[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12739-S12748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1740. A bill to amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund 
of 2001 (Public Law 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) to provide 
compensation for the United States Citizens who were victims of a 
terrorist-related laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection in the United 
States during the period beginning on September 13, 2001, through 
November 30, 2001, on the same basis as compensation is provided to 
victims of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 
2001; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator 
from South Dakota and Democratic leader. I thank him for his concern 
and his work on this issue.
  Two years have passed since several anthrax letters were sent to a 
few journalists and, obviously, to public officials, killing 
inadvertent victims. These are victims whose only sin, apparently, was 
doing their jobs, and these attacks have left several other people sick 
and out of work.
  The Senate and all who work here--the Senate family--are still 
adjusting to the aftermath of these attacks 2 years later. We see it in 
new layers of security. We see it in new mail-handling procedures in 
which mail to Capitol Hill now is screened and irradiated before it is 
delivered.
  The U.S. Postal Service has had to develop and implement new safety 
measures to protect its customers and its workers. Meanwhile, nearly 
two dozen of our fellow Americans who merely came into contact with 
these anthrax-laden letters have become the forgotten victims of 
terror. Some have suffered poor health, and some have not been able to 
return to work.
  I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and my other good friends, 
Senators Lautenberg, Nelson of Florida, Feingold, Corzine, Mikulski, 
Sarbanes, and Clinton, to introduce the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness 
Act of 2003. This will allow these forgotten victims of terror and 
their families to seek help through the September 11 Victims 
Compensation Fund.
  They need this help to pay for medical expenses and to provide for 
themselves and their families if they have been unable to return to 
work. They are our fellow citizens, and they were unwittingly on the 
front lines when our new, shadowy struggle against terrorism began.
  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we learned that 
the United States was not impervious to acts of terrorism of the kinds 
that have rained death and destruction on other societies far away. The 
attacks shocked the world and left the American people with the 
terrible knowledge that we could once again become victims, targets of 
terrorists at any time.
  Only a few days after September 11, our worst fears were confirmed. 
Between September 22 and November 14, nearly two dozen Americans from 
five States and the District of Columbia became casualties of a 
sinister bioterrorism attack. Twenty-two Americans ranging in age from 
7 months to 94 years were stricken in these attacks of anthrax. It is a 
rare disease that had only afflicted a handful of Americans in the last 
century. We would ultimately learn that 11 people had been infected 
with cutaneous or skin anthrax, and 11 contracted the more serious form 
of the disease called inhalation or pulmonary anthrax. Five of our 
fellow Americans died from these attacks.
  The victims of the anthrax attacks vary in gender, race, religion, 
age, economic status, and locale. But they all have one thing in 
common: Everyone suffered. The targets were members of the news media, 
and two Members of the Senate, myself and Senator Daschle, but the 
victims--not the targets, but the victims--who suffered the most were 
employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, news 
organizations, the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior 
citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters.
  In the fall of 2001, I worked with Speaker Hastert, Senator Daschle, 
Senator Lott, Congressman Gephardt, Senators Hatch, Kohl, DeWine, 
Schumer, and Clinton to establish the September 11 Victims Compensation 
Fund of 2001. This fund ensured that victims of the September 11 
attacks would be eligible for compensation for the horrific losses they 
suffered. After extensive negotiations with the Bush administration, we 
established the September 11 fund to provide victims an alternative to 
what would have been a lengthy battle in court.
  Under the stewardship of Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the 
September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and with the supervision of the 
Department of Justice, more than 1,000 of the 3,016 families of those 
who died in the September 11 attacks and more than 1,000 of the unknown 
number who were injured have filed claims.
  The fund, which has no cap, had paid out $633 million by September 
10, 2003, with an average award of about $1.6 million for death claims. 
It is a dignified way of doing it.
  As we reach the 2-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress 
should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of 
bioterrorism

[[Page S12740]]

as we did for the victims of September 11. While we have taken 
significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks 
and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the 
anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.
  Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 
a year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed 
anthrax tests.
  As we reach the two-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress 
should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of 
bioterrorism as it did for the victims of September 11, 2001. While we 
have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 
11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf 
of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.
  Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 
1-year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed 
anthrax cases.
  The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have confirmed 18 anthrax 
infections, and an additional four are considered to have been 
confirmed through other methods. Applicants would be subject to the 
same criteria and restrictions as were set for the September 11 
victims. Eligible individuals who choose to file claims would then be 
considered by the Special Master who would make a final determination 
on level of compensation within 120 days of receiving the claim. 
Compensation will be targeted to help the neediest victims and their 
families. Any life insurance, death benefit, or other Government 
payment previously received by victims and their families would be 
taken into account, and filing a claim would preclude other civil 
remedies.
  Yesterday marked the 2-year anniversary of the opening of the letter 
that spread anthrax throughout the Hart Senate Office Building, 
exposing 31 Senate employees to a highly potent and aerosolized form of 
anthrax and shutting down the Dirksen Senate Office Building for 2 
weeks, the Hart Senate Office Building for 3 months and briefly closing 
the United States Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Our staffs were 
fortunate to receive excellent care and guidance from the Sergeant at 
Arms, the CDC, the attending physician, his dedicated staff of men and 
women and the Environmental Protection Agency, and none of the 
employees of the Senate were ultimately infected. Those days are 
indelibly etched in our memories.
  To this day--and this is the first time I have ever spoken on the 
floor about the anthrax attack. I have to be honest, it is something 
that has been on my mind, on the mind of my wife, our children, our 
families, ever since that day.
  Senator Daschle and I do not know what motivates somebody to target 
us and to endanger our staffs and so many others. Senator Daschle and I 
were the targets of the Senate letters, but we were not stricken with 
anthrax, and we have made very clear that we would not be covered by 
the terms of this legislation.
  We will never know why we were singled out, but we do know what 
happened to people who were totally innocent. The letters were not 
addressed to them as they were to us.
  Eighteen of the victims were not as fortunate as were most of us in 
the Senate family. While some did recover after receiving antibiotics, 
others have had their lives changed forever. Some are stricken with 
ailments, such as post-traumatic stress, depression and fatigue. They 
continue to suffer from the after-effects of the disease.
  One postal worker who was infected with anthrax filed a $100 million 
suit against the U.S. Postal Service in January 2003. He did not want 
to have to take his case to court, but he says he felt he had to after 
repeated attempts to receive compensation and assistance in treating 
his illness. Last month, on September 24, the widow of the first 
anthrax victim in Florida filed lawsuits seeking more than $50 million 
and alleging that insufficient security at the Army Medical Research 
Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD, and negligent 
actions by companies with military contracts, caused her husband's 
death. This bill would help these and other victims without forcing 
them to take their cases to the legal system.
  The perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts of terrorism remain at 
large. I have no idea who directed these letters to Senator Daschle and 
myself. The F.B.I. continues its search. These victims cannot wait 
until the search is over. They deserve help now and we owe it to them 
to provide it.
  Yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, both 
Senators from New York, and with others in introducing separate 
legislation to extend and broaden the fund's coverage to cover the 
victims of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 East African 
embassy attacks and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attacks. I applaud Senator 
Specter for his leadership in this area. All Americans who have been 
victimized by acts of terrorism deserve our sympathy, our respect and 
our support.
  Our hearts went out to the victims of these acts of terrorism and to 
their loved ones. Now they also need our help, and it is my hope that 
we will do the right thing by these victims of terrorism.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, a letter containing about 1 
gram of highly concentrated anthrax was opened in my office in the Hart 
Senate Office Building. Potentially deadly anthrax letters were also 
mailed, apparently by the same person or persons, to my dear friend and 
colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and to several news organizations. 
Two years later, all of those crimes remain unsolved.
  The anthrax attack on the Senate remains the largest bioterrorism 
attack ever on U.S. soil. Here in the Senate my staff and members of 
Senator Feingold's staff were exposed to up to 3,000 times the lethal 
dose of anthrax.
  The entire Hart Senate Office Building was closed for 3 months while 
scientists searched for a way to do something that had never been done 
before: To reclaim a building that had been badly contaminated by 
anthrax.
  We all remember those times. Coming less than 5 weeks after the 
September 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks of 2001 sometimes 
made it seem as if none of us was safe anywhere.
  As traumatic as the anthrax attacks were for the people of Capitol 
Hill, we were actually the fortunate ones. Before those deadly letters 
arrived in the Senate, they traveled through the U.S. mail where they 
left a deadly trail.
  Five innocent people died and still more innocent people suffer today 
from serious health and debilitating problems resulting from their 
exposure to the anthrax letters. All too often, they are the forgotten 
victims of the anthrax attacks on America. They are victims of 
terrorism, just as surely as are all of those who were killed or 
injured in the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This bill 
that Senator Leahy are I are introducing today acknowledges that fact 
by allowing the victims of the anthrax attacks to participate in the 
September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.
  The rules for anthrax victims would be the same as the rules for 
victims of the September 11 attacks: Before they can receive any 
compensation from the fund, anthrax victims must first waive their 
right to file or participate in any lawsuit in State or Federal court 
for damages relating to the anthrax attacks.
  The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today, and 
that I am very proud to cosponsor, is narrow and specific: Only persons 
who were exposed to anthrax during the attacks of 2001 and who have 
been diagnosed with a ``laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection'' may be 
compensated from the fund. A ``laboratory-confirmed'' case may include 
one in which elevated anthrax antibody levels are present, even if the 
anthrax bacteria cannot be detected. In at least one case, the anthrax 
diagnosis was made late when, after introduction of antibiotics, the 
actual bacteria was no longer detectable in the bloodstream. In such 
cases, the highly elevated anthrax antibody levels confirm both the 
exposure and the diagnosis.
  Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen worked for the U.S. Postal Service. 
They were decent, hard-working men who pushed themselves and continued 
to go to work and church even as anthrax infections were killing them. 
They and Robert Stevens, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren all lost 
their lives in the anthrax attacks.

[[Page S12741]]

Their families have suffered a devastating blow. This bill would allow 
them to receive some small compensation for their losses without having 
to suffer through the additional trauma and long delays associated with 
a lawsuit.
  Leroy Richmond, Norma Wallace, and Ernesto Blanco should be spared a 
long and difficult legal ordeal, too. They and others who suffered 
laboratory-confirmed anthrax infections as a result of the 2001 attacks 
deserve justice. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the 
same compensation fund as the victims of September 11, as long as they 
are willing to abide by the same rules. This bill gives them that 
right, that option, if they choose to exercise it.
  After that letter was opened in my office, the Senate put in place 
new mail-screening procedures to prevent another similar attack on the 
Capitol complex. Nearly 2 years later, we no longer have to worry that 
terrorism can slip in here through the mail. Some days we even forget 
about the anthrax attacks. But there are victims and victims' families 
who cannot forget. The anthrax attacks of 2001 still haunt them every 
day. This bill will not restore their strength or return their loved 
ones, but it will give them a small measure of compensation and perhaps 
a small measure of peace. It will say clearly that whether it happens 
in September, October, or any other month, terrorism is terrorism and 
here in America its victims will not have to suffer alone.
  I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy, with whom I have been 
working on this bill now for nearly 2 years, for his remarkable 
commitment to this cause. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in 
seeking justice for these forgotten victims of terrorism.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1742. A bill to amend title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
to provide for variable interest rates on student loans; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which 
would change the student borrower interest rate structure by continuing 
or establishing variable rates for all student loans on a going-forward 
basis. More specifically, it would tie all future loan interest rates 
for student loan borrowers to the bond equivalent rate for 91-day 
Treasury bills and would cap the loans at 7.75 percent. PLUS loans 
would be capped at 8.5 percent.
  Briefly, variable rates for all student loan borrowers would provide 
the following: They will automatically ``refinance'' outstanding loans 
to current rates on a routine basis, thereby, avoiding the problems 
associated with the refinancing of old loans under new rate structures. 
They will mitigate the extraordinary costs to the Federal Government 
currently associated with the consolidation of student loans under a 
fixed rate structure. They will ensure that consolidation loans are 
offered to those borrowers who need them rather than as a loan of 
convenience for those who no longer need Federal subsidies. They will 
allow savings which will ensure that Federal resources can be directed 
to those who have not yet had an opportunity to pursue or to complete 
an educational program thereby ensuring future access to higher 
education. They will provide borrowers with the best rates available in 
the market while also capping those rates to ensure that borrowers are 
not adversely affected if rates rise beyond an acceptable level. And, 
they will protect the Federal Treasury against extraordinary subsidies 
as interest rates rise above a preset fixed rate structure.
  The Federal student loan programs have made it possible for millions 
of American students to attend college. The current program structure 
has resulted in a highly reliable, low-cost source of funds for 
students and their families. But, the recent consolidation-
reconsolidation loan situation shows that changes are needed.
  The intent of the consolidation loan program was to provide an 
opportunity for borrowers with multiple loan holders and a high debt 
level to consolidate that debt with one holder and allow for a single 
monthly payment. However, with recent interest rate drops, the number 
and volume of consolidation loans has increased dramatically. Some 
borrowers have consolidated their loans and locked in at a fixed rate 
only to see the rates drop further and leave them with no way to access 
the lower rates. And, recently, the well-publicized growth in the 
Federal consolidation loan program prompted the Congressional Budget 
Office to project the estimated program costs for the current fiscal 
year to triple from $3 billion to $9 billion.
  There has been much talk about allowing borrowers to reconsolidate 
their loans at a lower rate. However, it appears that retroactive 
changes to the law could undermine the predictability that makes it 
possible for lenders and investors to offer efficient pricing to 
students who need loans. Reconsolidation could diminish the quality and 
the stability of the overall loan program which would hurt future 
student borrowers.
  Currently, student loans, known as Stafford Loans, are payable on a 
variable rate basis, a program feature that protects the Federal 
Treasury from sharp increases in costs. However, consolidation loans 
are made on a fixed rate basis, creating an incentive for borrowers to 
``consolidate'' their student loans even when they are not experiencing 
repayment problems.
  My legislation would prevent future borrowers from facing the 
situation which confronts many of our borrowers today. It would 
establish a variable interest rate and establish a reasonable cap on 
all student loans. It would level the playing field for future students 
and borrowers.
  It appears clear that changes are needed. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and move forward with a plan that would 
preserve the integrity of the overall loan program while protecting all 
future student borrowers from the vagaries of fluctuating interest 
rates.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1742

       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 ``Higher Education Loan Plan 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. INTEREST RATES ON STUDENT LOANS.

       (a) Interest Rate Changes.--Section 427A of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077a) is amended by 
     striking subsections (k) and (l) and inserting the following:
       [``(k) Interest Rates for New Loans on or After October 1, 
     1998, and Before the Date of Enactment of the Higher 
     Education Loan Plan Act of 2003.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (h) and 
     subject to paragraph (2), with respect to any loan made, 
     insured, or guaranteed under this part (other than a loan 
     made pursuant to section 428B or 428C) for which the first 
     disbursement is made on or after October 1, 1998, and before 
     the date of enactment of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act 
     of 2003, the applicable rate of interest shall, during any 
     12-month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30, be 
     determined on the preceding June 1 and be equal to--
       ``(A) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills 
     auctioned at the final auction held prior to such June 1; 
     plus
       ``(B) 2.3 percent,
     except that such rate shall not exceed 8.25 percent.
       ``(2) In school and grace period rules.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (h), with respect to any loan under this part 
     (other than a loan made pursuant to section 428B or 428C) for 
     which the first disbursement is made on or after October 1, 
     1998, and before the date of enactment of the Higher 
     Education Loan Plan Act of 2003, the applicable rate of 
     interest for interest which accrues--
       ``(A) prior to the beginning of the repayment period of the 
     loan; or
       ``(B) during the period in which principal need not be paid 
     (whether or not such principal is in fact paid) by reason of 
     a provision described in section 427(a)(2)(C) or 
     428(b)(1)(M),

     shall be determined under paragraph (1) by substituting `1.7 
     percent' for `2.3 percent'.
       ``(3) PLUS loans.--Notwithstanding subsection (h), with 
     respect to any loan under section 428B for which the first 
     disbursement is made on or after October 1, 1998, and before 
     the date of enactment of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act 
     of 2003, the applicable rate of interest shall be determined 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) by substituting `3.1 percent' for `2.3 percent'; and
       ``(B) by substituting `9.0 percent' for `8.25 percent'.
       ``(4) Consolidation loans.--With respect to any 
     consolidation loan under section 428C

[[Page S12742]]

     for which the application is received by an eligible lender 
     on or after October 1, 1998, and before the date of enactment 
     of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 2003, the applicable 
     rate of interest shall be at an annual rate on the unpaid 
     principal balance of the loan that is equal to the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) the weighted average of the interest rates on the 
     loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher one-eighth 
     of 1 percent; or
       ``(B) 8.25 percent.
       ``(5) Consultation.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     applicable rate of interest under this subsection after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and shall 
     publish such rate in the Federal Register as soon as 
     practicable after the date of determination.
       ``(l) Interest Rates for New Loans on or After the Date of 
     Enactment of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 2003.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (h) and 
     subject to paragraph (2), with respect to any loan made, 
     insured, or guaranteed under this part (other than a loan 
     made pursuant to section 428B or 428C) for which the first 
     disbursement is made on or after the date of enactment of the 
     Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 2003, the applicable rate 
     of interest shall, during any 12-month period beginning on 
     July 1 and ending on June 30, be determined on the preceding 
     June 1 and be equal to--
       ``(A) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills 
     auctioned at the final auction held prior to such June 1; 
     plus
       ``(B) 2.3 percent,

     except that such rate shall not exceed [7.75] percent.
       ``(2) In school and grace period rules.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (h), with respect to any loan under this part 
     (other than a loan made pursuant to section 428B or 428C) for 
     which the first disbursement is made on or after the date of 
     enactment of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 2003, the 
     applicable rate of interest for interest which accrues--
       ``(A) prior to the beginning of the repayment period of the 
     loan; or
       ``(B) during the period in which principal need not be paid 
     (whether or not such principal is in fact paid) by reason of 
     a provision described in section 427(a)(2)(C) or 
     428(b)(1)(M),
     shall be determined under paragraph (1) by substituting 
     `[1.7] percent' for `[2.3] percent'.
       ``(3) PLUS loans.--Notwithstanding subsection (h), with 
     respect to any loan under section 428B for which the first 
     disbursement is made on or after the date of enactment of the 
     Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 2003, the applicable rate 
     of interest shall be determined under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) by substituting `3.1 percent' for `2.3 percent'; and
       ``(B) by substituting `8.5 percent' for `[7.75] percent'.
       ``(4) Consolidation loans.--With respect to any 
     consolidation loan under section 428C for which the 
     application is received by an eligible lender on or after the 
     date of enactment of the Higher Education Loan Plan Act of 
     2003, the applicable rate of interest shall, during any 12-
     month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30, be 
     determined on the preceding June 1 and be equal to--
       ``(A) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills 
     auctioned at the final auction held prior to such June 1; 
     plus
       ``(B) 2.3 percent,

     except that such rate shall not exceed [7.75] percent.''.
       (b) Special Allowance Conforming Changes.--Section 
     438(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1087-1(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``July 1, 2006'' each 
     place it appears in clauses (ii), (v), and (vii) of 
     subparagraph (I), including in the headings of such clauses, 
     and inserting ``the date of enactment of the Higher Education 
     Loan Plan Act of 2003''.
       (c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--Section 428C(c)(1) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(c)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``July 1, 2006'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``the date of enactment of the Higher Education 
     Loan Plan Act of 2003''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 1744. A bill to prevent abuse of Government credit cards; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help 
curtail abuses of government-issued credit cards throughout the Federal 
Government. I am pleased to join Representative Wilson who is 
introducing an identical measure in the House today and I thank him for 
his interest and work on this important issue. I am also very glad to 
have Senator Byrd co-sponsor my bill. He has been a staunch advocate 
for improved management of government credit programs and I have been 
honored to work with him on this issue in the past.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been working for several 
years to expose abuses of government purchase cards and travel cards, 
starting with the largest user of government charge cards, the 
Department of Defense. Working with the GAO, former subcommittee 
Chairman Horn in the House, and others, we have been able to uncover a 
disturbing number of instances where DOD-issued credit cards have been 
abused. When I say abused, I mean government credit cards were used to 
pay for everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. The list also 
includes furniture, breast implants, and gentleman's clubs.
  So what does all of this mean for the American taxpayer? In the case 
of government purchase cards, it means that hardworking Americans are 
paying for government employees' Christmas shopping. Purchase cards are 
intended to be used to purchase supplies or other items needed by a 
government agency and are paid directly by the agency with taxpayer 
money. However, it is hard to justify payments on a sapphire ring, 
kitchen appliances, and gift certificates to department stores as 
necessary office expenses. Astoundingly, these are examples of charges 
that have been made and paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket with no 
questions asked.
  Government travel cards work differently, but are still subject to 
abuses that negatively impact the American public. They are issued to 
individual employees for use on official travel. The employee must pay 
the bill and is reimbursed by the agency. Unfortunately, government 
travel cards are routinely issued to individuals who have a bad credit 
history or even a record of credit card fraud. This opens up the door 
for abuse. Not only have travel cards been used for questionable travel 
expenses, but travel cards have been used when employees are not on 
official travel to pay for items from gambling and prostitution to 
tickets for a pop music concert by the Backstreet Boys. Some employees 
have committed fraud by repeatedly writing bad checks to pay travel 
card bills and some have taken government funds in reimbursement for 
travel expenses and not paid off their travel card bills.
  When a travel card bill is not paid on time, the agency loses out on 
rebates that the agency would otherwise receive from the credit card 
company. These rebates add up. In fact, in fiscal year 2001, the 
Federal Government received $71 million in rebates, but this amount 
declined in fiscal year 2002 to $69.2 million mainly due to 
delinquencies in paying off travel cards. We're talking real money and, 
especially in a time of budgetary belt-tightening, this trend cannot be 
allowed to continue. In addition, since Bank of America took over the 
DOD charge card contract in 1998, it had to ``charge off'' over $61 
million dollars in bad debt. The military service branches have 
recovered less than $24 million of that amount, leaving almost $40 
million in losses to the credit card company. In fact, the situation 
got so bad that Bank of America considered dropping its account with 
DOD. Although actions by DOD to reduce delinquencies and recover bad 
debt through methods like salary offsets have now improved the 
situation somewhat, this scandal has left a black mark on the 
reputation of the Federal Government. Furthermore, these losses 
inflicted on credit card companies by Federal employees hurt the 
millions of innocent Americans who are credit card customers by raising 
the interest rates and fees the company must charge.

  What we have learned through our investigation of the travel card and 
purchase card programs in the Department of Defense is that these 
abuses were allowed to occur as a result of weak internal controls. The 
revelations about DOD sparked questions about the possibility of 
similar deficiencies in other departments. In fact, subsequent work 
with the GAO and agency Inspectors General has uncovered weak internal 
controls in the travel card and purchase card programs of agencies like 
the Department of Education, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the 
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture leading to wasteful and 
questionable purchases with taxpayer dollars. We know about HUD 
employees using agency purchase cards for personal shopping sprees at 
stores like Best Buy and JC Penny, FAA employees purchasing individual 
subscriptions to Internet providers and gift cards from Home Depot, and 
Department of Agriculture employees using travel cards to buy a car and 
enroll in bartending school. The list goes on.

[[Page S12743]]

  Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be addressed government-
wide. Ideally, Federal agencies would get their own houses in order. 
Unfortunately, the atrocious abuses that have been uncovered in the 
charge card programs of agency after agency would likely never have 
come to light without congressional oversight. In fact, the positive 
developments we have seen so far in curtailing government credit card 
abuses have been the result of Congress cajoling the bureaucracy to put 
controls in place. The bill I am introducing today would require all 
agencies to promulgate regulations to establish safeguards and internal 
controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of Federal purchase cards 
and travel cards.
  The GAO has now issued an Audit Guide for auditing and investigating 
the internal control of government purchase card programs, which it 
developed based on its experiences auditing various agencies purchase 
card programs. This excellent guide outlines five standards for 
internal control to curtail fraudulent, improper, and abusive 
purchases. These include: establishing a positive control environment 
among agency management and employees, providing for a risk assessment, 
implementing control activities to enforce management directives and 
help ensure actions are taken to reduce risks, recording and 
communicating information to program managers and others who need it, 
and ongoing monitoring. My bill would go a long way to push agencies 
toward the effective management approach GAO has outlined.
  In fact, my bill requires agencies to establish policies for purchase 
card programs, and travel card programs where applicable, that 
incorporate many of the specific recommendations GAO has made to 
various agencies as a result of its investigations. These include: 
training for cardholders as well as approving officials and agency 
program coordinators, establishing who is eligible to be a cardholder 
and limits on how much they can charge, limiting the number of cards 
distributed to those who really need them, establishing requirements 
for documentation and records to support each purchase, cancelling 
cards for employees who leave or transfer, and establishing penalties 
to hold card holders and approving officials accountable for misuse.

  My bill also requires that credit checks be performed before issuing 
a government charge card and that no one found to be not creditworthy 
be issued a government credit card. In my opinion, it is absurb that 
this is not standard practice. Government employees who could never get 
a private credit card due to bad credit, bankrupty, or history of fraud 
will no longer be handed a government charge card with no questions 
asked.
  Finally, my bill would provide that the each agency Inspector General 
will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and 
travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential 
fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great 
success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data 
mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. 
The information continually provided to the head of each executive 
agency as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Comptroller General by each agency IG will be an enormous help 
in strengthening and maintaining a rigious system of internal controls 
to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government 
charge cards.
  Due to aggressive congressional oversight and the efforts of talented 
investigators working for the GAO and agency IG's, we now know that 
weak internal control over agency purchase and travel card programs has 
lead to waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government. It has 
come to the point that Congress must intervene to require agencies to 
put in place the policies and procedures necessary to stop the misuse 
of taxpayer dollars and the abuse of the public trust. I wish I could 
say this bill is a silver bullet and that once enacted, all the 
problems with government credit cards will disappear, but I don't 
pretend this is the case. Ultimately, it is up to agency officials and 
program managers to implement best practices for managing purchase card 
and travel card programs. To that end, I would encourage all agencies 
to take a close look at the GAO Audit Guide and use its approach. 
Meanwhile, continued congressional oversight will still be necessary. 
Nevertheless, my bill will serve to kick-start the bureaucracy into 
taking this problem seriously and I believe it will be a big step 
toward putting the lid back on the Federal cookie jar. I know many of 
my colleagues are equally appalled by the many tales of credit card 
fraud and abuse perpetrated on the American public and I would urge 
senators to join me in this effort.
  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. 1744

       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 ``Credit Card Abuse Prevention 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT OF PURCHASE CARDS.

       (a) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--The head of 
     each executive agency that issues and uses purchase cards and 
     convenience checks shall establish and maintain safeguards 
     and internal controls to ensure the following:
       (1) That there is a record in each executive agency of each 
     holder of a purchase card issued by the agency for official 
     use, annotated with the limitations on single transaction and 
     total credit amounts that are applicable to the use of each 
     such card by that purchase cardholder.
       (2) That the holder of a purchase card and each official 
     with authority to authorize expenditures charged to the 
     purchase card are responsible for reconciling the charges 
     appearing on each statement of account for that purchase card 
     with receipts and other supporting documentation and 
     forwarding such reconciliation to the designated official who 
     certifies the bill for payment in a timely manner.
       (3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any 
     discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting 
     documentation and the purchase card statement of account, is 
     resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable 
     Governmentwide purchase card contract entered into by the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made 
     promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest 
     penalties.
       (5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on 
     purchase card accounts are monitored for accuracy and 
     properly recorded as a receipt to the agency that pays the 
     monthly bill.
       (6) That records of each purchase card transaction 
     (including records on associated contracts, reports, 
     accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with 
     standard Government policies on the disposition of records.
       (7) That periodic reviews are performed to determine 
     whether each purchase cardholder has a need for the purchase 
     card.
       (8) That appropriate training is provided to each purchase 
     cardholder and each official with responsibility for 
     overseeing the use of purchase cards issued by an executive 
     agency.
       (9) That each executive agency has specific policies 
     regarding the number of purchase cards issued by various 
     organizations and categories of organizations, the credit 
     limits authorized for various categories of cardholders, and 
     categories of employees eligible to be issued purchase cards, 
     and that those policies are designed to minimize the 
     financial risk to the Federal Government of the issuance of 
     the purchase cards and to ensure the integrity of purchase 
     cardholders.
       (10) That the head of each executive agency evaluate the 
     creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the 
     individual a purchase card, and that no individual be issued 
     a purchase card if the individual is found not creditworthy 
     as a result of the evaluation. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such evaluation shall include an assessment 
     of an individual's consumer report from a consumer reporting 
     agency as those terms are defined in section 603 of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act. The obtaining of a consumer report 
     under this subsection is deemed to be a circumstance or 
     purpose authorized or listed under section 604 of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act.
       (11) That each executive agency invalidate the purchase 
     card of each employee who--
       (A) ceases to be employed by the agency immediately upon 
     termination of the employment of the employee; or
       (B) transfers to another unit of the agency immediately 
     upon the transfer of the employee.
       (b) Management of Purchase Cards.--The head of each 
     executive agency shall prescribe regulations implementing the 
     safeguards and internal controls in subsection (a). Those 
     regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply 
     Governmentwide regarding the use of purchase cards by 
     Government personnel for official purposes.

[[Page S12744]]

       (c) Penalties for Violations.--The regulations prescribed 
     under subsection (a) shall provide for appropriate adverse 
     personnel actions or other punishment to be imposed in cases 
     in which employees of an executive agency violate such 
     regulations or are negligent or engage in misuse, abuse, or 
     fraud with respect to a purchase card, including removal in 
     appropriate cases.
       (d) The Inspector General of each executive agency shall--
       (1) periodically conduct risk assessments of the agency 
     purchase card program and associated internal controls and 
     analyze identified weaknesses and the frequency of improper 
     activity in order to develop a plan for using such risk 
     assessments to determine the scope, frequency, and number of 
     periodic audits of purchase cardholders;
       (2) perform periodic audits of purchase cardholders 
     designed to identify--
       (A) potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive uses of 
     purchase cards;
       (B) any patterns of improper cardholder transactions, such 
     as purchases of prohibited items; and
       (C) categories of purchases that should be made by means 
     other than purchase cards in order to better aggregate 
     purchases and obtain lower prices;
       (3) report to the head of the executive agency concerned on 
     the results of such audits; and
       (4) report to the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget and the Comptroller General on the implementation of 
     recommendations made to the head of the executive agency to 
     address findings during audits of purchase cardholders.
       (e) Definition of Executive Agency.--For the purpose of 
     this section the term ``executive agency'' has the meaning 
     provided in section 4(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)).
       (f) Relationship to Department of Defense Purchase Card 
     Regulations.--
       (1) The requirements under this section shall not apply to 
     the Department of Defense.
       (2) Section 2784(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``periodic audits'' and 
     inserting ``risk assessments of the agency purchase card 
     program and associated internal controls and analyze 
     identified weaknesses and the frequency of improper activity 
     in order to develop a plan for using such risk assessments to 
     determine the scope, frequency, and number of periodic audits 
     of purchase cardholders.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(11) That the Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the 
     creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the 
     individual a purchase card, and that no individual be issued 
     a purchase card if the individual is not found creditworthy 
     as a result of the evaluation. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such evaluation shall include an assessment 
     of an individual's consumer report from a consumer reporting 
     agency as those terms are defined in section 603 of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act. The obtaining of a consumer report 
     under this subsection is deemed to be a circumstance or 
     purpose authorized or listed under section 604 of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act.
       ``(12) That the Secretary of Defense invalidate the 
     purchase card of each employee who ceases to be employed by 
     the department immediately upon termination of the employment 
     of the employee or transfers to another agency or subunit 
     within the department immediately upon transfer.''.

     SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF TRAVEL CARDS.

       Section 2 of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 
     1998 (Public Law 105-264; 5 U.S.C. 5701 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Management of Travel Charge Cards.--
       ``(1) Required safeguards and internal controls.--The head 
     of each executive agency that has employees that use travel 
     charge cards shall establish and maintain safeguards and 
     internal controls over travel charge cards to ensure the 
     following:
       ``(A) That there is a record in each executive agency of 
     each holder of a travel charge card issued by the agency for 
     official use, annotated with the limitations on amounts that 
     are applicable to the use of each such card by that travel 
     charge cardholder.
       ``(B) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on 
     travel charge card accounts are properly recorded as a 
     receipt of the agency that employs the cardholder.
       ``(C) That periodic reviews are performed to determine 
     whether each travel charge cardholder has a need for the 
     travel charge card.
       ``(D) That appropriate training is provided to each travel 
     charge cardholder and each official with responsibility for 
     overseeing the use of travel charge cards issued by an 
     executive agency.
       ``(E) That each executive agency has specific policies 
     regarding the number of travel charge cards issued by various 
     organizations and categories of organizations, the credit 
     limits authorized for various categories of cardholders, and 
     categories of employees eligible to be issued travel charge 
     cards, and that those policies are designed to minimize the 
     financial risk to the Federal Government of the issuance of 
     the travel charge cards and to ensure the integrity of travel 
     charge cardholders.
       ``(F) That the head of each executive agency evaluates the 
     creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the 
     individual a travel charge card, and that no individual be 
     issued a travel charge card if the individual is found not 
     creditworthy as a result of the evaluation (except that this 
     paragraph shall not preclude issuance of a restricted use 
     travel charge card when the individual lacks a credit 
     history). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such 
     evaluation shall include an assessment of an individual's 
     consumer report from a consumer reporting agency as those 
     terms are defined in section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act. The obtaining of a consumer report under this subsection 
     is deemed to be a circumstance or purpose authorized or 
     listed under section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
       ``(G) That each executive agency ensures that the travel 
     charge card of each employee who ceases to be employed by the 
     agency is invalidated immediately upon termination of the 
     employment of the employee.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Administrator of General Services 
     shall prescribe regulations governing the implementation of 
     the safeguards and internal controls in paragraph (1) by 
     executive agencies.
       ``(3) Penalties for violations.--The regulations prescribed 
     under paragraph (2) shall provide for appropriate adverse 
     personnel actions or other punishment to be imposed in cases 
     in which employees of an executive agency violate such 
     regulations or are negligent or engage in misuse, abuse, or 
     fraud with respect to a travel charge card, including removal 
     in appropriate cases.
       ``(4) The Inspector General of each executive agency 
     shall--
       ``(A) periodically conduct risk assessments of the agency 
     travel card program and associated internal controls and 
     analyze identified weaknesses and the frequency of improper 
     activity in order to develop a plan for using such risk 
     assessments to determine the scope, frequency, and number of 
     periodic audits of purchase cardholders;
       ``(B) perform periodic audits of travel cardholders 
     designed to identify potentially fraudulent, improper, and 
     abusive uses of travel cards;
       ``(C) report to the head of the executive agency concerned 
     on the results of such audits; and
       ``(D) report to the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget and the Comptroller General on the implementation 
     of recommendations made to the head of the executive agency 
     to address findings during audits of travel cardholders.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `executive agency' means an agency as that 
     term is defined in section 5701 of title 5, United States 
     Code, except that it is in the executive branch.
       ``(B) The term `travel charge card' means the Federal 
     contractor-issued travel charge card that is individually 
     billed to each cardholder.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act--
       (1) the head of each executive agency shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement the requirements of section 2; and
       (2) the Administrator of General Services shall promulgate 
     regulations required pursuant to the amendments made by 
     section 3.
       (b) Best Practices.--Regulations promulgated under this 
     section shall reflect best practices for conducting purchase 
     card and travel card programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1745. A bill to designate a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action 
National Memorial at Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, 
California; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prisoner of 
War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. This bill would 
designate the POW/MIA memorial currently being built at Riverside 
National Cemetery in California as the National POW/MIA Memorial. This 
monument would be a memorial to all members of the Armed Forces who 
have been held as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action.
  We should always remember and pay tribute to the men and women who 
are fighting for our Nation now and have fought for our Nation in the 
past, including those who have never returned home. Over 89,000 members 
of the Armed Forces have been listed as missing since the American 
Revolution.
  The families of these missing men and women have had to try to go on 
with their lives without ever knowing what happened. Many of them have 
been unable to grieve for their loved ones as they typically would, and 
many of them have been unable to have a proper burial. The families of 
our missing in action across the country should know that their nation 
remembers their loved one, and honors them by dedicating this national 
memorial in Riverside, CA.
  In addition to the missing soldiers, airmen, sailors, and others, 
there have been over 586,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been 
taken

[[Page S12745]]

prisoner since the American Revolution. In the 20th Century alone, 
there were over 142,000 Americans taken as prisoners of war.
  I would like to thank Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced the 
House version of this bill in May. I commend him for his leadership in 
honoring Americans missing in action and taken as prisoners of war.
  There is no national memorial for both POWs and MIAs; there is not 
even a statue dedicated to their memory. It is time that the United 
States recognize the sacrifice that these American POWs and MIAs have 
made, and designate the memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery as 
the National POW/MIA Memorial.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1747. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce an important piece of 
legislation, which will help protect the health of contact lens 
wearers, by ensuring that all contact lenses satisfy the same 
regulatory requirements for approval.
  Currently, non-corrective contact lenses, such as decorative lenses 
that change eye color or have some design on them, are regulated under 
the Food and Drug Administration's cosmetic authority. The problem is 
this. The FDA does not review cosmetics for safety or effectiveness 
before they are sold to the public. This means that the FDA cannot 
require manufacturers to test non-corrective lenses for safety 
problems, cannot set ``good manufacturing practices,'' and cannot even 
require that these lenses carry directions for safe use. This lack of 
FDA review and lack of established safety standards can lead to the 
marketing of lenses that are neither safe nor suitable for wearing.
  An article in the most recent issue of the medical journal Eye & 
Contact Lens describes the cases of six people injured by the sale of 
unregulated colored contact lenses. As the article points out, four of 
the six patients reside in the greater Cleveland area. This obviously 
concerns me. But what concerns me more is that three of the five female 
patients were teenagers.
  One such case involved a teenage girl from Cleveland who bought 
colored contact lenses from a video rental store for the purpose of 
matching her eyes with her dress. The lenses were sold without fitting 
or instructions. Prior to putting these lenses in her eyes, she had no 
previous problems with her vision and had never worn contact lenses.
  Shortly after wearing the colored contact lenses, she was urgently 
admitted to a Cleveland hospital where it was determined that the 
vision in her left eye had become so poor that she could only make out 
hand motions. She stayed in the ICU for four days because that was the 
only place where she could receive the treatment necessary for her eye. 
Worse yet, her doctor feared that she would not only lose her sight, 
but that she might actually lose her eye.
  In an effort to restore vision, her doctor recommended a corneal 
transplant, which she underwent. Nearly two years after the infection 
started, her vision has not been fully restored. For the rest of her 
life, this young girl will be at risk for rejection of the transplant, 
cataracts and glaucoma.
  This type of injury can be prevented. The bill that Senator Kennedy 
and I are introducing today would allow non-corrective lenses to be 
reviewed before they are marketed and before they are accessible to 
young people. This bill, which has the endorsement of leading 
organizations in eye care--representing thousands of health care 
professionals and consumers and the contact lens industry--would 
clarify that all contact lenses are devices and are to be approved 
under the FDA's device authority. Applying the medical device 
requirements across-the-board to all contact lens manufacturers and 
distributors would help ensure that all companies are held to the same 
important safety standards.
  Our bill would be a positive step forward in helping to prevent 
unnecessary eye injuries. I urge my colleagues to support passage of 
this legislation.
  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. 1747

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) All contact lenses have significant effects on the eye 
     and pose serious potential health risks if improperly 
     manufactured or used without appropriate involvement of a 
     qualified eye care professional.
       (2) Most contact lenses currently marketed in the United 
     States, including certain plano and decorative contact 
     lenses, have been approved as medical devices pursuant to 
     premarket approval applications or cleared pursuant to 
     premarket notifications by the Food and Drug Administration 
     (``FDA'').
       (3) FDA has asserted medical device jurisdiction over most 
     corrective and noncorrective contact lenses as medical 
     devices currently marketed in the United States, including 
     certain plano and decorative contact lenses, so as to require 
     approval pursuant to premarket approval applications or 
     clearance pursuant to premarket notifications.
       (4) All contact lenses can present risks if used without 
     the supervision of a qualified eye care professional. Eye 
     injuries in children and other consumers have been reported 
     for contact lenses that are regulated by FDA as medical 
     devices primarily when used without professional involvement, 
     and noncorrective contact lenses sold without approval or 
     clearance as medical devices have caused eye injuries in 
     children.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN ARTICLES AS MEDICAL DEVICES.

       Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 360j) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     subsection:

                ``Regulation of Contact Lens as Devices

       ``(n)(1) All contact lenses shall be deemed to be devices 
     under section 201(h).
       ``(2) Paragraph 1 shall not be construed as having any 
     legal effect on any article that is not described in that 
     paragraph.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1748. A bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and 
maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Durbin 
and Senator Voinovich to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement 
Act of 2003. This legislation would honor the great men that have 
served as our former Chief Executives and have influenced the 
development of our great Nation. This act would create a new and 
innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and 
maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and 
tombs. Preserving this heritage is vital to enabling our children and 
grandchildren to learn about the leadership and infinite wisdom of our 
past Presidents.
  We often forget that the best learning tool is that which a child can 
touch, see, and relate. When a child boards a bus for a field trip to 
visit historic sites, that is truly when hands-on learning takes place. 
Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals they heard 
about or read about in the classroom provides a completely different 
atmosphere to appreciate history. This learning can continue only 
through the preservation of the birthplaces, homes, memorials, and 
tombs of our former Presidents.
  Family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical 
societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit 
organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often 
have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining 
such important sites. Operating costs must be met before maintenance 
needs, and slowly the sites deteriorate.
  I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my 
home State of Ohio--a state that has been home to eight Presidents. 
During one such visit at the Ulysses S. Grant house, I found it very 
disturbing to see the discoloration and falling plaster due to water 
damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch 
where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began 
to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain

[[Page S12746]]

the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating 
further. However, by providing Federal assistance for maintenance 
projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems 
tomorrow.
  These Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly 
decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the 
National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on 
Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion 
of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency 
assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would 
establish a five-member committee, including the Director of the 
National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee 
would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each 
grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal 
sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation, 
and ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1748

       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 ``Presidential Sites 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are many sites honoring Presidents located 
     throughout the United States, including Presidential 
     birthplaces, homes, museums, burial sites, and tombs;
       (2) most of the sites are owned, operated, and maintained 
     by non-Federal entities such as State and local agencies, 
     family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, 
     historical societies, historic preservation organizations, 
     and other nonprofit organizations;
       (3) Presidential sites are often expensive to maintain;
       (4) many Presidential sites are in need of capital, 
     technological, and interpretive display improvements for 
     which funding is insufficient or unavailable; and
       (5) to promote understanding of the history of the United 
     States by recognizing and preserving historic sites linked to 
     Presidents of the United States, the Federal Government 
     should provide grants for the maintenance and improvement of 
     Presidential sites.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Grant commission.--The term ``Grant Commission'' means 
     the Presidential Site Grant Commission established by section 
     4(d).
       (2) Presidential site.--The term ``Presidential site'' 
     means a Presidentially-related site of national significance 
     that is--
       (A) managed, maintained, and operated for, and is 
     accessible to, the public; and
       (B) owned or operated by--
       (i) a State; or
       (ii) a private institution, organization, or person.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants for major 
     maintenance and improvement projects at Presidential sites to 
     owners or operators of Presidential sites in accordance with 
     this section.
       (b) Use of Grant Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A grant awarded under this section may be 
     used for--
       (A) repairs or capital improvements at a Presidential site 
     (including new construction for necessary modernization) such 
     as--
       (i) installation or repair of heating or air conditioning 
     systems, security systems, or electric service; or
       (ii) modifications at a Presidential site to achieve 
     compliance with requirements under titles II and III of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) interpretive improvements to enhance public 
     understanding and enjoyment of a Presidential site.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Of the funds made available to award 
     grants under this Act--
       (i) 15 percent shall be used for emergency projects, as 
     determined by the Secretary;
       (ii) 65 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) a 3-year average annual operating budget of less than 
     $700,000 (not including the amount of any grant received 
     under this section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is less than 3 times 
     the annual operating budget of the site; and

       (iii) 20 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) an annual operating budget of $700,000 or more (not 
     including the amount of any grant received under this 
     section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is equal to or more 
     than 3 times the annual operating budget of the site.

       (B) Unexpended funds.--If any funds allocated for a 
     category of projects described in subparagraph (A) are 
     unexpended, the Secretary may use the funds to award grants 
     for another category of projects described in that 
     subparagraph.
       (c) Application and Award Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than a date to be determined by 
     the Secretary, an owner or operator of a Presidential site 
     may submit to the Secretary an application for a grant under 
     this section.
       (2) Involvement of grant commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall forward each 
     application received under paragraph (1) to the Grant 
     Commission.
       (B) Consideration by grant commission.--Not later than 60 
     days after receiving an application from the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A), the Grant Commission shall return the 
     application to the Secretary with a recommendation of whether 
     the proposed project should be awarded a Presidential site 
     grant.
       (C) Recommendation of grant commission.--In making a 
     decision to award a Presidential site grant under this 
     section, the Secretary shall take into consideration any 
     recommendation of the Grant Commission.
       (3) Award.--Not later than 180 days after receiving an 
     application for a Presidential site grant under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) award a Presidential site grant to the applicant; or
       (B) notify the applicant, in writing, of the decision of 
     the Secretary not to award a Presidential site grant.
       (4) Matching requirements.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     at a Presidential site for which a grant is awarded under 
     this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a project at a Presidential site for which a grant is 
     awarded under this section may be provided in cash or in 
     kind.
       (d) Presidential Site Grant Commission.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the Presidential Site 
     Grant Commission.
       (2) Composition.--The Grant Commission shall be composed 
     of--
       (A) the Director of the National Park Service; and
       (B) 4 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (i) A State historic preservation officer.
       (ii) A representative of the National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation.
       (iii) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(ii).
       (iv) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(iii).
       (3) Term.--A member of the Grant Commission shall serve a 
     term of 2 years.
       (4) Duties.--The Grant Commission shall--
       (A) review applications for Presidential site grants 
     received under subsection (c); and
       (B) recommend to the Secretary projects for which 
     Presidential site grants should be awarded.
       (5) Ineligibility of sites during term of representative.--
     A site described in clause (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (2)(B) 
     shall be ineligible for a grant under this Act during the 2-
     year period in which a representative of the site serves on 
     the Grant Commission.
       (6) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Grant Commission shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1749. A bill to amend various provisions of the Consumer Credit 
Protection Act to relief for victims of identity theft, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are faced today with one of the 
fastest growing crimes in America, identity theft. Recent estimates 
place the number of new identity theft victims at approximately 7 
million in a single 12 month period--nearly 800 new victims per hour. 
Another study found that victims spend an average of 600 hours 
recovering from identity theft crimes, sometimes spanning several 
years. Only three years ago, the average time spent addressing identity 
theft was 175 hours. In addition to the lost time, victims spend an 
average of $1,400 in their efforts to rectify the damage inflicted by 
identity thieves. Identity theft is one crime for which the victims are 
virtually on their own to resolve.
  In most States, the burden is on the one harmed--and the only method 
by which an individual can attempt to repair their good name and credit 
is by pursuing civil action against creditors and debt collectors. 
Today, I will introduce PITFALL, the Prevent Identity

[[Page S12747]]

Theft From Affecting Lives and Livelihoods Act of 2003. PITFALL 
addresses identity theft after the fact--to help victims after the harm 
is inflicted.
  The overriding goal of the legislation is to prevent creditors and 
debt collectors, when existing laws fail to protect identity theft 
victims, from harassing victims and further sabotaging their financial 
well-being once a State's highest law enforcement officer has 
conclusively determined liabilities were fraudulently incurred, with no 
culpability on the part of the victim.
  While there has been much discussion and action aimed at preventing 
identity theft, it is time to focus on those individuals for which 
prevention is too late. Please join me in this effort to remove the 
burden from innocent victims in restoring peace and financial security 
to their lives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1750. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to improve the nutrition 
and health of children in the United States; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of 
significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for 
Better Living Act of 2003.
  Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible 
for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk 
factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood 
through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and 
tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in 
adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are 
obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a 
crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate 
attention.
  Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become 
obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, 
psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, 
diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and 
discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is 
difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at 
improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing 
more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster 
healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in 
our schools.
  It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools 
that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs 
were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been 
and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. 
However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the 
child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our 
current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy 
food for all children.
  Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the 
five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide 
Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat 
the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day 
and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended 
in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and 
school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health 
by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school 
environments is not yet done.
  Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a 
myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, 
and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child 
Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while 
preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the 
young people who need them.
  Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's 
health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four 
key components.
  First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. 
School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality 
of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and 
it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound 
like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly 
greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, 
fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits.
  Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate 
the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science 
of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are 
appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science 
evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children 
deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to 
be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public 
health concerns, and cultural appropriateness.
  Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to 
only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is 
appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of 
providing other milk products so long as they are cost and 
nutritionally equivalent.
  Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but 
accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to 
growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the 
bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, 
it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for 
implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This 
is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its 
administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It 
is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong 
commitment to our children's health and well-being.
  Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well-
being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in 
the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child 
Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be 
far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do 
nothing.
  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. 1750

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

  TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

Sec. 101. Reimbursement for school lunches.
Sec. 102. Nutritional quality of school meals.

          TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966

Sec. 201. Funding for nutrition education.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are 
     responsible for \2/3\ of deaths in the United States;
       (2) the major risk factors for those diseases and 
     conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy 
     eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use;
       (3) obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in 
     adolescents over the last 2 decades;
       (4) today, 1 in 7 young people are obese, and 1 in 3 are 
     overweight;
       (5) obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children 
     to become obese adults;
       (6) overweightness and obesity can result in physical, 
     psychological, and social consequences, including heart 
     disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, 
     and discrimination;
       (7) only 2 percent of children consume a diet that meets 
     the 5 main recommendations for a healthy diet from the Food 
     Guide Pyramid published by the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (8) 3 out of 4 high school students in the United States do 
     not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and 
     vegetables each day; and
       (9) 3 out of 4 children in the United States consume more 
     saturated fat than is recommended in the Dietary Guidelines 
     for

[[Page S12748]]

     Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.

  TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

     SEC. 101. REIMBURSEMENT FOR SCHOOL LUNCHES.

       Section 4(b)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``10.5'' and inserting ``20.5''.

     SEC. 102. NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF SCHOOL MEALS.

       (a) Revision of Meal Guidelines.--Section 9(a)(1) of the 
     Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1758(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Revision of nutritional guidelines.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, in collaboration with 
     experts in nutrition, school health, food service, and school 
     administration, shall, not later than July 31, 2004, and 
     every 5 years thereafter--

       ``(I) review the nutritional guidelines applicable to meals 
     served under the school lunch program under this Act, taking 
     into consideration--

       ``(aa) advances in the field of nutrition;
       ``(bb) identified public health risks relating to 
     inadequate nutrition and overconsumption; and
       ``(cc) the needs of student populations covered by programs 
     under this Act; and

       ``(II) issue revised nutritional guidelines, as necessary, 
     including guidelines with respect to--

       ``(aa) the content of meals served of calories, fat 
     (including types of fat), added sugars, fiber, sodium, 
     vitamins, and minerals;
       ``(bb) the variety of foods offered;
       ``(cc) the availability of fruits and vegetables; and
       ``(dd) the cultural appropriateness of foods offered.
       ``(ii) Applicability.--Revised nutritional guidelines 
     issued by the Secretary under clause (i) shall apply to meals 
     served under the school lunch program under this Act on and 
     after the date that is 2 years after the date of issuance of 
     the revised nutritional guidelines.''.
       (b) Fluid Milk.--Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)) is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B)(i) at a minimum, shall offer students a choice of 
     lowfat or nonfat fluid milk; and
       ``(ii) in addition to the type of fluid milk offered under 
     clause (i), may offer such other varieties of fluid milk as 
     are--
       ``(I) consistent with expressed preferences of the student 
     population; and
       ``(II) reasonably equivalent in calcium, protein, vitamin 
     A, and vitamin K content and cost.''.

          TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966

     SEC. 201. FUNDING FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION.

       Section 19(i) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1788 (i)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (2) by striking ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--'' 
     and all that follows through paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) Funding.--
       ``(1) Payments.--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 
     section, to remain available until expended--
       ``(A) on October 1, 2003, $10,000,000;
       ``(B) on October 1, 2004, $15,000,000; and
       ``(C) on October 1, 2005, $20,000,000.
       ``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1), 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), grants to 
     each State from the amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1) shall be based on a rate of \1/2\ cent per average daily 
     number of meals served, to be allocated among State, 
     district, and school food service and health education 
     authorities, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Minimum amount.--The minimum amount of a grant 
     provided to a State for a fiscal year under this section 
     shall be $200,000, as adjusted in accordance with section 
     11(a)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)).''.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     October 1, 2003.

                          ____________________