[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 101 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9246-S9252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1386. A bill to amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to 
provide for the use of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I introduce a bill that would help 
give our most highly honored veterans a medal more worthy of their 
bravery and sacrifice by requiring the use of 90 percent gold in the 
Congressional Medal of Honor instead of gold-plated brass, as is 
currently used.
  The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award our country 
bestows for valor in action against an enemy force. These are ordinary 
soldiers who performed extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving what 
President Lincoln termed ``the final full measure'' in doing so.
  This is the medal won by Marine Corps pilot, Captain Joe Foss, who in 
less than 30 days of combat over Guadalcanal, shot down 23 enemy 
planes, three in one engagement, and is credited with turning-back an 
entire Japanese bombing mission before it could drop a single bomb.
  This is the medal won by Army Private Edward Moskala who set aside 
his personal safety one night on the Island of Okinawa to assault two 
machine gun nests, provide cover for his unit as it withdrew, and 
rescue fallen comrades amidst a hail of enemy fire before finally 
suffering a mortal wound.
  This is the medal won by Pharmacist's Mate First Class Francis 
Pierce, Jr., who on the island of Iwo Jima exposed himself repeatedly 
to enemy fire to save the lives of Marines he accompanied, traversing 
open terrain to rescue comrades and assaulting enemy positions that 
endangered his wounded comrades.
  This is the medal won by Marine Corps Second Lieutenant Robert Dale 
Reem, who on the night of November 6, 1950, after leading three 
separate assaults on an enemy position in the vicinity of Chinhung-ni, 
Korea, threw himself on top of an enemy grenade that landed amidst his 
men.
  This is the medal won by Air Force Captain Hilliard A. Wilbanks who 
made repeated strafing runs over an advancing enemy element near Dalat, 
Republic of Vietnam on February 24, 1967. Captain Wilbanks' aircraft, 
it should be noted, was neither armed nor armored. He made the assaults 
by sticking his rifle out the window and flying low over the enemy. His 
action saved the lives of friendly forces, but it cost him his own.
  The feats that earned these medals are the stuff of legend. But they 
are not legends. They are actual deeds that inspire humility and 
gratitude in all of us. In bestowing the Congressional Medal of Honor, 
the president enrolls the recipient in a sacred club of heroes.
  Regrettably, the medal itself, though gold in color, is actually 
brass plated with gold. It costs only about $30 to craft the award 
itself. I will be the first to tell you that the value of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor is not in the metal content of the award, 
but in the deeds done to earn it. But if you compare the $30 we invest 
in this, our Nation's highest award for valor, with the $30,000 
Congressional medals presented to foreign dignitaries, famous singers, 
and other civilians, you will agree that we can do better.
  Put simply, this legislation will forge a medal more worthy of the 
esteem with which the nation holds those few who have earned the 
Congressional Medal of Honor through valor and heroism beyond compare.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1386

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

     SECTION 1. GOLD CONTENT FOR MEDAL OF HONOR.

       (a) Requirement for Gold Content.--Sections 3741, 6241, and 
     8741 of title 10, United States Code, and section 491 of 
     title 14, United States Code, are each amended by inserting 
     ``the metal content of which is 90 percent gold and 10 
     percent alloy and'' after ``appropriate design,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any award of the Medal of Honor 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1388. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
replace the Federal Election Commission with the Federal Election 
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last year, Congress took the important 
step of restoring the health and integrity of our campaign finance 
system when it enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 
BCRA. However, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has continually 
acted as a bureaucratic barrier to reform of the system. Time and time 
again, these unelected officials of the FEC have thwarted the 
enforcement of the Nation's campaign finance laws in deference to the 
partisan wishes of those who have appointed them.
  Along with Senator Feingold, I rise today to introduce legislation 
entitled the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. This 
legislation creates a new independent agency, the Federal Election 
Administration, FEA, which replaces the Federal Election Commission in 
order to create a new system that finally enforces Federal campaign 
finance laws.
  Although it was set up to administer and enforce the Federal campaign 
finance laws, the FEC has not been doing its job. The FEC is a weak and 
failing agency, structured by Congress to be slow and ineffective, 
composed of commissioners whose appointments are tightly controlled by 
the Members of Congress and political parties they regulate, and has 
been impeded by a continual lack of resources. This legislation 
replaces the current system with a more effective campaign finance 
enforcement system.
  In its current form, the FEC has been faced with three major 
problems. The first problem has been that the FEC was structured by 
Congress to be ineffective.
  Prior to the creation of the FEC, Members of Congress feared that 
this proposed enforcement agency ran the risk of becoming too powerful. 
To ease these fears, Congress structured an agency designed to fail 
from the start. The FEC has six members, no more than three of whom can 
be members of the same political party. In practice, this has meant 
that there have been three Republicans and three Democrats as 
commissioners. Only stalemate and inaction on key issues have resulted. 
On important issues the votes have often been cast on a partisan basis, 
resulting in 3-3 deadlocks. Furthermore, the affirmative votes of four 
members are necessary for the FEC to act. Therefore, 3-3 ties have led 
to inaction.
  Partisanship has encroached upon nearly every major decision the 
FEC's six commissioners make. These partisan standoffs have stopped the 
FEC from enforcing actions against politicians and special interest 
groups, even when the FEC's general counsel has recommended that such 
enforcement proceed. FEC votes have been politicized to the point where 
commissioners of both parties have banded together to reject their 
staff's enforcement recommendations to serve the special interests of 
both parties.
  The FEC has lacked important powers. The FEC cannot make its own 
findings that a violation occurred, cannot seek court injunctions to 
stop illegal activity, and cannot conduct random audits of campaigns. 
The FEC cannot directly impose penalties, except in very minor matters. 
In short, the FEC can do little to enforce the law. Compounding this 
problem is that the FEC has sole jurisdiction over all enforcement of 
campaign finance laws. No matter how slow the FEC's proceedings are, no 
one can seek civil enforcement of the law through the courts. All 
complaints must be filed

[[Page S9247]]

with the FEC and only the FEC has the authority to act on them.
  This legislation addresses this first problem. First, the new Federal 
Election Administration will consist of only three members to remove 
the possibility of deadlocked votes. There is a Chairman and two 
additional members, all of whom are appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman will serve a term of ten 
years and will have broad powers to manage and administer the agency, 
including the power to hire the staff director and general counsel, and 
to set the budget for the agency. The two other members will each serve 
six year terms and cannot come from the same political party.
  In the FEA, enforcement proceedings for violations of campaign 
finance laws will be conducted before impartial administrative law 
judges, similar to those in agencies such as the SEC and the EPA. An 
administrative law judge, ALJ, will conduct an enforcement proceeding 
after the three-member FEA, by majority vote, makes an initial 
determination to pursue an enforcement action. The FEA general counsel 
will represent the FEA in enforcement proceedings. The ALJ will have 
the authority to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. 
The general counsel and any respondent will have the right to appeal an 
ALJ decision to the FEA. The decision of the FEA regarding such an 
appeal will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial 
review. By using ALJs, a system would be established for real 
enforcement not subject to partisan pressure.
  An ALJ will have the authority to find that violations of law have 
occurred, and to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desist 
orders, subject to an appeal to the FEA. The decision by the FEA 
regarding such an appeal will be final agency action and be subject to 
judicial review. The FEA will have the authority to apply to a federal 
district court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 
injunction to prevent violations of law that would result in 
substantial harm to the public interest. The FEA will also have the 
authority to conduct a limited number of random audits of campaign 
committees.
  Unlike the FEC, the FEA will have real authority to act in a timely 
and effective way to function as a real enforcement agency.
  The second problem with the FEC is that the commissioners appointed 
to the FEC have been chosen based on their political allegiances rather 
than their qualifications and commitment to administer and enforce the 
law. As a result of this process, the FEC is a highly politicized 
agency beholden to the interests of federal officeholders and party 
leaders who name the commissioners and the campaign finance community 
the agency is supposed to regulate.
  FEC commissioner nominations are supposed to originate with the 
President and be confirmed by the Senate, but Congress really has the 
control over who is nominated. Nominees to the FEC are selected by 
party leaders in Congress and made official by the White House. Where 
the President has objected to a choice promoted by Congress, the 
congressional leaders have insisted on their nominees, and have usually 
won. Another issue is that few FEC commissioners have a background in 
enforcing laws. Most have come from the community that the FEC 
oversees--Congress, the political parties, and those in the campaign 
finance system.

  An example of the disproportionate control Congress has over FEC 
appointments was shown by the appointment of Bradley A. Smith in 2000 
as a commissioner. The Smith case showed that an avowed opponent of the 
campaign finance laws--someone who had called the laws unconstitutional 
and urged their repeal--could be forced onto the FEC by his Senate 
sponsors over the objection of the President, who nevertheless 
nominated him. Despite resistance, President Clinton named Smith to the 
FEC after Senate Republican leaders insisted on the nomination. The 
further inappropriateness of Smith serving on the FEC was shown when in 
February 2002 he actively participated in the efforts in the House of 
Representative by reform opponents to kill campaign finance reform 
legislation. Smith joined with another FEC member who also opposed 
campaign finance laws. The two commissioners inserted themselves into 
the fight during House consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign 
finance reform bill by helping House Republican leaders work to defeat 
the bill.
  Clearly, the fact that FEC commissioners have become so publicly 
partisan in the policy debates on the election laws places in doubt the 
FEC's ability to credible enforce the law when its own commissioners 
openly denigrate the validity of those laws.
  This legislation addresses this second problem by the following 
means. An individual may not be appointed to the new Federal Election 
Administration if he or she is serving or has served as a member of the 
FEC subject to a term limit or during the four previous years, was a 
candidate or elected officeholder, an officer, employee or attorney of 
a candidate, officeholder or political party, or employed in certain 
executive branch positions. Such strict criteria on who may be 
appointed to the FEA would provide the best opportunity for obtaining 
highly qualified and publicly credible and unbiased individuals to 
effectively and impartially enforce the campaign finance laws.
  The last major problem with the FEC is that Congress has constantly 
abused its budget and oversight authority over the FEC. Time and time 
again, Congress has cut its budget. This legislation addresses this 
problem by having the budget of the new Federal Election Administration 
established by Congress based on a budget request prepared by its 
chairman and submitted directly to Congress. The General Accounting 
Office, GAO, will conduct periodic studies of the funding for the new 
FEA and submit recommendations to Congress on the level of funding 
necessary to provide adequate resources for the FEA to fulfill its 
duties. Unlike the FEC, the new agency will have the means to ensure 
that it will receive the adequate resources to effectively enforce the 
campaign finance laws.
  In conclusion, the fact that FEC commissioners were never able to 
find significant campaign finance violations by federal candidates and 
their political parties in the Democratic and Republican campaign 
finance abuses that occurred in the 1996 elections--especially in the 
abuses of President Bill Clinton, his campaign officials and his 
political party--is the classic example of the problems with the FEC. 
Furthermore, when Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 
of 2002, BCRA, the FEC undermined this new law by issuing regulations 
to implement BCRA that seriously weakened the law's main provisions. 
Both examples highlight the FEC's history of failure as an oversight 
and enforcement agency and the need for its overhaul. Effective 
enforcement is essential for laws such as BCRA to work in the long run, 
and achieving that requires the establishment of a new system to 
enforce campaign finance laws.
  With the establishment of this new Federal Election Administration to 
replace the FEC as a more effective enforcement agency, the campaign 
finance laws will now finally be taken seriously by candidates, 
parties, donors, and the public. Once this new agency is set up, the 
regulated community will comply with campaign finance laws because 
those laws can no longer be violated without punishment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my partner 
in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal 
Election Administration Act of 2003. When the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act was signed into law, Senator McCain and I and 
Representatives Shays and Meehan said we would continue our partnership 
to make sure that the law we passed is properly enforced. Much of what 
we tried to do in BCRA was caused by failures of the federal Election 
Commission to enforce the law. In particular, the soft money loophole 
was created by FEC rulings in the late 70s and early 80s, and 
exacerbated by failures to stop the wholesale evasion of the law in the 
90s.
  We wanted to give the FEC a fair chance to implement the new law. In 
BCRA itself, we provided deadlines for promulgating regulations so 
parties, candidates, and outside groups would know and understand the 
new rules of the game by the time the new law went into effect the day 
after the last election. We participated in those rulemakings 
throughout last summer

[[Page S9248]]

and fall, giving the FEC our very best effort to answer questions that 
were raised about the meaning and effect of BCRA.
  The FEC met the deadlines, but not our expectations. Time after time, 
the FEC opened loopholes or potential loopholes rather than trying to 
faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as a super 
legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of the 
Congress.
  So the seeds of the bill that we are introducing today were sown in 
the weeks and months following enactment of the McCain-Feingold/Shays-
Meehan bill. After careful consideration, it is our judgment that the 
current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing 
the election laws in the 21st century. A new start is needed, and this 
is a good time to do it, with the recent enactment of BCRA and a 
presidential election just around the corner.
  In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal 
Election Administration. The FEA will continue performing the reporting 
and disclosure function of the FEC in largely the same way. With 
respect to enforcement, we have followed the model of other successful 
regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The new 
Federal Election Administration will have a strong Chair and a corps of 
Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the 
Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will 
have the power to determine violations of the election laws and assess 
penalties, subject, of course, to judicial review.
  Our bill envisions a smaller body than the FEC, three members instead 
of six, with an odd number of members to try to avoid the gridlock that 
the current equal number of Democratic and Republican Commissioners 
allows and even encourages. The Chair will have a ten-year term to 
encourage independence. The other members of the FEA will have 
staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that the new agency will not be 
the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and 
independent Chair, will be the respected watchdog that the American 
people want to see.
  It is sad when the agency charged with enforcing the election laws is 
jokingly referred to as the Failure to Enforce Commission. The American 
people urged Congress to enact the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and 
they support it now. They want to see candidates and parties abide by 
it and by punished if they don't. This new agency will provide a new 
and better structure for achieving that goal. I want to thank my friend 
Senator McCain for all of this work on campaign finance reform over the 
last eight years, and I look forward to working closely with him again 
to pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1389. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Surface 
Transportation Board for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator 
Hollings in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Surface 
Transportation Board, STB, for five years.
  The STB is an independent agency established January 1, 1996, as the 
successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is responsible for 
the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily 
railroads. The STB's mission is to ensure that competitive, efficient, 
and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of 
shippers, receivers, and consumers. The agency has remained 
unauthorized since the end of fiscal year 1998, despite efforts by the 
Senate Commerce Committee to pass reauthorization legislation.
  The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 would 
reauthorize the STB for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and provide 
sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry 
out its responsibilities. Specifically, the legislation would authorize 
$20.5 million for fiscal year 2004, rising to $23.5 million in fiscal 
year 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the legislation would authorize a 
higher appropriation, totaling $23.8 million, to cover the estimated 
costs that will be incurred to physically relocate the STB's offices. 
The legislation also proposes that the Board's Chairmanship position be 
subject to Senate confirmation, similar to other Boards and Commissions 
throughout the federal government, including the National 
Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  I know that some of my colleagues, including several members of the 
Senate Commerce Committee, are interested in considering more sweeping 
legislation to amend the Staggers Rail Act, the landmark 1980 
legislation that partially deregulated the freight railroads. As I have 
stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues 
warrant serious consideration. These matters have been the subject of 
many hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator 
Hutchison will chair a Subcommittee hearing on captive shipper issues 
in the coming weeks. If a consensus is reached on other reforms needed 
to protect shippers and the public, additional legislation may be 
forthcoming from the Commerce Committee.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill 
through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. 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. 1389

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49.

       (a)  Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Surface 
     Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
       (b) Amendment of Title 49.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or a repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of title 49, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Surface 
     Transportation Board $20,516,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $21,215,000 for fiscal year 2005, $23,770,000 for fiscal year 
     2006, $22,564,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $23,488,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 3. CHAIRMAN DESIGNATED WITH SENATE CONFIRMATION.

       Section 701(c)(1) is amended by striking ``President'' and 
     inserting ``president, by and with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1392. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act to improve the nutrition of students served under child nutrition 
programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1393. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act to reauthorize and expand the fruit and vegetable pilot program; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, no one can doubt that kids today face 
tremendous obstacles to eating right and making healthy choices.
  Every day, they are bombarded with dozens of advertisements enticing 
them to eat more and more unhealthy foods. Tens of billions of dollars 
are spent each year to convince our kids to buy the products. In the 
face of this advertising and marketing power, our efforts to help kids 
eat healthier are more important than ever.
  This is no less the case in our schools than elsewhere in society. 
Even in our schools, it's getting harder and harder to ensure that kids 
get healthy food. The sale of soda pop, candy, foods high in fat and 
low in nutritional value, commonly called junk food, has become an 
accepted, but still unacceptable, reality in American schools. 
Ballooning sales of soft drinks and candy in our schools undercut the 
$15 billion dollar investment our nation makes in child nutrition every 
year.
  I still believe that, given the chance, our kids can and will make 
good choices about the foods they eat. We just don't give them these 
choices.
  To test this hypothesis that, given the opportunity, kids would make 
good choices about the food they eat, I proposed and got adopted in the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

[[Page S9249]]

2002 a pilot program that provides grants to schools for the simple 
purpose of allowing them to use the money to purchase fresh fruits and 
vegetables for their students. Some schools use the grants to deliver 
bins of fruits and vegetables to their classrooms every day. Others set 
up kiosks in the halls. A few schools even put free fruits and 
vegetables in their vending machines.
  Not long ago the Department of Agriculture released its assessment of 
the pilot program. Not surprisingly, it received high marks. Schools 
reported that 98 percent of students were interested in the program. 
Schools also reported that, over the course of the program, 71 percent 
of students grew more, not less, interested in the program. Most 
importantly, students told program evaluators that the pilot made them 
much more conscious about the junk food that they eat.
  Over the course of the year my staff and I visited numerous schools 
in Iowa that participated in the pilot program. These visits simply 
confirmed what USDA reported in its report on the pilot program. The 
enthusiasm was incredible. Students loved it. Teachers loved it. 
Administrators loved it. Parents loved it. When I visited Harding 
Middle School in Des Moines at the end of May, just as the pilot 
program was coming to an end, they gave me one message loud and clear--
``keep the fruits and vegetables coming.''
  Today I am introducing legislation, S. 1392, to do just that and to 
expand the program to all 50 States.
  Under this legislation, the pilot program would expand from its 
current 4 states and tribal schools and 60,000 students to 50 states 
and over 1 million children. It would also expand the pilot to ensure 
that additional Indian tribal schools are able to participate in the 
program.
  It would do this at a reasonable price tag--only $75 dollars per 
student per year. This means that at a cost of just over $75 million 
per year, we can make fresh fruits and vegetables a constant presence 
in the life of over 1 million American schoolchildren. It is difficult 
for me to imagine a more effective use of taxpayer dollars.
  Today I am also introducing companion legislation, S. 1393, to the 
fruit and vegetable pilot program expansion. The first piece of 
legislation seeks to provide kids with healthier food, and the second 
complements that by improving the overall nutritional environment of 
American schools. It seeks to give kids more choices and the ability to 
choose healthy foods.
  Despite the fact that we invest over $15 billion annually in child 
nutrition, our nation's children still too often do not get good 
nutrition at their schools. Meals provided through the National School 
Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program must meet nutritional 
standards. But there is far too much competition and interference with 
these balanced meals. Vending machines, school snack bars, and a la 
carte sales routinely provide kids with a wide variety of less healthy 
choices.
  A recent GAO report found that 43 percent of elementary schools, 74 
percent of middle schools, and 98 percent of high schools have vending 
machines, snack bars, canteens, and other places where students can 
readily obtain foods that defeat the sound and balanced nutrition that 
children and adolescents need.
  We talk about the importance of giving our kids lots of choices, but 
as junk foods become the norm and displace more nutritious choices, are 
we giving kids more choices or less? I believe we should always provide 
kids with good tasting and healthy alternatives to the foods that 
provide almost no nutritional benefits. The bills that I'm introducing 
today provide schools and students with more choices, not less. I want 
to make sure that the kids in Iowa schools and other schools across the 
country will be able to choose foods that both taste great and are 
great for their health and nutrition.
  The omnipresence of junk food is one of the reasons that our society 
is confronting a lethal threat--obesity. Obesity is even more 
pronounced among our children. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control, in the year 2000, 64 percent of all Americans were classified 
as either overweight or obese. Of these, 30 percent were actually 
obese. Among kids, the problem of obesity is exploding. In the last 20 
years, the number of overweight kids tripled.
  This is nothing short of a public health crisis. It's past time to 
get serious about fighting obesity and we must fight obesity first at 
its root--childhood--where children learn habits that stay with them 
for life.
  A recent article in the journal Health Affairs estimated the cost of 
obesity to our nation at $93 billion annually. That is nearly a tenth 
of annual health care spending. Incredibly, obesity costs our society 
about as much as smoking.
  In response to the health threats our kids face at schools, many 
schools across the country are taking matters into their own hands. 
Some are providing healthier choices in their vending machines, school 
snack bars, and a la carte sales. In Iowa, with support from the milk 
industry, selected schools are working to replace soft drinks with 
milk. The results are encouraging. Schools report that students are 
enthusiastic about these changes. It just goes to show that not only 
are students willing to accept healthier choices like fresh fruit and 
vegetables and milk, but that they actively want them.
  We also know that schools have benefited financially and 
nutritionally from expanding the choices available to their children.
  Faced with alarming statistics about childhood overweight and obesity 
rates, North Community High School in Minneapolis reevaluated the 
school's beverage vending practices. With the support of the 
administrative team, the principal contacted the district's Coca-Cola 
representative, who was willing to work with North to provide healthier 
choices. As a result, the school increased the number of machines from 
four to 16, stocked 13 machines with water or 100 percent fruit/
vegetable juice, stocked two machines with sports drinks, and limited 
soda to one machine with limited hours of sale. They also instituted a 
competitive pricing system, selling water for $.75, sports drinks and 
100 percent fruit/vegetable juices for $1.00, and soda and fruit 
drinks, e.g., Fruitopia, for $1.25. The water machines are 
strategically placed in high traffic areas and students are now allowed 
to drink water in the classroom. Soda sales are down, but vending 
profits increased by almost $4,000 and the total number of cases of 
beverages has more than doubled from the previous school year, with 
water being the best seller.
  These are the kinds of efforts and innovations that we need to 
encourage and support. That is why the second bill that I am 
introducing today creates a competitive incentive grant program to 
schools to improve the overall nutritional atmosphere in schools. Under 
this program, the Secretary of Agriculture makes competitive grants to 
schools so that they can provide healthier vending alternatives, 
improve the nutritional quality of their school meals, promote the 
consumption of fruits and vegetables, and provide nutrition education.
  With this support, other schools can follow in the footsteps of 
schools like North Community High School and institute practices that 
are good for the school and good for the students.
  Because we know that success in this area requires the leadership and 
commitment of a broad range of stakeholders, this bill gives a 
preference to schools that can demonstrate a multi-sectoral approach 
and engage the efforts of parents, businesses, and anyone else with a 
vested interest in the nutrition and educational success of our 
students. It also gives priority to applications that include a plan 
for continued success once their federal grant money has been expended.
  Finally, the legislation uses sound science, not special interests, 
to determine what kinds of nutritional standards our elementary, middle 
schools, and secondary schools should institute. To achieve this, my 
legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into an 
agreement with the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of 
Sciences, one of the premier scientific institutions in this country. 
The Institute of Medicine is directed to study the issue of children's 
nutritional needs at school and to make recommendations to the 
Secretary of Agriculture regarding appropriate standards for the sale 
of all foods in our schools.

[[Page S9250]]

  Based upon the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, the 
Secretary is directed to promulgate regulations that will provide 
appropriate and adequate safeguards for the nutrition of our children 
at school.
  Taken together, the two pieces of legislation that I am introducing 
today represent a new chapter in our nation's efforts to provide for 
the health and safety of our kids. This body has a long history of 
bipartisan efforts on child nutrition and, with our child nutrition 
programs up for reauthorization this year, I have every reason to 
believe that these efforts will continue this year. Having served on 
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I know 
that the issue of child nutrition knows no partisan boundaries. 
Democrats and Republicans alike have joined together over the years. I 
invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation to give kids the healthy choices they 
want and deserve and to safeguard the nutrition of our nation's 
children. If ever our children have been in greater need of this 
support, I cannot remember it, and so I invite my colleagues to join me 
in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1392

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

     SECTION 1. NUTRITIONAL IMPROVEMENT FOR CHILDREN SERVED UNDER 
                   CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Healthy School Nutrition Environment Incentive 
     Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     under which the Secretary shall make competitive grants to 
     selected elementary and secondary schools--
       ``(A) to create healthy school nutrition environments; and
       ``(B) to assess the impact of the environments on the 
     health and well-being of children enrolled in the schools.
       ``(2) Selection of schools.--In selecting schools to 
     receive incentive grants under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) ensure that not less than 75 percent of schools 
     selected to participate in the program established under this 
     subsection are schools in which not less than 50 percent of 
     the students enrolled in each school are eligible for free or 
     reduced price meals under this Act;
       ``(B) ensure that, of the schools selected to participate 
     in the program, there is appropriate representation of rural, 
     urban, and suburban schools, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(C) ensure that, of the schools selected to participate 
     in the program, there is appropriate representation of 
     elementary, middle, and secondary schools, as determined by 
     the Secretary;
       ``(D) ensure that schools selected to receive a grant under 
     this subsection meet the requirements of paragraph (3);
       ``(E) give priority to schools that develop comprehensive 
     plans that include the involvement of a broad range of 
     community stakeholders in achieving healthy school nutrition 
     environments;
       ``(F) give priority to schools that develop comprehensive 
     plans that include a strategy for maintaining healthy school 
     nutrition environments in the years following the fiscal 
     years for which the schools receive grants under this 
     subsection;
       ``(G) select only schools that submit grant applications by 
     May 1, 2004; and
       ``(H) make grant awards effective not later than July 15, 
     2004.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Input.--Prior to the solicitation of proposals for 
     grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall solicit 
     input from appropriate nutrition, health, and education 
     organizations (such as the American School Food Service 
     Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the 
     National School Boards Association) regarding the appropriate 
     criteria for a healthy school environment.
       ``(B) Criteria for healthy school environments.--The 
     Secretary shall, taking into account input received under 
     subparagraph (A), establish criteria for defining a healthy 
     school environment, including criteria that--
       ``(i) provide program meals that meet nutritional standards 
     for breakfasts and lunches established by the Secretary;
       ``(ii) ensure that all food served (including food served 
     in participating schools and service institutions in 
     competition with the programs authorized under this Act and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.)) on 
     school grounds during regular school hours is consistent with 
     the nutritional standards for breakfasts and lunches 
     established by the Secretary;
       ``(iii) promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables;
       ``(iv) provide nutrition education to students and staff; 
     and
       ``(v) meet other criteria established by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Plans.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     subsection, a school shall submit to the Secretary a healthy 
     school nutrition environment plan that describes the actions 
     the school will take to meet the criteria established under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(4) Grants.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, 
     the Secretary shall make a grant to each school selected 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(5) Evaluations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, shall 
     conduct an evaluation of a representative sample of schools 
     that receive grants under this subsection.
       ``(B) Content.--The evaluation shall measure, at a minimum, 
     the effects of a healthy school nutrition environment on--
       ``(i) overweight children and obesity;
       ``(ii) dietary intake;
       ``(iii) nutrition education and behavior;
       ``(iv) the adequacy of time to eat;
       ``(v) physical activities;
       ``(vi) parental and student attitudes and participation; 
     and
       ``(vii) related funding issues, including the cost of 
     maintaining a healthy school nutrition environment.
       ``(C) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate--
       ``(i) not later than December 31, 2005, an interim report 
     on the activities of schools evaluated under this subsection; 
     and
       ``(ii) not later than December 31, 2007, a final report on 
     the activities of schools evaluated under this subsection.
       ``(6) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this 
     subsection--
       ``(i) on October 1, 2003, $10,000,000
       ``(ii) on October 1, 2004, and each October 1 thereafter 
     through October 1, 2006, $35,000,000.
       ``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under subparagraph (A), 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(C) Availability of funds.--Funds transferred under 
     subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(D) Evaluations.--Of the funds made available under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall use not more than $5,000,000 
     to conduct evaluations under paragraph (5).''.
       (b) Competitive Foods in Schools.--
       (1) In general.--Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966 (42 U.S.C. 1779) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``, including'' and all 
     that follows through ``Lunch Act''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Competitive Foods in Schools.--
       ``(1) In general.--The regulations under subsection (a) may 
     include provisions that regulate the service of food in 
     participating schools and service institutions in competition 
     with the programs authorized under this Act and the Richard 
     B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     (referred to in this subsection as `competitive foods').
       ``(2) Regulations.--The regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall apply to all school grounds during the duration 
     of the school day;
       ``(B) shall not supersede or otherwise affect State and 
     local regulations on competitive foods that, as determined by 
     the Secretary, conform to the nutritional goals of the 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
       ``(C) shall require that the proceeds from the sale of 
     competitive foods in schools be used for the benefit of the 
     schools or of organizations of students approved by the 
     schools, if those sales are allowed by the regulations;
       ``(D) shall take into account the differing needs of--
       ``(i) elementary schools;
       ``(ii) middle schools and junior high schools; and
       ``(iii) high schools; and
       ``(E) shall implement the recommendations of the Institute 
     of Medicine made under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Institute of medicine recommendations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall offer 
     to enter into an agreement with the Institute of Medicine of 
     the National Academy of Sciences under which the Institute of 
     Medicine, based on sound nutritional science, shall make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding the regulation of 
     competitive foods (as defined in section 10(b)(1) of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (as amended by paragraph 
     (1)(B))).
       ``(B) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     receipt of final recommendations from the Institute of 
     Medicine, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry 
     out section 10(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (as 
     amended by paragraph (1)(B)) in accordance with the 
     recommendations of the Institute of Medicine.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     receipt of final recommendations from the Institute of 
     Medicine, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on

[[Page S9251]]

     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the actions of the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (B).

                                S. 1393

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

     SECTION 1. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended by striking subsection (g) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of the school years beginning 
     July 2003, July 2004, July 2005, July 2006, and July 2007 the 
     Secretary shall carry out a pilot program to make free fresh 
     and dried fruits and free fresh vegetables available, 
     throughout the school day in 1 or more areas designated by 
     the school, to--
       ``(A) students in the 25 elementary or secondary schools in 
     each of the 4 States, and in the elementary or secondary 
     schools on the reservation, authorized to participate in the 
     program under this subsection (as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this subparagraph);
       ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, an additional 
     10,000 students in each State authorized to participate in 
     the program under this subsection (as in effect on the day 
     before the enactment of the this subparagraph);
       ``(C) to the maximum extent practicable, 20,000 students 
     enrolled in schools in each of the States not participating 
     in the program under this subsection on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph, as selected by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(D) to the maximum extent practicable, 20,000 students 
     enrolled in schools operated by tribal organizations.
       ``(2) Selection of schools.--
       ``(A) In general.--In selecting schools to participate in 
     the pilot program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that not 
     less than 75 percent of students selected are from schools in 
     which not less than 50 percent of students are eligible for 
     free or reduced price meals under this Act;
       ``(ii) solicit applications from interested schools that 
     include--

       ``(I) information pertaining to the percentage of students 
     enrolled in the school submitting the application who are 
     eligible for free or reduced price school lunches under this 
     Act;
       ``(II) a certification of support for participation in the 
     pilot program signed by the school food manager, the school 
     principal, and the district superintendent (or their 
     equivalent positions, as determined by the school); and
       ``(III) such other information as may be requested by the 
     Secretary; and

       ``(iii) for each application received, determine whether 
     the application is from a school in which not less than 50 
     percent of students are eligible for free or reduced price 
     meals under this Act.
       ``(B) Lottery.--
       ``(i) Schools with substantial free or reduced price meal 
     eligibility.--Subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), the 
     Secretary shall randomly select, from among the schools in a 
     participating State determined under subparagraph (A)(iii) to 
     have at least 50 percent of students eligible for free or 
     reduced price meals under this Act, schools to participate in 
     the program under this subsection so as to ensure, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, that the aggregate number of 
     students represented by those schools in the State meets the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(ii) Other schools.--Subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), 
     the Secretary shall randomly select, from among the schools 
     in a participating State determined under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) to have less than 50 percent of students eligible 
     for free or reduced price meals under this Act, schools to 
     participate in the program under this subsection so as to 
     ensure that the aggregate number of students represented by 
     those schools, plus the aggregate number of students from 
     schools selected under clause (i), in the State meets the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(iii) Insufficient applications.--If, for any State, the 
     Secretary determines that the number of schools described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is insufficient to meet the requirements 
     of this subsection, the Secretary may randomly select such 
     additional applications from schools submitting applications 
     under this subsection as are necessary to meet the 
     requirements.
       ``(iv) Applicability to existing participants.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     the schools, States, and reservation authorized to 
     participate in the pilot program under this subsection (as in 
     effect on the date before the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph) shall not be subject to this subparagraph.
       ``(II) New students.--Subclause (I) shall not apply to 
     students authorized to participate in the program under 
     paragraph (1)(B).

       ``(3) Notice of availability.--To participate in the 
     program under this subsection, a school shall widely 
     publicize within the school the availability of free fresh 
     and dried fruits and free fresh vegetables under the pilot 
     program.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) Interim reports.--Not later than September 30 of each 
     of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition 
     Service, shall submit to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate an 
     interim report that describes the activities carried out 
     under this subsection during the fiscal year covered by the 
     report.
       ``(B) Final report.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, shall submit to the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report that describes the results of the pilot 
     program under this subsection.
       ``(5) Per student grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each school year during which a 
     school participates in the program under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the school $75 for each student, 
     as adjusted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Adjustment.--The amount of the grant for each student 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted on July 1, 2004, and 
     each July 1 thereafter, to reflect changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for fresh 
     fruits and vegetables, with the adjustment--
       ``(i) rounded down to the nearest dollar increment; and
       ``(ii) based on the unrounded amounts for the preceding 12-
     month period.
       ``(6) Funding.--
       ``(A) Existing funds.--The Secretary shall use to carry out 
     this subsection any funds that remain under this subsection 
     (in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph).
       ``(B) New funds.--The Secretary shall use such funds made 
     available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c) as are necessary to carry out this subsection 
     (other than paragraph 4).
       ``(C) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this subsection the funds made available under this 
     paragraph, without further appropriation.
       ``(D) Availability of funds.--Funds made available under 
     this paragraph shall remain available until expended.
       ``(E) Reallocation.--The Secretary may reallocate any 
     amounts made available to carry out this subsection that are 
     not obligated or expended, as determined by the Secretary.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of 
President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal 
Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution 
to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 
20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, 
in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born 
citizen of the United States from becoming President.
  The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, 
and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or 
immigrants--to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on 
this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent 
that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in 
our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European 
monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might 
be imported to rule the United States.
  This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-
American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our 
citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of 
unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other 
critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the President's most trusted 
cabinet officials.
  Ours is a Nation of immigrants. The history of the United States is 
replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication 
to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born 
outside of Her borders. These include former secretaries of state Henry 
Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of 
Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel 
Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan and 
bring young star

[[Page S9252]]

of the Democratic party. As our Constitution reads today, none of these 
well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens could be a lawful 
candidate for President.
  Perhaps most disturbing is that the scores of foreign-born men and 
women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties 
of this great nation who remain ineligible for the Office of President. 
More than 700 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor--our 
Nation's highest decoration for valor--have been immigrants. But no 
matter how great their sacrifice, leadership, or love for this country, 
they remain ineligible to be a candidate for President. This amendment 
would remove this unfounded inequity.
  Today I ask the members of this body if we desire to continue to 
invite these brave men and women to defend this Nation's liberty, to 
protect Her flag, to be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and yet 
deny them the opportunity to strive for the ultimate American dream--to 
become our President? I respectfully submit that we should not.
  My proposal to amend the Constitution is not one I take lightly. As 
our founding fathers envisioned, our Constitution has stood the test of 
time. It has remained largely intact for more than 200 years due to the 
careful, deliberative, and principled approach of the framers. This is 
truly an extraordinary achievement. On a few appropriate occasions, 
however, we have generated the will to surmount the cumbersome, but no 
doubt necessary, hurdles to amend the Constitution. I believe the time 
has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution 
that requires our President to be a natural born citizen. It has long 
outlived its original purpose.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Equal Opportunity to 
Govern Amendment.

                          ____________________