Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6855-S6869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Lott, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Cochran,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Breaux, and Mr.
Bunning):
S. 1090. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase
the minimum allocation provided to States for use in carrying out
certain highway programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway
Funding Equity Act of 2003. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by
Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bayh, Lugar, Hutchison, Cornyn, Warner,
Chambliss, Lott, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson, Alexander, DeWine, Dole,
Cochran, Landrieu, Miller, Hollings, Breaux, and Bunning.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21,
authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and will
expire in September 2003. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as
Donor states, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue
from Federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer
more than 10 percent of every Federal highway user fee dollar to other
States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate-
of-return on their transportation tax dollar being sent to Washington,
Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more
money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.
My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the
5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway
network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio
is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of
the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout
Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.
Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a
robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of Federal highway dollars
has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became
governor 12 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79
percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as Chairman of the
National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the
minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding
Equity Act of 2003 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return
to 95 percent.
The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 has two components. First, the
bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21
from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway
Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes
all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National
Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails,
and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.
Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of
Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50
people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95
percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This
provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the
quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic
prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision
would benefit 15 states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more
than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The
interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and
traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally
obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over
capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical
roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future
traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70 percent in the next 20
years. Like all the donor States, we need these funds in Ohio.
States can no longer afford to support others that are already self-
sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total
available funding, especially in light of the so-called ``mega
projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence
Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into
Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost
of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the
total project could cost close to $1 billion.
The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on
donor states' dollars to guarantee that federal highway program funding
is more equitable for all states. Donor States seek only their fair
share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve
highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization process.
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. 1090

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 ``Highway Funding Equity Act
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM GUARANTEE.

Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and subsections (c) through
(f);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e);
(3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts
sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of
the total apportionments for the fiscal year for the National
Highway System under section 103(b), the high priority
projects program under section 117, the Interstate
maintenance program under section 119, the surface
transportation program under section

[[Page S6856]]

133, metropolitan planning under section 134, the highway
bridge replacement and rehabilitation program under section
144, the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program under section 149, the recreational trails program
under section 206, the Appalachian development highway system
under subtitle IV of title 40, and the minimum guarantee
under this paragraph, equals or exceeds the percentage
determined for the State under paragraph (2).
``(2) State percentages.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the percentage for each State referred to in paragraph (1) is
the percentage that is equal to 95 percent of the ratio
that--
``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available; bears to
``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available.
``(B) Exception.--In the case of a State having a
population density of less than 50 individuals per square
mile according to the 2000 decennial census, the percentage
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the greater of--
``(i) the percentage determined under subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) the percentage specified in subsection (e).
``(b) Treatment of Funds.--
``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall
apportion the amounts made available under this section that
exceed $2,800,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each
State under this paragraph for each program referred to in
subsection (a)(1) (other than the high priority projects
program, metropolitan planning, the recreational trails
program, the Appalachian development highway system, and the
minimum guarantee under subsection (a)) is equal to the
product obtained by multiplying--
``(A) the amount to be apportioned under this paragraph;
and
``(B) the ratio that--
``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to the State for each
program referred to in subsection (a)(1) (other than the high
priority projects program, metropolitan planning, the
recreational trails program, the Appalachian development
highway system, and the minimum guarantee under subsection
(a)) for a fiscal year; bears to
``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to the State
for that program for the fiscal year.
``(2) Remaining distribution.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall apportion the remainder of funds made
available under this section to the States, and administer
those funds, in accordance with section 104(b)(3).
``(B) Inapplicable requirements.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) of section 133(d) shall not apply to amounts apportioned
in accordance with this paragraph.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2009.
``(d) Guarantee of 95 Percent Return.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, before making any apportionment under this title, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) determine whether the sum of the percentages
determined under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year
exceeds 100 percent; and
``(B) if the sum of the percentages exceeds 100 percent,
proportionately adjust the percentages specified in the table
contained in subsection (e) to ensure that the sum of the
percentages determined under subsection (a)(1)(B) for the
fiscal year equals 100 percent.
``(2) Eligibility threshold for adjustment.--The Secretary
may make an adjustment under paragraph (1) for a State for a
fiscal year only if the percentage for the State in the table
contained in subsection (e) is equal to or exceeds 95 percent
of the ratio determined for the State under subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
``(3) Limitation on adjustments.--Adjustments of the
percentages in the table contained in subsection (e) in
accordance with this subsection shall not result in a total
of the percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) that
exceeds 100 percent.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections
(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (d)''.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in
introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003.
Our bill will allow States to get back more of what they contribute
in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the
Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways from the current
90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal
Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments to 95 percent.
Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one
step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal
highway funds to States.
Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor''
States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in
Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure
spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have
received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway
Trust Fund.
This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large
Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining
States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit
from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously
defended it.
At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that.
However, there is no justification for any state getting more than its
fair share.
Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long
struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some
progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting
around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to
approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5
cent minimum return for each State.
We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and
other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At
stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to
pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan and the
jobs that go with it. According to Federal Highway Administration
calculations, Michigan would have received an additional $42 million in
FY 02 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill.
That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The
same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions
more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States.
There is no logical reason for some States to continue to send that
money to other States to subsidize their road and bridge projects and
to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair.
With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to
determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are
antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or
contributions are.
The Voinovich-Levin bill is consensus bill developed with the help of
donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition
working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee
from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. A companion bill is
being introduced in the House today by majority leader Tom DeLay and
Representative Barron Hill. With this legislation, we intend to send a
strong message to the authorizing committees that they should address
the equity issue in the Senate and House highway reauthorization bills.
We are determined to make progress in this bill to redistribute the
highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its
fair share.
This is an issue of equity and we will not be satisfied until we
achieve it.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 1092. A bill to authorize the establishment of a national database
for purposes of identifying, locating, and cataloging the many
memorials and permanent tributes to America's veterans; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S6857]]

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, the
National War Permanent Tribute Historical Database Act, which would
establish a permanent database to catalogue, identify, and locate the
thousands of permanent veterans' memorials on public land.
Right now, an individual can go online and access a network of all
railway mainlines, railroad yards, and major sidings in the continental
U.S. through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. If someone wants
to search all scenic byways--by location or keyword--he or she can
easily access this database through the Federal Highway Administration.
Through the National Park Service, one can access the inventory of
historic light stations and publicly accessible lighthouses.
But if one of my constituents, a veteran, or a young person working
on a school project, wants to access a comprehensive list of veterans'
memorials, they can't.
Currently, there is no central catalogue of information on structures
commemorating an individual or group in the Armed Forces available to
the public--maintained either by the Federal Government or by a non-
governmental entity. Unfortunately, many of these structures are in a
terrible state of disrepair and rest in unknown storage facilities
around the country. Through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, an
individual can look up a list of all State cemeteries and their contact
information. But, as I understand it, that's the extent of the
database. And that's simply not enough.
Admittedly, I am not an expert on navigating through the Internet,
but I know that many of my constituents are. The ultimate purpose of
this bill is to compile and classify the myriad of information that
exists and make it available for anyone to access. Even those not
proficient on a computer will benefit from a standardized database,
because hopefully it will be operative from a number of means.
In fact, under my bill, this database would be established by the
Department of the Interior with the assistance of other agencies, non-
profits, tribal governments, and any other entities the Secretary of
the Interior deem appropriate. Since the Department of the Interior
already maintains several databases, I believe it already has the
infrastructure and the proven capability to maintain a catalogue of
veterans' memorials. The Secretary would also have to report back to
Congress three years after enactment to assess the feasibility of
establishing a permanent fund to repair, maintain, and restore
memorials that need help.
Several years ago, Congress passed a law which expressed the need for
cataloguing and maintaining these public veterans' memorials. When
similar legislation, upon which this bill is based, was reported
favorably out of the House Committee on Resources last Congress, staff
from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that enacting this bill
would not have a significant impact on the budgets of State, local, or
tribal governments. It would also not preempt authority of State,
local, or tribal law. Let's work together to get this common-sense, low
cost effort off the ground and working for the millions of people who
have so courageously defended our freedom.
I have said this before, but I truly believe that veterans' memorials
often serve as the only tangible reminders we have of their service to
this country. Not only have we lost many of these brave men and women
during conflict, we are losing thousands of them forever, each year, as
the veteran population ages. A common-sense first step to making sure
that the sites and structures honoring them are properly maintained is
also making sure we know where each of them is. Future generations
depend on it.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed another veterans' bill
of mine, the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of
2003, which is on its way to the President's desk. This bill, S. 330,
would make a Federal crime, the destruction of veterans' memorials and
would permit guide signs to veterans' cemeteries on Federal-aid
highways. I cannot think of a better way to make this law more
effective than to have a national database to identify these veterans'
memorials.
Having said that, it is my hope that we can work swiftly together to
move this legislation introduced today. This weekend, we will be
commemorating our veterans with festive celebrations and somber vigils.
Let us honor what they have done to preserve our freedom by protecting
and recognizing the sites which commemorate them.
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. 1092

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 War Permanent
Tribute Historical Database Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) on November 13, 2000, Congress agreed to a resolution
expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for
cataloging and maintaining public memorials;
(2) there are many thousands of public memorials and
permanent tributes throughout the United States and abroad
that commemorate military conflicts of the United States and
the service of individuals in the Armed Forces;
(3) many of these memorials suffer from neglect and
disrepair, and many have been relocated or stored in
facilities where the memorials are unavailable to the public
and subject to further neglect and damage; and
(4) there exists a need to collect and centralize
information regarding the identification, location, and
description of these memorials, as no such catalog is
available to the public from either the Federal Government or
any nongovernmental entity.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATABASE.

(a) Establishment.--In order to locate, identify, and
catalog the many thousands of permanent tributes that
commemorate the military conflicts of the United States, and
the service and sacrifice of individuals in the Armed Forces
of the United States, and to make such information readily
available for the educational benefit of the public, the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, may establish and maintain a database
known as the National War Permanent Tribute Historical
Database.
(b) Content.--The database shall contain information on--
(1) the location, history, and background of the permanent
tributes;
(2) photographs and other information to enhance the
understanding of the permanent tributes;
(3) information about the veterans in whose honor the
permanent tributes are dedicated; and
(4) any other information the Secretary considers
appropriate and necessary.
(c) Public Access.--The database shall be made accessible
to the public, through the Internet or by other means, in a
format that permits the public to submit information on
permanent tributes for the purpose of updating and expanding
the database.
(d) Assistance.--The Secretary of the Interior may seek the
assistance of other Federal agencies and the States and their
political subdivisions, tribal governments, public or private
educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and
individuals or other entities that the Secretary considers
appropriate in carrying out this Act, and may enter into
contracts and cooperative agreements to obtain information or
services that assist in the development and implementation of
the database.
(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``permanent tribute'' means any statue, structure, or other
monument on public property commemorating the service of any
person or persons in the Armed Forces.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Interior such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
Act.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall transmit to Congress a report
assessing the efficacy and desirability of establishing a
permanent fund within the Treasury for the repair,
restoration, and maintenance of the memorials identified and
catalogued under section 3. The report shall include
recommended criteria regarding appropriate recipients of
expenditures from such a fund as well as proposed funding
mechanisms and any other information considered by the
Secretary to be relevant.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1093. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the many
thousands of bicycle commuters across the Nation who, by taking part in
National Bike-to-Work Day on May 16, 2003, have chosen a healthy and
pollution-

[[Page S6858]]

free alternative to driving to work. In recognition of the importance
of bicycle commuting and National Bike-to-Work Month, it is my pleasure
to be joined by my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, to introduce
legislation to extend the Transportation Fringe Benefit to bicycle
commuters. By including bicycle commuting as an eligible mode of
alternative transportation under the Transportation Fringe Benefit,
this legislation will ensure that bicycle commuters will have access to
the benefits already available to individuals who commute by mass
transit and van-pool.
The Transportation Fringe Benefit was added to the Tax Code to give
individuals an incentive to use alternative modes of transportation. It
is entirely voluntary for both employers and employees. Under current
law, an employer may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to an
employee who commutes by mass transit or van-pool and count that
contribution as a business deduction. An employee of a participating
company may choose to receive a tax-exempt benefit of $180 per month
for qualified parking or $100 per month for mass transit or van-pool.
The Bicycle Commuter Act simply adds bicycling as a qualifying
transportation method. This straightforward but significant addition to
the Transportation Fringe Benefit not only provides fairness to
commuters traveling by bike, but would also help achieve the broader
goals of the Transportation Fringe Benefit provision by encouraging
healthy, environmental, community-oriented commuting.
Consider a June 2002 study by the Texas Transportation Institute that
details the growing severity of traffic congestion on our Nation's
roadways--according to this study, commuters traveling during rush hour
are encountering longer delays, rush hour periods themselves are
growing, and more streets and highways are becoming congested. This
rising trend of greater congestion costs both our Nation's economy and
our environment.
Thankfully, there are alternatives, and that is why I am introducing
the Bicycle Commuter Act. According to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, over 20 percent of Americans used a bicycle for
transportation within a 30-day study period. Combined with the fact
that more than 50 percent of the working population has a work commute
of 5 miles or fewer, bicycles present an opportunity for our Nation to
reduce problems of grid lock, air pollution, and roadway wear and tear.
Indeed, our Nation has made significant gains through mass transit
and alternative transportation. However, more can and must be done--and
I believe the Bicycle Commuter Act would be an important step in
ensuring that our Nation's transportation policies recognize the
potential benefits to the individual and community of bicycle
commuting. I urge my colleagues to join myself and the Senator from
Oregon in this effort.
______

By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Stevens, Mr. McCain,
Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Allen):
S. 1095. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve outpatient vision services under part B of the medicare
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1095

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Vision
Rehabilitation Services Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF OUTPATIENT VISION SERVICES UNDER PART
B.

(a) Coverage Under Part B.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (V)(iii), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(W) vision rehabilitation services (as defined in
subsection (ww)(1));''.
(b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:

``Vision Rehabilitation Services: Vision Rehabilitation Professional

``(ww)(1)(A) The term `vision rehabilitation services'
means rehabilitative services (as determined by the Secretary
in regulations) furnished--
``(i) to an individual diagnosed with a vision impairment
(as defined in paragraph (6));
``(ii) pursuant to a plan of care established by a
qualified physician (as defined in subparagraph (C)) or by a
qualified occupational therapist that is periodically
reviewed by a qualified physician;
``(iii) in an appropriate setting (including the home of
the individual receiving such services if specified in the
plan of care); and
``(iv) by any of the following individuals:
``(I) A qualified physician.
``(II) A qualified occupational therapist.
``(III) A vision rehabilitation professional (as defined in
paragraph (2)) while under the general supervision (as
defined in subparagraph (D)) of a qualified physician.
``(B) In the case of vision rehabilitation services
furnished by a vision rehabilitation professional, the plan
of care may only be established and reviewed by a qualified
physician.
``(C) The term `qualified physician' means--
``(i) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) who is
an ophthalmologist; or
``(ii) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(4)
(relating to a doctor of optometry)).
``(D) The term `general supervision' means, with respect to
a vision rehabilitation professional, overall direction and
control of that professional by the qualified physician who
established the plan of care for the individual, but the
presence of the qualified physician is not required during
the furnishing of vision rehabilitation services by that
professional to the individual.
``(2) The term `vision rehabilitation professional' means
any of the following individuals:
``(A) An orientation and mobility specialist (as defined in
paragraph (3)).
``(B) A rehabilitation teacher (as defined in paragraph
(4)).
``(C) A low vision therapist (as defined in paragraph (5)).
``(3) The term `orientation and mobility specialist' means
an individual who--
``(A) if a State requires licensure or certification of
orientation and mobility specialists, is licensed or
certified by that State as an orientation and mobility
specialist;
``(B)(i) holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from an
accredited college or university in the United States (or an
equivalent foreign degree) with a concentration in
orientation and mobility; and
``(ii) has successfully completed 350 hours of clinical
practicum under the supervision of an orientation and
mobility specialist and has furnished not less than 9 months
of supervised full-time orientation and mobility services;
``(C) has successfully completed the national examination
in orientation and mobility administered by the Academy for
Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals; and
``(D) meets such other criteria as the Secretary
establishes.
``(4) The term `rehabilitation teacher' means an individual
who--
``(A) if a State requires licensure or certification of
rehabilitation teachers, is licensed or certified by the
State as a rehabilitation teacher;
``(B)(i) holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from an
accredited college or university in the United States (or an
equivalent foreign degree) with a concentration in
rehabilitation teaching, or holds such a degree in a
health field; and
``(ii) has successfully completed 350 hours of clinical
practicum under the supervision of a rehabilitation teacher
and has furnished not less than 9 months of supervised full-
time rehabilitation teaching services;
``(C) has successfully completed the national examination
in rehabilitation teaching administered by the Academy for
Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals; and
``(D) meets such other criteria as the Secretary
establishes.
``(5) The term `low vision therapist' means an individual
who--
``(A) if a State requires licensure or certification of low
vision therapists, is licensed or certified by the State as a
low vision therapist;
``(B)(i) holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from an
accredited college or university in the United States (or an
equivalent foreign degree) with a concentration in low vision
therapy, or holds such a degree in a health field; and
``(ii) has successfully completed 350 hours of clinical
practicum under the supervision of a physician, and has
furnished not less than 9 months of supervised full-time low
vision therapy services;
``(C) has successfully completed the national examination
in low vision therapy administered by the Academy for
Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals; and
``(D) meets such other criteria as the Secretary
establishes.
``(6) The term `vision impairment' means vision loss that
constitutes a significant limitation of visual capability
resulting from

[[Page S6859]]

disease, trauma, or a congenital or degenerative condition
that cannot be corrected by conventional means, including
refractive correction, medication, or surgery, and that is
manifested by 1 or more of the following:
``(A) Best corrected visual acuity of less than 20/60, or
significant central field defect.
``(B) Significant peripheral field defect including
homonymous or heteronymous bilateral visual field defect or
generalized contraction or constriction of field.
``(C) Reduced peak contrast sensitivity in conjunction with
a condition described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(D) Such other diagnoses, indications, or other
manifestations as the Secretary may determine to be
appropriate.''.
(c) Payment Under Part B.--
(1) Physician fee schedule.--Section 1848(j)(3) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``(2)(W),'' after ``(2)(S),''.
(2) Carve out from hospital outpatient department
prospective payment system.--Section 1833(t)(1)(B)(iv) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended
by inserting ``vision rehabilitation services (as defined in
section 1861(ww)(1)) or'' after ``does not include''.
(3) Clarification of billing requirements.--The first
sentence of section 1842(b)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395u(b)(6)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``(G)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and
(H) in the case of vision rehabilitation services (as defined
in section 1861(ww)(1)) furnished by a vision rehabilitation
professional (as defined in section 1861(ww)(2)) while under
the general supervision (as defined in section
1861(ww)(1)(D)) of a qualified physician (as defined in
section 1861(ww)(1)(C)), payment shall be made to (i) the
qualified physician or (ii) the facility (such as a
rehabilitation agency, a clinic, or other facility) through
which such services are furnished under the plan of care if
there is a contractual arrangement between the vision
rehabilitation professional and the facility under which the
facility submits the bill for such services''.
(d) Plan of Care.--Section 1835(a)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395n(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) in the case of vision rehabilitation services, (i)
such services are or were required because the individual
needed vision rehabilitation services, (ii) an
individualized, written plan for furnishing such services has
been established (I) by a qualified physician (as defined in
section 1861(ww)(1)(C)), (II) by a qualified occupational
therapist, or (III) in the case of such services furnished by
a vision rehabilitation professional, by a qualified
physician, (iii) the plan is periodically reviewed by the
qualified physician, and (iv) such services are or were
furnished while the individual is or was under the care of
the qualified physician.''.
(e) Relationship to Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The
provision of vision rehabilitation services under the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall not be taken into account for
any purpose under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
701 et seq.).
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) Interim, final regulations.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall publish a rule under this section in
the Federal Register by not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act to carry out the provisions of
this section. Such rule shall be effective and final
immediately on an interim basis, but is subject to change and
revision after public notice and opportunity for a period (of
not less than 60 days) for public comment.
(2) Consultation.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall consult with the National Vision
Rehabilitation Cooperative, the Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, the
Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and
Education Professionals, the American Academy of
Ophthalmology, the American Occupational Therapy Association,
the American Optometric Association, and such other qualified
professional and consumer organizations as the Secretary
determines appropriate in promulgating regulations to carry
out this Act.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1097. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself,
I rise today to introduce the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act. This
bill, an $880 million authorization, is a 33 percent match for state
and local dollars over the next 4 years to address California's water
needs through a balanced program.
Last year's bill passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by
a vote of 18-5, and since that time I have worked with Republicans,
most notably Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, to come up with an even
stronger bill.
The result: the legislation we introduced today is greatly improved
from last year's bill--it is smaller, the authorizations are more
specific, and it does a better job of ensuring that the CALFED program
be implemented in a balanced manner. Let me describe how the bill is
improved:
First, many Senators from other States were afraid CALFED was going
to use up the Bureau of Reclamation's entire budget. To meet these
concerns, we have cut the authorization level, ultimately to $880
million over four years. We also limited the Federal cost-share to one-
third.
Second, some Republican Senators were afraid that environmental
projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly ahead, while
storage projects lacking Congressional approval would languish. To meet
this concern, we required balanced implementation. The Secretary of the
Interior must certify annually that the CALFED program is progressing
in a balanced manner toward achieving all of its different components.
Third, other Republican Senators were concerned that they had no good
handle on the Federal funding of the many different agencies involved
in CALFED. We meet this concern by requiring the Office of Management
and Budget, OMB, to prepare a cross-cut budget showing the Federal
funding of each of the different agencies. We also prepared a specific
list of the projects to be funded and how much each one would receive.
In my view, these changes make the bill stronger and more likely to
pass both the Senate and the House. Just as importantly, the bill
continues to provide the funding necessary to implement the key
elements of the CALFED program. In fact, the pieces of the legislation
work together to solve our water needs:
One need is water storage. I don't believe we can meet all of our
future water needs without increased water storage that is
environmentally benign, that if off stream and that provides
flexibility in the system for us to increase water supply, improve
water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration.
We must be able to take water in wet years and store it for use in
dry years. The bill provides $102 million for planning and feasibility
studies for water storage projects--and an additional $77 million for
conveyance.
Next is ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages,
restoring streams, rivers and habitats and improving water quality. The
bill provides $100 million for ecological restoration.
The bill authorizes $153 million for water conservation and
recycling, including $84 million for desalination and water recycling
projects, leveraging substantial additional water supplies for
California with relatively little Federal investment.
The bill would also improve water quality for drinking through
investment in treatment technology demonstration projects and water
quality improvements in the San Francisco Bay Delta, the San Joaquin
Valley, and other parts of the State.
I would also like to emphasize that the bill includes a grants
program for local and regional communities throughout California,
including the northern part of the State. The bill authorizes up to $95
million for local California communities to develop plans and projects
to improve their water situation. This State-wide grants program is an
example of how the bill will benefit all Californians. The bill also
includes $50 million for watershed planning and assistance.
The bill also includes other important provisions on levee stability,
with $70 million, ensuring CALFED has strong supporting science, with
$50 million, and $25 million for program management, oversight, and
coordination. There is also $75 million for the environmental water
account, which purchases available water for environmental and other
purposes.
The bill also includes balance and cross-cut budget reporting
requirements.
Through the CALFED process, we have discovered that, as Californians,
we have many common water interests. For example, if we both conserve
water and build new environmentally responsible off-stream storage,
then we have

[[Page S6860]]

found two ways to increase the supply of water for everyone's use. And
if we make intelligent investments in ecological restoration, we can
continue to use water for growing our economy while benefitting our
environment at the same time.
CALFED emerged after years of negotiations between Californians of
different backgrounds who care about water. This bill proposes specific
projects for each of CALFED's basic parts--and it appropriately defines
the Federal role so that other states know that California is taking
full responsibility for its own situation.
It is my strong belief that the Western energy crisis is a forerunner
to what California will soon experience with water. Just consider the
following: California has a population of over 35 million people, which
is expected to grow to 50 million in twenty years, yet our water system
infrastructure was built when the State had only 16 million people.

California is the sixth largest economy in the world. It is the
number one agricultural producing State in the Nation. It is the
leading producer of agriculture products, such as dairy, wine, grapes,
strawberries, almonds, lettuce and tomatoes--the list goes on and on.
California's trade, manufacturing, and service sectors are
substantial contributors to the American economy. Clearly, these
sectors would be put at risk if there is not an adequate supply of
water.
California has more endangered species than any State except Hawaii,
as well as the largest population.
To make matters worse, a recent study by the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography predicts that global warming could reduce the West's water
suppy by an much as 30 percent by 2050.
Clearly, California's water needs are tremendous; meanwhile, the last
major infrastructure improvement in the state occurred in the 1970s. We
need to prepare for the future and we need to do so in an
environmentally sensitive way. If there is one lesson to learn from
California's damaging energy crisis, it is that time to address a
crisis is not while it is happening, but beforehand.
California is struggling to build more power plants, while also doing
everything possible to reduce demand through increased efficiency and
conservation. But because this started so late, we have encountered
some serious problems in the past two years, which is why it is even
more important that we fix our water problem before it, too, reaches a
crisis stage.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1097

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 ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Calfed bay-delta program.--The ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Program'' means the programs, projects, complementary
actions, and activities undertaken through coordinated
planning, implementation, and assessment activities of the
State and Federal agencies in a manner consistent with the
Record of Decision.
(2) California bay-delta authority.--The term ``California
Bay-Delta Authority'' means a committee of State and Federal
agencies and public members established to oversee the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program, as set forth in the California Bay-Delta
Authority Act (2002 Cal. Stat. Chap. 812).
(3) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the reserve of water provided for in
the Record of Decision to provide water, in addition to the
amount of the regulatory baseline, to protect and restore
Delta fisheries.
(4) Federal agencies.--The term ``Federal agencies'' means
the following:
(A) The Department of the Interior (including the Bureau of
Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and United States Geological Survey);
(B) The Environmental Protection Agency;
(C) The Army Corps of Engineers;
(D) The Department of Commerce (including NOAA Fisheries);
(E) The Department of Agriculture (including the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service); and
(F) The Western Area Power Administration.
(5) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(6) Implementation memorandum.--The term ``Implementation
Memorandum'' means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
Implementation Memorandum of Understanding dated August 28,
2000, executed by the Federal agencies and the State
agencies.
(7) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Federal programmatic Record of Decision dated
August 28, 2000, issued by the Federal agencies and supported
by the State.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(9) Stage 1.--The term ``Stage 1'' means the programs and
projects planned for the first 7 years of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program, as specified in the Record of Decision.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(11) State agencies.--The term ``State Agencies'' means the
following:
(A) The Resources Agency of California (including the
Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and
Game);
(B) The California Environmental Protection Agency
(including the State Water Resources Control Board); and
(C) The California Department of Food and Agriculture.

SEC. 3. BAY OF DELTA PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the mission of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is to
develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that
will improve water management and restore the ecological
health of the Bay-Delta system.
(2) the Federal and State agencies participating in the
Bay-Delta Program have prepared a thirty-year plan, the
Record of Decision, dated August 28, 2000, to coordinate
existing programs and direct new programs to improve the
quality and reliability of the State's water supplies and to
restore the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed.
(3) the Calfed Bay-Delta Program was developed as a joint
Federal-State program to deal effectively with the
multijurisdictional issues involved in managing the Bay-Delta
system; and
(4) while this Act authorizes appropriations for four years
of this thirty-year Program, it is anticipated that the
Federal Government will participate as a full partner with
the State of California for the duration of this thirty-year
Program.
(b) In General.--The Record of Decision is approved as a
framework for addressing Calfed Bay-Delta Program components
consisting of water storage, ecosystem restoration, water
supply reliability, conveyance, water use efficiency, water
quality, water transfers, watersheds, Environmental Water
Account, levee stability, governance, and science. The
Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies are
authorized to carry out (undertake, fund, or participate in)
the activities in the Record of Decision, subject to the
provisions of this Act and the constraints of the Record of
Decision, so that the Program activities consisting of
protecting drinking water quality; restoring ecological
health; improving water supply reliability, including
additional water storage and conveyance; and protecting Delta
levees; will progress in a balanced manner.
(c) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in this subsection in furtherance of Stage 1 of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision,
subject to the cost-share and other provisions of this Act,
if the activity has been subject to environmental review and
approval as required under applicable Federal and State law,
and has been approved and certified by the California Bay-
Delta Authority to be consistent with the Record of Decision.
(2) Specific activities authorized.--The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to carry out the activities set forth
in subparagraphs (A) through (H), and subparagraphs (K), (L),
and (M) of subsection (c)(3). The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to carry out
the activities set forth in subparagraphs (G), (H), (I), (K),
and (L) of subsection (c)(3). The Secretary of the Army is
authorized to carry out the activities set forth in
subparagraphs (G), (J), (K), and (L) of subsection (c)(3).
The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to carry out the
activities set forth in subparagraphs (E), (G), (H), and (K)
of subsection (c)(3). The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to carry out the activities set forth in
subparagraphs (C), (G), (H), (I), and (K) of subsection
(c)(3).
(3) Program activities.--
(A) Water storage.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $102,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) planning activities and feasibility studies for the
following projects to be pursued with project-specific study:
(I) enlargement of Shasta Dam in Shasta County (not to
exceed $12,000,000); and
(II) enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa
County (not to exceed $17,000,000);
(ii) planning and feasibility studies for the following
projects requiring further consideration:
(I) Sites Reservoir in Colusa County (not to exceed
$6,000,000); and
(II) Upper San Joaquin River storage in Fresno and Madera
Counties (not to exceed $11,000,000);
(iii) developing and implementing groundwater management
and groundwater storage projects (not to exceed $50,000,000);
and
(iv) comprehensive water management planning (not to exceed
$6,000,000).

[[Page S6861]]

(B) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $77,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000):
(I) South Delta Improvements Program to--
(aa) increase the State Water Project export limit to 8500
cfs;
(bb) install permanent, operable barriers in the south
Delta;
(cc) design and construct fish screens and intake
facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy Pumping
Plant facilities; and
(dd) increase the State Water Project export to the maximum
capability of 10,300 cfs;
(II) reduction of agricultural drainage in south Delta
channels and other actions necessary to minimize impacts of
such drainage on drinking water quality;
(III) design and construction of lower San Joaquin River
floodway improvements;
(IV) installation and operation of temporary barriers in
the south Delta until fully operable barriers are
constructed;
(V) actions to protect navigation and local diversions not
adequately protected by the temporary barriers;
(VI) actions identified in Subclause (I) or other actions
necessary to offset degradation of drinking water quality in
the Delta due to the South Delta Improvements Program; and
(VII) actions at Franks Tract to improve water quality in
the Delta.
(ii) North Delta Actions (not to exceed $12,000,000):
(I) evaluation and implementation of improved operational
procedures for the Delta Cross Channel to address fishery and
water quality concerns;
(II) evaluation of a screened through-Delta facility on the
Sacramento River; and
(III) design and construction of lower Mokelumne River
floodway improvements;
(iii) interties (not to exceed $10,000,000):
(I) evaluation and construction of an intertie between the
State Water Project and the Central Valley Project facilities
at or near the City of Tracy; and
(II) assessment of the connection of the Central Valley
Project to the State Water Project's Clifton Court Forebay
with a corresponding increase in the Forebay's screened
intake; and
(iv) evaluation and implementation of the San Luis
Reservoir lowpoint improvement project (not to exceed
$10,000,000).
(C) Water use efficiency.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $153,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) water conservation projects that provide water supply
reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the
Bay-Delta system (not to exceed $61,000,000);
(ii) technical assistance for urban and agricultural water
conservation projects (not to exceed $5,000,000);
(iii) water recycling and desalination projects, including
but not limited to projects identified in the Bay Area Water
Recycling Plan and the Southern California Comprehensive
Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (not to exceed
$84,000,000), as follows:
(I) in providing financial assistance under this clause,
the Secretary shall give priority consideration to projects
that include regional solutions to benefit regional water
supply and reliability needs;
(II) the Secretary shall review any feasibility level
studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line
projects that have been completed, whether or not those
studies were prepared with financial assistance from the
Secretary;
(III) the Secretary shall report to the Congress within 90
days after the completion of a feasibility study or the
review of a feasibility study for the purposes of providing
design and construction assistance for the construction of
desalination and regional brine line projects; and
(IV) the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried
out with assistance under this clause may not exceed the
lesser of 25 percent of the total cost of the activity or
$50,000,000;
(iv) water measurement and transfer actions (not to exceed
$1,500,000); and
(v) certification of implementation of best management
practices for urban water conservation (not to exceed
$1,500,000).
(D) Water transfers.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $3,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) increasing the availability of existing facilities for
water transfers;
(ii) lowering transaction costs through permit
streamlining; and
(iii) maintaining a water transfer information
clearinghouse.
(E) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under
this Act, no more than $75,000,000 may be expended for
implementation of the Environmental Water Account.
(F) Integrated regional water management plans.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004
through 2007 under this Act, no more than $95,000,000 may be
expended for the following:
(i) establishing a competitive grants program to assist
local and regional communities in California in developing
and implementing integrated regional water management
plans to carry out Stage 1 of the Record of Decision; and
(ii) implementation of projects and programs in California
that improve water supply reliability, water quality,
ecosystem restoration, and flood protection, or meet other
local and regional needs, that are consistent with, and make
a significant contribution to, Stage 1 of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program.
(G) Ecosystem restoration.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $100,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) implementation of large-scale restoration projects in
San Francisco Bay, the Delta, and its tributaries;
(ii) restoration of habitat in the Delta, San Pablo Bay,
and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including tidal wetlands and
riparian habitat;
(iii) fish screen and fish passage improvement projects;
(iv) implementation of an invasive species program,
including prevention, control, and eradication;
(v) development and integration of State and Federal
agricultural programs that benefit wildlife into the
Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(vi) financial and technical support for locally-based
collaborative programs to restore habitat while addressing
the concerns of local communities;
(vii) water quality improvement projects to reduce
salinity, selenium, mercury, pesticides, trace metals,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, sediment, and other pollutants;
(viii) land and water acquisitions to improve habitat and
fish spawning and survival in the Delta and its tributaries;
(ix) integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration,
and levee protection projects;
(x) scientific evaluations and targeted research on program
activities; and
(xi) strategic planning and tracking of program
performance.
(H) Watersheds. Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds
affecting the Bay-Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for watershed assessments and
management plans; and
(iii) developing and implementing locally-based watersheds
conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
(I) Water quality.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley
to improve downstream water quality, including habitat
restoration projects that reduce drainage and improve water
quality, provided that--
(I) a plan is in place for monitoring downstream water
quality improvements;
(II) state and local agencies are consulted on the
activities to be funded; and
(III) this clause is not intended to create any right,
benefit or privilege;
(ii) implementation of source control programs in the Delta
and its tributaries;
(iii) developing recommendations through scientific panels
and advisory council processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in Delta water quality
for all uses;
(iv) investing in treatment technology demonstration
projects;
(v) controlling runoff into the California aqueduct and
other similar conveyances;
(vi) addressing water quality problems at the North Bay
Aqueduct;
(vii) studying recirculation of export water to reduce
salinity and improve dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin
River,
(viii) supporting and participating in the development of
projects to enable San Francisco Bay Area water districts to
work cooperatively to address their water quality and supply
reliability issues, including connections between aqueducts,
water conservation measures, institutional arrangements, and
infrastructure improvements that encourage regional
approaches, and investigations and studies of available
capacity in a project to deliver water to the East Bay
Municipal Utility District under its contract with the Bureau
of Reclamation dated July 20, 2001, in order to determine if
such capacity can be utilized to meet the above objectives;
Provided, That these investigations and studies shall be
conducted consistent with the Record of Decision;
(ix) development of water quality exchanges and other
programs to make high quality water available to urban areas;
and
(x) development and implementation of a plan to meet all
existing water quality standards for which the State and
Federal water projects have responsibility.
(J) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $70,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(i) assisting local reclamation districts in reconstructing
Delta levees to a base level of protection (not to exceed
$20,000,000);
(ii) enhancing the stability of levees that have particular
importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special
Improvement Projects program (not to exceed $20,000,000);
(iii) developing best management practices to control and
reverse land subsidence on Delta islands (not to exceed
$1,000,000);
(iv) refining the Delta Emergency Management Plan (not to
exceed $1,000,000);

[[Page S6862]]

(v) developing a Delta Risk Management Strategy after
assessing the consequences of Delta levee failure from
floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes (not to exceed
$500,000);
(vi) developing a strategy for reuse of dredged materials
on Delta islands (not to exceed $1,500,000);
(vii) evaluating, and where appropriate, rehabilitating the
Suisun Marsh levees (not to exceed $6,000,000); and
(viii) integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration,
and levee protection projects, including design and
construction of lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne
River floodway improvements and other projects under the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Comprehensive Study (not to exceed
$20,000,000).
(K) Science.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more
than $50,000,000 may be expended for the following:
(i) establishing and maintaining an independent science
board, technical panels, and standing boards to provide
oversight and peer review of the program;
(ii) conducting expert evaluations and scientific
assessments of all program elements;
(iii) coordinating existing monitoring and scientific
research programs;
(iv) developing and implementing adaptive management
experiments to test, refine and improve scientific
understandings;
(v) establishing performance measures, and monitoring and
evaluating the performance of all program elements; and
(vi) preparing an annual Science Report.
(L) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $25,000,000
may be expended by the Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, for the following:
(i) program-wide tracking of schedules, finances, and
performance;
(ii) multi-agency oversight and coordination of Calfed
activities to ensure program balance and integration;
(iii) development of interagency cross-cut budgets and a
comprehensive finance plan to allocate costs in accordance
with the beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of
Decision;
(iv) coordination of public outreach and involvement,
including tribal, environmental justice, and public advisory
activities under the Federal Advisory Committee Act; and
(v) development of Annual Reports.
(M) Diversification of water supplies.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through
2007 under this Act, no more than $30,000,000 may be expended
to diversify sources of level 2 refuge supplies and modes of
delivery to refuges, and to acquire additional water for
level 4 refuge supplies.
(4) Authorized actions.--The Secretary and the Federal
agency heads are authorized to carry out the activities
authorized by this Act through the use of grants, loans,
contracts, and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-
Federal entities where the Secretary or Federal agency head
determines that the grant, loan, contract, or cooperative
agreement will assist in implementing the authorized activity
in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective manner. Provided,
however, that such activities shall not include construction
unless the United States is a party to the contract for
construction.

SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT.

(a) Coordination.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Federal agencies shall coordinate their
activities with the State agencies.
(b) Public Participation.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program, the Federal agencies shall cooperate with
local and tribal governments and the public through a
federally chartered advisory committee or other appropriate
means, to seek input on program elements such as planning,
design, technical assistance, and development of peer review
science programs.
(c) Science.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program,
the Federal agencies shall seek to ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, that--
(1) all major aspects of implementing the Program are
subjected to credible and objective scientific review; and
(2) major decisions are based upon the best available
scientific information.
(d) Governance.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Secretary and the Federal agency heads are
authorized to become voting members of the California Bay-
Delta Authority, as established in the California Bay-Delta
Authority Act (2002 Cal. Stat. Chap. 812), to the extent
consistent with Federal law. Nothing in this subsection shall
preempt or otherwise affect any Federal law or limit the
statutory authority of any Federal agency: Provided, That the
California Bay-Delta Authority shall not be deemed to be an
advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the financial interests
of the California Bay-Delta Authority shall not be imputed to
any Federal official participating in such Authority.
(e) Environmental Justice.--Consistent with Executive Order
12899 pertaining to Federal Actions to address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, it is the
intent of the Congress that the Federal and State agencies
should continue to collaborate to develop a comprehensive
environmental justice workplan for the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program and fulfill the commitment to addressing
environmental justice challenges referred to in the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program Environmental Justice Workplan dated
December 13, 2000.
(f) Land Acquisition.--Before obligating or expending any
Federal funds to acquire land for the Ecosystem Restoration
Program, the Secretary shall first determine that existing
Federal land, State land, or other public land is not
available for the project purpose. Private land acquisitions
shall prioritize easements over acquisition of fee title
unless easements are unavailable or unsuitable for the stated
purpose.
(g) Status Reports.--The Secretary shall report monthly on
the Authority's progress in achieving the water supply
targets as described in Section 2.2.4 of the Record of
Decision, the environmental water account requirements as
described in Section 2.2.7, and the water quality targets as
described in Section 2.2.9, and any pending actions that may
affect the Authority's ability to achieve those targets and
requirements.

SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Report and Certification by Calfed.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Governor, shall submit a report of the
California Bay-Delta Authority by December 15 of each year to
the appropriate authorizing and appropriating Committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives that describes
the status of implementation of all components of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program and that certifies whether or not the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program is progressing in a balanced manner
which allows all program components to be advanced, including
additional water supply, ecosystem restoration, and water
quality. The Secretary's report shall describe--
(1) the progress of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program in meeting
the implementation schedule for the Program in a manner
consistent with the Record of Decision;
(2) the status of implementation of all components of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program;
(3) expenditures in the past fiscal year and year to date
for implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program; and
(4) accomplishments in the past fiscal year and year to
date in achieving the objectives of additional and improved--
(A) water storage;
(B) water quality;
(C) water use efficiency;
(D) ecosystem restoration;
(E) watershed management;
(F) levee system integrity;
(G) water transfers;
(H) water conveyance; and
(I) water supply reliability.

The report shall discuss the status of Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goals, current schedules, and relevant financing
agreements.
(b) Statement of Balance.--Substantial progress in each of
the categories listed in subsection (a) shall be considered
in determining whether the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
is proceeding in a balanced manner for purposes of making
the certification provided for in subsection (a). In
addition, in making such certification the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Governor, shall prepare a statement
of whether the program is in balance which takes into
consideration the following:
(1) status of all Stage 1 actions, including goals,
schedules, and financing agreements;
(2) progress on storage projects, conveyance improvements,
levee improvements, water quality projects, and water use
efficiency programs;
(3) completion of key projects and milestones identified in
the Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(4) development and implementation of local programs for
watershed conservation and restoration;
(5) progress in improving water supply reliability and
implementing the Environmental Water Account;
(6) achievement of commitments under State and Federal
Endangered Species Act;
(7) implementation of a comprehensive science program;
(8) progress toward acquisition of the State and Federal
permits, including Clean Water Act section 404(a) permits,
for implementation of projects in all identified program
areas;
(9) progress in achieving benefits in all geographic
regions covered by the Program;
(10) legislative action on water transfer, groundwater
management, water use efficiency, and governance issues;
(11) status of complementary actions;
(12) status of mitigation measures; and
(13) revisions to funding commitments and program
responsibilities
(c) Revised Schedule.--If the report provided for in
subsection (a) and the statement of balance provided for in
subsection (b) conclude that the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is
not progressing in a balanced manner so that no certification
of balanced implementation can be made, the California Bay-
Delta Authority shall prepare a revised schedule to ensure
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program will progress in a balanced
manner consistent with the intent of the Record of Decision.
This revised schedule shall be subject to approval by the
Secretary and the Governor, and upon such approval, shall be
submitted to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(d) Feasibility Studies.--Any feasibility studies completed
for storage projects as a

[[Page S6863]]

result of this Act shall include identification of project
benefits and beneficiaries and a cost allocation plan
consistent with the beneficiaries pay provisions of the
Record of Decision.
(e) Financial Summary.--In addition to the report required
pursuant to subsection (a), no later than February 15 of each
year the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
authorizing and appropriating committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a financial report certified by
the Secretary containing a detailed accounting of all funds
received and obligated by all Federal and State agencies
responsible for implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program in
the previous fiscal year, a budget for the proposed projects
(including a description of the project, authorization level,
and project status) to be carried out in the upcoming fiscal
year with the Federal portion of funds authorized under this
Act, and a listing of all projects to be undertaken in the
upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion of funds
authorized under this Act.
(f) Report.--Prior to December 2004, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Governor and the Federal agency heads,
shall submit a report to Congress that:
(1) details the accomplishments of the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program to date;
(2) identifies the specific steps that remain to be
undertaken in the Program;
(3) sets forth the specific funding levels and sources to
accomplish such steps; and
(4) makes such recommendations as may be necessary to
accomplish the goals and objectives of the continuing Calfed
Bay-Delta Program.

SEC. 6. CROSSCUT BUDGET AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Crosscut Budget.--The President's Budget shall include
requests for the appropriate level of funding for each of the
Federal agencies to carry out its responsibilities under the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program. Such funds shall be requested for
the Federal agency with authority and programmatic
responsibility for the obligation of such funds, as set forth
in section 3(c)(2). At the time of submission of the
President's Budget to the Congress, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the
appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives an interagency budget
crosscut report that displays the budget proposed, including
any interagency or intra-agency transfer, for each of the
Federal agencies to carry out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
for the upcoming fiscal year, separately showing funding
requested under both pre-existing authorities and under the
new authorities granted by this Act. The report shall also
identify all expenditures since 1996 within the Federal and
State governments used to achieve the objectives of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary and the heads of the
Federal agencies $880,000,000 pay the Federal share of
carrying out Stage 1 of the Record of Decision for fiscal
years 2004 through 2007, in accordance with the provisions of
this Act. The funds shall remain available without fiscal
year limitation.

SEC. 7. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

The Federal share of the cost of implementing Stage 1 of
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of
Decision shall not exceed 33.3 percent.

SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

Nothing in this Act preempts or otherwise affects any
Federal or State law, including any authority of a Federal
agency to carry out activities related to, or in furtherance
of, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Kyl, and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 1099. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century with respect to national corridor planning and development and
coordinated border infrastructure and safety; to the Committee on
Environmental and Public Works.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the past 50 years U.S.
transportation policy has focused on building a system designed to meet
the needs of a rapidly growing population that was still expanding
westward. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will ease
congestion brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA, by reforming the Coordinate Border Infrastructure Program and
the National Corridor Planning and Development Program. These two
programs are commonly known, collectively, as the Border and Corridor
program.
Thanks to NAFTA, more of our trade crosses international borders, and
80 percent of that trade moves into and through the United States in
trucks. Since the passage of NAFTA in 1993, traffic on America's trade
corridors has doubled. Although this commerce has been a boon to the
Nation's economy, it has been devastating to some of the country's
infrastructure. With almost 80 percent of the NAFTA trade traveling
through my home State of Texas, the increased volume has further
congested and worn out our major highways including I-35, and created
the need for new highways like I-69 and Ports-To-Plains. The loss of
productivity resulting from increased time spent in traffic, and the
declining condition of critical international corridors will have the
long term effect of diminishing the economic benefits of NAFTA trade.
It is also forcing border States to bear an unfair portion of the
infrastructure cost.
In TEA-21, Congress created the Border and Corridor programs,
intending to address the infrastructure needs generated by NAFTA trade.
Unfortunately, funding for those discretionary programs has often been
misdirected to non-border states and corridors lacking international
significance.
The Border and Corridor programs provide funds for projects on the
border to speed international crossings, and to provide resources to
High Priority Corridors that experience increased NAFTA truck traffic.
With almost every state in the country having a designated High
Priority Corridor, the limited funding was insufficient to provide any
real benefit where it is most needed. My legislation will reaffirm that
only those corridors that are carrying the burden on NAFTA trade are
eligible to receive funding.
Both programs are important to the goal of addressing infrastructure
needs resulting from NAFTA trade traffic. However, the two programs do
not always receive equal funding. My legislation will guarantee that
the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program will receive 50 percent
of the available funding, to ensure that border regions will have the
resources to conduct truck and bus inspections, and inspect commercial
vehicles rapidly enough to keep traffic moving at the border.
As Congress considers TEA-21 reauthorization, I will be dedicated to
shifting the federal focus on programs that can address the critical
need of states that have been impacted by NAFTA trade traffic. I want
to thank my cosponsors, including Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Kyl, and
Cornyn for recognizing the importance of restoring fairness to these
critical highway programs.
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. 1099

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

SECTION 1. NAFTA CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 1118 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``The Secretary shall provide
consideration to corridors where traffic has increased since
the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act and is projected to increase in
the future.'' in subsection (a) after ``trade.'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Eligibility of Corridors.--The Secretary may make
allocations under this section with respect to high priority
corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that connect to
the border between the United States and Mexico or the United
States and Canada.
(3) by striking ``and section 1119'' in subsection (e); and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Funding.--Fifty percent of the funds made available
by section 1101 of this Act to carry out section 1119 and
this section for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009 shall
be--
``(1) available for obligation to carry out this section;
and
``(2) made available for obligation in the same manner as
if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section heading.--Section 1118 of that Act is amended
by striking ``NATIONAL'' in the section heading and inserting
``NAFTA''.
(2) Table of contents.--Section 1(b) of that Act is amended
by striking the item relating to section 1118 and inserting
the following:

``Sec. 1118. NAFTA corridor planning and development program.''.

SEC. 2. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE.

(a) In General.--Section 1101(a)(9) is amended by striking
``2003.'' and inserting ``2003, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.

[[Page S6864]]

Section 1119 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection
(e) as subsection (d); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Funding.--Fifty percent of the funds made available
by section 1101 of this Act to carry out section 1118 and
this section for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009 shall
be--
``(1) available for obligation to carry out this section;
and
``(2) made available for obligation in the same manner as
if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code.''.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Graham of South Carolina):
S. 1100. A bill to restore fairness and improve the appeal of public
service to the Federal judiciary by improving compensation and
benefits, and to instill greater public confidence in the Federal
courts; to the Committee on the Judicary.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with the junior
Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, entitled ``Securing
Judicial Independence Act of 2003.'' This legislation is desperately
needed to increase the compensation for members of the Federal bench.
Before I came to work in the United States Congress in 1982, I
practiced law in my home State of Nevada. I am proud to be a lawyer,
and I have great respect and appreciation for the practice of law and
those involved in the judicial process. The very reason there has been
such a great deal of debate on the Senate floor regarding Federal
judicial nominations is precisely because these positions are so
important to the administration of a fair and effective legal system.
The individuals chosen to serve on our Federal bench make lifetime
commitments to public service. However, at the same time we have
vacancies on the bench, the real pay for these jobs has declined
drastically. The compensation for Federal judges has diminished by 25
percent in the past three decades. How can we continue to attract the
``best of the best'' when low salaries are offered for lifetime
tenures?
The answer is simple. In order to continue to attract and retain the
most talented men and women to the Federal bench the salaries must be
raised. Our forefathers recognized that judicial compensation was
intricately tied to judicial independence. In 1989, Congress linked the
salaries of its own members to senior executives and Federal judges. As
a result, Federal judges did not receive cost of living increases for
several years in the 1990s. Additionally, even the Justices of our
highest court, the United States Supreme Court, make far less than
leaders of educational institutions and not-for-profit organizations.
Thus, in raising Federal judicial salaries by 25 percent and
eliminating the annual Congressional authorization of cost of living
adjustments for Federal judges, this bill helps to secure judicial
independence. It restores both fairness and the appeal of public
service to the Federal judiciary by improving compensation. Better
compensation means better quality judges, and quality judges instill
greater public confidence in the Federal courts. Our Constitution
creates lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, and the men and
women who accept these positions are giving up far more lucrative
careers. They do this based on a calling to public service and a
devotion to the administration and adherence of Federal laws. While the
salaries are not of the level these individuals could demand in the
private sector, it is only fair they be adequately compensated. 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. 1100

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 ``Securing Judicial
Independence Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) Restoration of Statutory Cost of Living Adjustments.--
Each salary rate which is subject to adjustment under section
461 of title 28, United States Code, is adjusted by an
amount, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or if midway
between multiples of $100, to the next higher multiple of
$100) equal to 25 percent of that salary rate in effect on
the date preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF ANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR COST
OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

Section 140 of Public Law 97-92 (28 U.S.C. 461 note) is
repealed.

SEC. 4. SURVIVOR BENEFITS UNDER JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND OTHER
SYSTEMS.

(a) Creditable Years of Service.--Section 376 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (k)(3), by striking the colon through
``this section''; and
(2) in subsection (r), by striking the colon through
``other annuity''.
(b) Notification Period for Survivor Annuity Coverage.--
(1) In general.--Section 376 (a)(1) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended in the matter following subparagraph
(G) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act and apply only to written
notifications received by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts after the dates described
under clause (i) or (ii) in the matter following subparagraph
(G) of section 376 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd,
Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 1101. A bill to provide for a comprehensive Federal effort
relating to early detection of, treatments for, and the prevention of
cancer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Cancer Act of 2003. I am pleased to have the support of Senators Smith,
Daschle, Jeffords, Kennedy, Collins, Landrieu, Hutchison, Johnson,
Corzine, Lincoln, Clinton, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Murray, Dodd, Boxer,
Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Schumer, Hollings, Reed, Kerry, Mikulski, and
Leahy on this important piece of legislation.
Today, cancer is the Nation's second cause of death, trailing heart
disease. Over the next 30 years, however, cancer will surpass heart
disease and become the leading cause of death as the Baby Boomers age.
This bill represents a comprehensive national battle plan to re-
energize the Nation's war on cancer, a war that began on January 22,
1971 when President Richard Nixon proposed to Congress that we launch a
war on cancer.
That commitment marked a critical first step. But it is clear that we
must take further steps to address the scourge of cancer in every
respect.
I am the Vice-Chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer--and in
discussions with cancer experts from this group, it became clear to me
that the National Cancer Act of 1971 was out of date.
We are now in the genomic era, on the cusp of discoveries and cures
that we could only have dreamed about in 1971. The science of cancer
has advanced dramatically with the revolution in molecular and cellular
biology creating unprecedented opportunities for understanding how
genetics relate to cancer.
The explosion in knowledge about the human genome and molecular
biology will enable scientists to better target cancer drugs.
I believe that if we work smart we could find a cure for cancer in my
lifetime.
Given these advances, I strongly believe that it is time to update
the National Cancer Act of 1971, to reflect these breakthroughs. At the
same time, I wanted to get input from some of the nation's foremost
cancer experts.
To that end, I asked John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer
Society, and Dr. Vincent DeVita, Director of the Yale Cancer Center, to
form a special committee of cancer experts to provide recommendations
on a national battle plan to conquer cancer.
The committee produced an ambitious plan, and what I have tried to do
is take the most important components, in light of the current budget

[[Page S6865]]

situation, and develop a piece of legislation that could pass the
Senate.
On November 7, 2001, President George W. Bush commended the work of
the Committee when he wrote, ``The journey ahead will not be easy. But
30 years ago, no one would have imagined coming as far as we have.
Working together, we will take the next steps necessary to defeat this
deadly disease.''
Today, I invite the President to join me again in taking these steps
by supporting this legislation.
Finding a cure for cancer is a very personal goal. I lost both my
father and my husband to cancer. I saw its ravages firsthand, and I
experienced the frustrations, the difficulties, and the loneliness that
people suffer when a loved-one has cancer. I determined that I would do
all I could to reduce the number of people who go through this
devastating experience.
And it is my great hope that this legislation will help do just that,
and enable us to find a cure for cancer in my lifetime.
This may in fact be the most important thing I do during my time in
the Senate.
And I believe that this legislation addresses the issue in the right
way, and I hope that my colleagues will agree.
The National Cancer Act of 2003 takes a multi-pronged approach to
winning the war against cancer. Here's what the bill will do: 1.
Accelerate Scientific Discovery. The advances in science that I spoke
of earlier, regarding the human genome and molecular biology, have
produced medications that can target the unhealthy cancer cells and
leave healthy cells intact.
That is why this legislation establishes a grant program of $20
million a year, specifically for research that focuses on the
development of a molecularly-oriented knowledge-based approach to
cancer drug discovery and development.
It also includes a sense of the Senate to encourage the Federal
Government to continue its investment in cancer research by staying on
track to funding the NCI bypass budget.
NCI now funds approximately 4,500 research project grants at nearly
600 institutions every year. This represents 28 percent of the 16,000
grant proposals NCI receives. NCI scientists think funding 40 percent
will allow them to fund the most promising grants. Yet at 28 percent,
it does not happen.
Funding basic research marks a full frontal assault on cancer--an
assault that will lead to more breakthroughs, more treatments, and
ultimately, I believe, to a cure.
We now have drugs, like Gleevec for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia and
Herceptin for breast cancer, that can target and destroy cancer cells
while leaving healthy cells unharmed.
Patients, who were considered terminal, have taken Gleevec and were
able to get out of their beds and leave the hospice within days of
treatment. After one-year of clinical trials for Gleevec, 51 out of 54
patients were still doing well. With 4,500 Americans diagnosed with
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia a year, the potential for this drug is
tremendous.
From the Bench to the Bedside: Expanding Access to Clinical Trials.
First, the bill will provide $100 million per year for new grants for
what is called ``translational'' research, work that moves promising
drugs from the ``bench to the bedside.''
The purpose of this provision is to greatly accelerate the movement
of basic research to the patient, from the ``bench to the bedside,'' so
that we can conduct more clinical trials.
Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of drugs, devices or new
medical techniques. They are required for FDA approval. These trials
require thousands of participating people to help determine if drugs
are safe and effective.
The bill includes several steps to expand clinical trials, those
research projects that require thousands of people to determine whether
new drugs are safe and effective.
Right now, there are many new drugs under development that are stuck,
as if in a funnel, because we have not put the resources into having
the people-based research to test those drugs. There are approximately
400 new drugs that are held up in the development process because the
resources are not available to fund clinical research to test those
drugs.
For every one drug approved, 5,000 to 10,000 were initially
considered. The entire process can take as long as 15 years.
Second, the bill will require insurers to pay the routine or non-
research costs for people to participate in clinical trials, while the
drug sponsor would continue to pay the research costs. California
already requires this coverage by private insurers.
Third, the bill requires the National Cancer Institute to establish a
program to recruit patients and doctors to participate in clinical
trials. Dr. Robert Comis, President of the Coalition of National Cancer
Cooperative Groups, has said that eight out of ten cancer patients do
not consider participating in a clinical trial. They are unaware that
they might have the option. He has found that physician involvement is
key.
This is why we must work to make both physicians and patients more
aware of the importance of participating.
Currently, only 4 to 5 percent of adult cancer patients participate
in clinical cancer trials. But Research America polls found that 61
percent of Americans would participate in a clinical trial if they
could.
We should heed the example of what is called the ``pediatric model.''
Over 60 percent of children with cancer participate in clinical trials.
Children in these trials get optimal care, with an overall physician
manager or ``quarterback.'' The five-year survival rates for children
with cancer have increased significantly.
In the 1960s, childhood leukemia could not be cured. It was a death
sentence. Today, 70 percent of children with acute lymphoblastic
leukemia enter remission. This is but one example of the power and
importance of clinical trials. An investigational treatment yesterday
is standard treatment today.
Only by injecting new funding into cancer research will we enable
cancer researchers to conduct the trials that are necessary to bring
promising new drugs to market.
3. Transforming Research Into Treatments. Scientists say we will stop
defining cancer by body part, like breast cancer or prostate cancer.
Because everyday we are understanding better the genetic basis of
cancer and can focus drugs on molecular targets. For example, we may
have 50 different kinds of breast cancer, defined by their genetic
basis.
As NCI's Dr. Rabson has said, ``As we've come to understand the
molecular signatures of cancer cells, we can classify tumors according
to their genetic characteristics.''
This means that we need to create incentives to encourage companies
to make these targeted drugs, because as we redefine cancer, we will
have smaller numbers of people who have that particular kind of breast
cancer. Companies are often reluctant to make drugs for small patient
populations.
This legislation would expand the current definition of ``orphan
drugs'' from ``disease and condition'' to include ``disease or
condition or targets and mechanisms of pathogenesis of diseases'' that
effect a small patient population, less than 200,000. Current tax and
marketing incentives remain the same. With an expansion of the
definition, however, more drugs could potentially qualify for this
designation.
Beginning with Gleevec and continuing into the future, drugs will
target a narrow genetic or cellular mutation.
While this holds great promise for patients, it also means that the
number of treatments will proliferate, thereby segmenting cancer
patients into smaller and smaller populations. In some cases, this will
mean that pharmaceutical companies for strictly financial reasons may
not want to produce a given drug.
The impact: This will help to ensure that patients receive the
highest quality care, even when the number of people faced with a
particular type of cancer is small.
4. Having Enough Scientists. The bill will also create a new
initiative to train more cancer researchers. Specifically, it will: 1.
Pay off the medical school loans of 100 physicians who commit to spend
at least 3 years doing cancer research; and 2. Boost the salaries of
postdoctoral fellows from $28,000 to $45,000 per year over 5 years.

[[Page S6866]]

Every year, young physicians and researchers avoid the field of
cancer research because, frankly, they feel they can make more money
elsewhere. This provision will help reverse that trend and add
thousands of men and women to the front lines of the fight.
The physician-scientist is endangered and essential, concluded a
January 1999 study, showing that the number of first-time M.D.
applicants for NIH research projects has been declining. The study,
published in Science, said, ``. . . fewer young M.D.'s are interested
in (or perhaps prepared for) careers as independent NIH-supported
investigators.''
Simply put, young doctors and Ph.Ds do not want to go into cancer
research because they can make more money elsewhere. Graduating
physicians have medical school debt averaging $75,000 to $80,000.
Because of the low pay to be a physician-scientist, these doctors
cannot afford to go into research.
Postdoctoral fellows, who conduct the bulk of day-to-day research,
receive pay that is neither commensurate with their education and
skills nor adequate. To attract the best and the brightest to the field
of cancer research, we need to pay them more than $28,000 to start.
The National Academy of Sciences in September 2000 called for
increasing their compensation.
5. Quality Cancer Care. All too often having cancer is a lonely and
frightening experience. Cancer patients have a team of doctors, from
the primary care physician to the radiologist to the oncologist. Yet
patients need one doctor to be in charge.
During a June 16, 1999 hearing, The Institute of Medicine told the
Senate Cancer Coalition that the care that cancer patients get is all
too often just a matter of circumstance: ``. . . for many Americans
with cancer, there is a wide gulf between what could be construed as
the ideal and the reality of [Americans'] experience with cancer care .
. . The ad hoc and fragmented cancer care system does not ensure access
to care, lacks coordination, and is inefficient in its use of
resources.''
The Institute of Medicine study on the uneven quality of health care
says, ``Health care today is characterized by more to know, more to
manage, more to watch, more to do, and more people involved in doing it
than at any time in the nation's history.''
The bill will require insurance plans to pay doctors, preferably
oncologists, to become the overall managers of patients' care, what I
call a ``quarterback physician,'' to be with the patient from diagnosis
through treatment, to prevent the patient from being forced to navigate
the medical system alone.
I developed this concept after meeting Dr. Judy Schmidt, a solo-
practicing oncologist from Montana. Dr. Schmidt cares for her patients
from diagnosis to treatment, and she is really a model for doctors
across the Nation to emulate.
This ``quarterback physician'' would provide overall management of
the patient's care among all the providers. Someone would be in charge.
This provision could save money because good coordination can reduce
hospitalization costs.
The bill authorizes grants to health centers for the development and
operation of programs that assign patient navigators, nurses, social
workers, cancer survivors and patient advocates, to individuals of
health disparity populations, to assist in following-up on a cancer
diagnosis and to help them find the appropriate services and follow-up
care, which includes facilitating access to health care services.
This program is important because many people receive unequal access
to care. The Institute of Medicine issued a report last year called
Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health
Care. This report emphasized the importance of ``providing advocates
for patients who can assist them in asking the appropriate questions,
and making the necessary inquiries as they access the health are system
. . . ''
Often these are patients without health insurance who are not fluent
in English. Having a culturally appropriate ``navigator'' who will
assist them in making appointments and understanding the services
available to them could help improve quality of life for minorities.

Lastly, the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for
Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute to monitor and
evaluate quality cancer care, develop information concerning quality
cancer care and monitor cancer survivorship.
6. Coverage of Preventive Measures. People cannot get good health
care if they have no way to pay for it, if insurance plans, public and
private, do not cover the basics like screenings for cancer.
My bill will require public plans, like Medicare and Medicaid, and
private insurance plans to cover four services important to good cancer
care: 1. Cancer screenings; 2. Genetic testing and counseling for
people at risk; 3. Smoking cessation counseling; and 4. Nutrition
counseling.
Access to mammograms, pelvic exams, along with reducing fat in the
diet and stopping smoking--all of which could be enhanced by this
bill--can stop cancer before it is too late.
Because too many Americans have no way to pay for their health care
when cancer strikes and because seven percent of cancer patients are
uninsured, the bill also requires the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the feasibility and
cost of providing Medicare coverage to individuals at any age who are
diagnosed with cancer and have no other way to pay for their health
care.
Medicare already covers care for people of any age who have End Stage
Renal Disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease.
This study could provide helpful guidance to the Congress.
Because no assault on cancer is complete without a strong cancer
prevention component, the bill provides funds and requires the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a model state cancer
control and prevention program; expand the National Program of
Comprehensive Cancer Control plans, and to assist every state to
develop a cancer prevention and control program.
The bill also authorizes $250 million to expand the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention's breast and cervical cancer screening
program and authorizes $50 million for CDC to begin screening programs
for colorectal cancer.
7. Bolstering the Number of Health Care Providers. Because of the
aging of the American population, we face a virtual explosion of cancer
in the coming 30 years. The number of cases will double. But the sad
fact is that we do not have enough nurses and other health care
professionals to take care of this expected rise in cancer patients.
My bill will provide $100 million for loans, grants and fellowships
to train for the full range of cancer care providers, including nurses
for all settings, allied health professionals, and physicians. The bill
requires that these applicants have the intention to get a certificate,
degree, or license and demonstrate a commitment to working in cancer
care.
In nursing alone--those critical people on the front line of care--
many experts say we face a national nursing shortage in virtually every
setting, which will peak in the next 10 to 15 years unless steps are
taken. By 2020, the RN workforce will be 20 percent short of what will
be needed. My home State of California ranks 50th among registered
nurses per capita.
And it's not just nurses. The Health Resources Services
Administration says that the demand of health care professionals will
grow at twice the rate of other occupations.
Cancer is primarily a disease of aging. As the baby boomers age,
there will be more cancer. Cancer care is becoming more and more
complex as technology improves. Skilled providers, from the nurse
assistant to the oncologist are needed to administer the complex
therapies. This bill should provide some help.
8. Cancer Survivorship. Thanks to advances in cancer detection and
early diagnosis, more aggressive and effective treatments, and better
screening tools, about 9 million Americans--nearly one in 30--can call
themselves a cancer survivor. This represents 3 percent of the
population.
Thirty years ago a cancer diagnosis was a death sentence. That is not
the case today. As a result, addressing a person's quality of life
post-cancer is becoming increasingly important.
To give you a snapshot picture of what a typical cancer survivor
looks

[[Page S6867]]

like: about 59 percent of cancer survivors are over the age of 65; 3
million (30 percent) were diagnosed between 5-15 years ago; and, 23
percent are breast cancer survivors and 17 percent are prostate cancer
survivors.
Current statistics suggest that for individuals who receive a
diagnosis today, 60 percent can expect to be alive in 5 years. The 5-
year survival rate for children is even higher--almost 75 percent.
What this means is that more than half of all people, children or
adults, diagnosed with cancer today, will become cancer survivors.
We've come a long way. And the survival rate for cancer will only get
better as we continue to make improvements in screenings, detection,
diagnosis and treatment.
But now we face new challenges. We need to better understand what
services are necessary to help address the needs of people who are
surviving cancer.
This bill would do several things to help support cancer survivors.
First, it would codify an Office of Cancer Survivorship at NCI. Since
1999, such an Office has been in existence but it has not been
officially recognized by Congress or received it's own budget.
This Office is crucial because it sets the research agenda at NCI on
survivorship-related issues.
The National Cancer Institute found in 1999 that ``surviving cancer
can leave a host of problems in its wake. Physical, emotional, and
financial hardships often persist for years after initial diagnosis and
treatment. Many survivors suffer decreased quality of life following
treatment, leading one cancer activist and survivor to say, `surviving
is not just about a cure, but about living the rest of our lives.' ''
For some, long-term health problems result, for example, because a
surgery to remove a cancer tumor has impaired nearby organs which could
cause additional health problems.
Additionally, patients who survive one cancer have almost twice the
risk of developing a second cancer as the general population. Almost
100,000 people are diagnosed each year with ``second cancers.'' What
can be done to reduce the chance of a second diagnosis of cancer?
And the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for Disease
Control for activities including the development of a cancer
surveillance system to track the health status of cancer survivors, and
the development of a national cancer survivorship action plan.
For 9 years I have co-chaired the Senate Cancer Coalition. We have
held ten hearings on cancer. With each hearing, I become more and more
convinced that we can conquer cancer in my lifetime. These are the
highlights of the cancer battle plan.
It is my hope that this legislation will become the rallying cry for
the Cancer community.
Polls by Research America show that the public wants their tax
dollars spent on medical research and that in fact people will pay more
in taxes for more medical research.
Cancer impacts everyone. Everyone knows someone who has had cancer or
will have cancer.
I am thoroughly convinced that if we just marshal the resources, we
can conquer cancer in the 21st century. Let's begin. The road ahead is
long and treacherous. But if we all work together, I honestly believe
we can do it.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
National Cancer Act of 2003. This bill represents the way ahead in the
battle against cancer, and I am proud to co-sponsor it again in the
108th Congress.
Like many Americans, I have seen the battle for cancer first hand. I
support this important legislation for the millions of Americans who
have been diagnosed with cancer and their family members. I do so also
in honor of my mother, whom I lost to cancer in October, 2001.
The statistics for cancer victims can be so numbing that they lose
their effect over time, but behind every number is a face and a family.
And while Oregon is a small state, the pain experienced by cancer
sufferers and their families is the same regardless of where they live.
Cancer kills more people in my home State of Oregon than any other
condition except heart disease, and as the population ages, it will
surpass heart disease to become the number one killer. Each year, more
than 18,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed among Oregonians--about
50 every day. On average, 19 Oregonians die of cancer every day.
Breast cancer is the most often diagnosed cancer in Oregon. Nine
women every day hear the words, ``You have breast cancer,'' and every
day, one family in Oregon will lose a family member to breast cancer.
Every three days, one child in Oregon will be diagnosed with cancer.
I could continue to cite statistics, but the message is clear: we
have worked hard to eradicate cancer, but we must do more. While little
progress has been made in reducing the incidence of cancer, advances
from research are producing more effective treatments, allowing us to
improve mortality rates. The National Cancer Act of 2003 is designed to
do just that. It represents a comprehensive plan to speed the discovery
and application of new cancer treatments to find cures for--and to
prevent--cancer.
The bill's special provisions for additional research dollars for
targeted cancer drugs will directly impact the work of Brian Druker, a
researcher at Oregon Health and Sciences University who has worked to
develop a cancer treatment and prevention drug called Gleevac. Gleevac
is a promising new oral treatment for patients with chronic myeloid
leukemia, CML--a rare, life-threatening form of cancer.
The National Cancer Act will help ensure that new and groundbreaking
cancer treatments like Gleevac make their way from the research bench
to the patient's bedside table faster. Currently, there are many
promising new drugs awaiting clinical trial. Although 60 percent of
children with cancer are currently participating in clinical drug
trials, only 4-5 percent of adult patients do the same. In order to
save lives, new cancer drugs must be tested and perfected.
The National Cancer Act will also authorize a program to help
attract, train, and retrain health care professionals who provide
cancer care. By offering tuition assistance in exchange for cancer
patient care, the National Cancer Act makes a decisive step in
lessening a Nation-wide cancer-care workforce crisis.
The National Cancer Act also aims to stop cancer before it starts by
allocating significant funds to early prevention and detection efforts.
The bill would require that insurers pay for cancer screenings, smoking
cessation, nutritional counseling and other preventive measures.
Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid would be authorized to make
payments to cancer specialists who coordinate their patients' cancer
care. Coordinated care will, in turn, improve the health outcomes for
cancer patients.
I am also pleased that this year the bill adds a new provision
authorizing the creation of a permanent office of Cancer Survivorship
to focus research on the issues of cancer survivors. By developing a
new cancer surveillance system and a national cancer survivorship
action plan, we will be better able to address the challenges affecting
those in recovery.
Cancer is not a partisan disease and we can, and should, do more to
treat and prevent it. I am proud to sponsor the National Cancer Act of
2003 as a Republican, an American, and a member of the human family.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Prevention and
Recovery of Missing Children's Act. I especially want to commend my
colleagues Senator Dodd and Senator Collins for their hard work on this
important legislation.
Sex offenders prey upon the weakest and most innocent in our
society--our youth--and in astonishing numbers. According to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 3.9 million of the
Nation's 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 have been
seriously physically assaulted, and one in three girls and one in five
boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. Even more troubling is
the fact that most sex offenders are not in our prisons. Instead, they
remain in our communities, often targeting their next victim. To
illustrate, among the Federal Bureau of Investigation's `Most Wanted
Fugitives' is a sex offender who allegedly sexually abused a 12-year
old boy over a 6-year period

[[Page S6868]]

after he was released from prison for previous acts of sexual abuse.
Time and again we see convicted pedophiles kidnapping, brutally
raping, and in some cases, murdering young children. Too often we are
unable to thwart such heinous acts because recidivists succeed in
evading State registration requirements after they have been convicted
and released from prison. We have a duty to our children to ensure that
we know where convicted sex offenders are at all times. We also have a
duty to take every step to find our missing and exploited children
promptly.
The Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2003 will
enhance our ability to track recidivists and find child victims by
strengthening sexual offender registration laws and missing children
reporting requirements. This legislation (1) requires States to
register sexual offenders prior to their release from prison to ensure
that they comply with sex registration requirements; (2) requires
States to obtain a DNA sample, as well as a photo and fingerprints,
from convicted sexual offenders; (3) requires convicted sexual
offenders to obtain a driver's license or State identification card as
an additional means of identification; (4) requires convicted sexual
offenders to report any change in registration within 10 days; (5)
requires convicted sexual offenders to verify their registration
information every 90 days; (6) makes it a felony offense to fail to
comply with any sexual registration requirement; and (7) strengthens
the missing children reporting requirements that are imposed on States.
It is critical that the law enforcement community be able to track
down known child predators and to find our missing and exploited
children promptly. This legislation provides law enforcement with the
tools they need to achieve these goals. I am committed to working with
Senator Dodd and Senator Collins to enhance this valuable legislation
even further.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1102. A bill to assist law enforcement in their efforts to recover
missing children and to clarify the standards for State sex offender
registration programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Collins, and my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to
introduce the Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2003,
to improve the recovery of missing children and the tracking of
convicted sex offenders and child predators.
No child or parent should ever have to go through the recent nine-
month ordeal of Elizabeth Smart and her family. Yet, from the sparse
information we have, we know that over one million families have
endured a similar, and sometimes far worse, trauma.
In only the second study of its kind, the National Incidence Studies
of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children, NISMART-2,
estimated that 1.3 million children met the criteria for being
classified as missing, including runaway, from their caretakers in
1999. It is estimated that almost 800,000 of these cases involved
notification to police or missing children agencies to help locate the
child. When a parent's worst fear for a missing child materializes, in
91 percent of the cases the child became the victim of a homicide
within 24 hours of abduction. In 74 percent of these cases, the
homicide occurred within 3 hours of abduction.
With statistics such as these, it is truly a miracle and cause for
celebration that Elizabeth Smart returned to her family alive and well
nine months after her abduction.
We must build and expand on practices we know lead to the safe return
of missing and abducted children. In Elizabeth's case, the family's
circulation of the suspect's photograph led to the capture of
Elizabeth's captor near her home community in Utah. This success story
highlights the importance of the recently enacted National AMBER Alert
Networks, which strengthens communication and notification to
facilitate the recovery of other abducted children.
As important as AMBER Alert systems are, these are but one tool in
our arsenal against child abduction. The bill we are introducing today
will strengthen other tools used by law enforcement to help take every
step possible to find missing children as soon as possible. For
instance, we know now that Elizabeth's captor was already in custody in
California during Elizabeth's ordeal. Those officials, at that time,
did not have in their possession information to connect him to the
Smart case. And so, he was released.
It is clear from this example that accurate, up-to-date information
on missing children cases nationwide must be made available to law
enforcement, as well. This act fosters the sharing of information about
missing child cases among law enforcement by requiring the entry of
child information into the National Crime Information Center, NCIC,
within 2 hours of receipt. NCIC is a critical resource for linking
16,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
The availability of up-to-date identifying information of known child
and sexual predators is a vital investigative tool. The women who
signaled police in the Elizabeth Smart case identified the captor after
seeing his photograph on television. One of these responsible women
noted that it was the photograph, and not the composite sketch, that
helped her recognize Elizabeth's captor as he walked down the street.
Whether the suspect in the Smart case had a history of sexual
offenses is unclear. But, what is clear is that we can do more to help
law enforcement track and investigate individuals with a history of
sexual offenses.
Over the last decade, Congress enacted several laws designed to
improve the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the recovery of
missing children, including The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994,
Megan's Law of 1996, and The Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and
Identification Act of 1996. Collectively, these acts established
minimum standards for State sex offender registration programs and
created systems to track convicted sex offenders.
While these current federal laws address the main features of an
effective registry system, the discretion over registry details and
procedures is left up to the states. This has led to a lack of
consistency and wide disparities between states. For example, state
requirements for sex offender notification of registration changes
range from 1 day to 40 days, and state requirements for a sex offender
to register an address after moving to a new state range from 48 hours
to 70 days.
In addition, many States place the burden to notify changes in
registry information solely on the sex offender. We need to tighten
registry systems so that law enforcement in all states is better
equipped to track sex offenders. This bill strengthens the registry
foundation for all states. It builds upon successful practices already
in place in some States, to better protect our communities nationwide.
Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers and create
unparalleled fear among citizens. Most of their victims are children
and youth. Two-thirds of imprisoned sex offenders report that their
victims were under age 18, and nearly half report that their victims
were ages 12 and younger.
The tracking of released sex offenders is critical to protecting our
children. Most sex offenders are not in prison--about 60 percent of
convicted sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the
community--and those who are in prison often serve limited sentences.
This is of great concern because sex offenders, particularly if
untreated, are at risk of re-offending.
For over two years, newspapers across the country, including the
Hartford Courant, have highlighted the inadequacy of reporting
information in missing child cases and tracking of convicted sex
offenders and known child predators. One tragic example reported a
convicted sex offender who moved from Massachusetts to Montana, where
police were never contacted about his history. He brutally murdered
several Montana children before he was apprehended, and was later
linked to 54 cases of child abduction and molestation in several
states.
In many cases, convicted sex offenders and child predators slip
through law enforcement loopholes and continue to prey on children.
While all 50 states have laws to create sex offender registry
databases, states are unable to

[[Page S6869]]

adequately track these felons. For instance, in California, 33,000, or
44 percent of registered offenders are missing; it is estimated that
states on average are unable to account for 24 percent of sex
offenders.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled against challenges from Alaska and
Connecticut, and upheld current law pertaining to sexual offender
registries. With the support of both Congress and the highest court of
our land, it is inconceivable to me that we now allow bookkeeping
challenges to deter law enforcements' ability to identify and locate
child predators.
This bill makes several important changes to improve the tracking of
sex offenders and the recovery of missing children. The bill: modifies
the definition of ``minimally sufficient program'' to include: the
registration of all convicted sex offenders prior to release; the
collection of information to assist in tracking individuals, including
a DNA sample, current photograph, driver's license and vehicle
information; and verification of address and employment information for
all offenders every 90 days. Modifies penalties for non-compliance with
registry requirements. It provides that State programs must designate
non-compliance as a felony and permits the issuance of a warrant. This
provision is intended to encourage compliance by offenders as well as
provide a tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. Improves the
chances for recovering missing children and aids law enforcement in
solving cases by preventing the removal of missing children from the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Improves the chances
for recovery of missing children by requiring entry of child
information into the NCIC database within 2 hours.
We must make the tracking of convicted sex offenders and the post-
release supervision of child sexual predators a higher priority. Since
most sex offenders are in the community, we must ensure there is
continuing contact and supervision of released sex offenders. Data
management challenges are simply inexcusable reasons for not protecting
our innocent children from crimes committed against them.
We have an obligation to protect our children from the abductors, sex
offenders and sexual predators who prey on our children. I urge my
colleagues to join myself, Senator Collins and Senator Hatch in
supporting and furthering this legislation.

____________________