[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.

                          ____________________