Project, Concilio Cubano, 
     independent journalist activity, and other civil society 
     initiatives.
       (2) Civil society groups and independent, self-employed 
     Cuban citizens will be essential to the consolidation of a 
     genuine and effective transition to democracy from an 
     authoritarian, communist government in Cuba, and therefore 
     merit increased international assistance.
       (3) The people of the United States support a policy of 
     proactively helping the Cuban people to establish a 
     democratic system of government, including supporting Cuban 
     citizen efforts to prepare for transition to a better and 
     more prosperous future.
       (4) Without profound political and economic changes, Cuba 
     will not meet the criteria for participation in the Summit of 
     the Americas process.
       (5) The Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted by the 
     General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) 
     provides both guidance and mechanisms for response by OAS 
     members to the governmental transition in Cuba and that 
     country's eventual reintegration into the inter-American 
     system.
       (6) United States Government support of pro-democracy 
     elements in Cuba and planning for the transition in Cuba is 
     essential for the identification of resources and mechanisms 
     that can be made available immediately in response to 
     profound political and economic changes on the island.
       (7) Consultations with democratic development institutions 
     and international development agencies regarding Cuba are a 
     critical element in the preparation of an effective 
     multilateral response to the transition in Cuba.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To support multilateral efforts by the countries of the 
     Western Hemisphere in planning for a transition of the 
     government in Cuba and the return of that country to the 
     Western Hemisphere community of democracies.
       (2) To encourage the development of an international group 
     to coordinate multilateral planning to a transition of the 
     government in Cuba.
       (3) To authorize funding for programs to assist the Cuban 
     people and independent nongovernmental organizations in Cuba 
     in preparing the groundwork for a peaceful transition of 
     government in Cuba.
       (4) To provide the President with funding to implement 
     assistance programs essential to the development of a 
     democratic government in Cuba.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Democratically elected government in cuba.--The term 
     ``democratically elected government in Cuba'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 
     6023).
       (2) Transition government in cuba.--The term ``transition 
     government in Cuba'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
     (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023).

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF COORDINATOR FOR CUBA TRANSITION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall designate, 
     within the Department of State, a coordinator who shall be 
     responsible for--
       (1) designing an overall strategy to coordinate 
     preparations for, and a response to, a transition in Cuba;
       (2) coordinating assistance provided to the Cuban people in 
     preparation for a transition in Cuba;
       (3) coordinating strategic support for the consolidation of 
     a political and economic transition in Cuba;
       (4) ensuring program and policy coordination among agencies 
     of the United States Government in carrying out the policies 
     set forth in this Act; and
       (5) pursuing coordination with other countries and 
     international organizations, including international 
     financial institutions, with respect to assisting a 
     transition in Cuba.
       (b) Rank and Status of the Transition Coordinator.--The 
     coordinator designated in subsection (a) shall have the rank 
     and status of ambassador.

     SEC. 6. MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES RELATED TO CUBA.

       The Secretary of State is authorized to designate up to 
     $5,000,000 of total amounts made available for contributions 
     to international organizations to be provided to the 
     Organization of American States for--

[[Page S6715]]

       (1) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights activities 
     relating to the situation of human rights in Cuba;
       (2) the funding of an OAS emergency fund for the deployment 
     of human rights observers, election support, and election 
     observation in Cuba as described in section 109(b) of the 
     Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 
     1996 (22 U.S.C. 6039(b)(1)); and
       (3) scholarships for Cuban students attending colleges, 
     universities, or other educational programs in member states 
     of the OAS.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Sense of Congress Regarding Consultation With Western 
     Hemisphere.--It is the sense of Congress that the President 
     should begin consultation, as appropriate, with governments 
     of other Western Hemisphere countries regarding a transition 
     in Cuba.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Other Consultations.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that the President should begin 
     consultations with appropriate international partners and 
     governments regarding a multilateral diplomatic and financial 
     support program for response to a transition in Cuba.

     SEC. 8. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE IN 
                   PREPARATION FOR A TRANSITION IN CUBA.

       (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law other than section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) and comparable notification 
     requirements contained in any Act making appropriations for 
     foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     the President is authorized to furnish an amount not to 
     exceed $15,000,000 in assistance and provide other support 
     for individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations 
     to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba, including--
       (1) political prisoners and members of their families;
       (2) persons persecuted or harassed for dissident 
     activities;
       (3) independent libraries;
       (4) independent workers' rights activists;
       (5) independent agricultural cooperatives;
       (6) independent associations of self-employed Cubans;
       (7) independent journalists;
       (8) independent youth organizations;
       (9) independent environmental groups;
       (10) independent economists, medical doctors, and other 
     professionals;
       (11) in establishing and maintaining an information and 
     resources center to be in the United States interests section 
     in Havana, Cuba;
       (12) prodemocracy programs of the National Endowment for 
     Democracy that are related to Cuba;
       (13) nongovernmental programs to facilitate access to the 
     Internet, subject to section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 
     6032(g));
       (14) nongovernmental charitable programs that provide 
     nutrition and basic medical care to persons most at risk, 
     including children and elderly persons; and
       (15) nongovernmental charitable programs to reintegrate 
     into civilian life persons who have abandoned, resigned, or 
     been expelled from the Cuban armed forces for ideological 
     reasons.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Independent nongovernmental organization.--The term 
     ``independent nongovernmental organization'' means an 
     organization that the Secretary of State determines, not less 
     than 15 days before any obligation of funds to the 
     organization, is a charitable or nonprofit nongovernmental 
     organization that is not an agency or instrumentality of the 
     Cuban Government.
       (2) Eligible cuban recipients.--The term ``eligible Cuban 
     recipients'' is limited to any Cuban national in Cuba, 
     including political prisoners and their families, who are not 
     officials of the Cuban Government or of the ruling political 
     party in Cuba, as defined in section 4(10) of the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 
     U.S.C. 6023(10)).

     SEC. 9. SUPPORT FOR A TRANSITION GOVERNMENT IN CUBA.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, there are authorized 
     to be appropriated $30,000,000 to the President to establish 
     a fund to provide assistance to a transition government in 
     Cuba as defined in section 205 of the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 
     6023).
       (b) Designation of Fund.--The fund authorized in subsection 
     (a) shall be known as the ``Fund for a Free Cuba''.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

                          ____________________