[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 27 (Thursday, March 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2224-S2233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Carper, and Mr. 
        Pryor):
  S. 2163. A bill to establish a national health program administered 
by the Office of Personnel Management to offer health benefits plans to 
individuals who are not Federal employees, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along 
with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, which will help small 
businesses struggling to make health insurance available to their 
employees.
  Health insurance premiums have risen as much as six times the rate of 
inflation in the past decade. Last year they rose by 13.9 percent, the 
fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases. Some small 
businesses in Illinois are facing increases as high as 40 percent 
annually.
  According to a survey conducted by Mercer Consulting, worker health 
care costs have overtaken taxes as the biggest concern among small 
business owners; and two-thirds of them are shopping for a new health 
plan every year in an effort to save money.
  The Conference Board, an executive research firm, conducts an annual 
survey of 120 CEOs. One of the questions they ask is how big an 
obstacle health care costs are in hiring new workers. This year, 78 
percent said it was an obstacle, 35 percent said it was a major 
obstacle.
  Health care costs are hurting small businesses, workers and the 
economy; and fixing this problem should be a national priority.
  There are two main problems for small businesses in obtaining 
affordable insurance. First, there aren't many insurers offering 
affordable products to small groups. Many small businesses only have 
access to one insurer in their area, which make it hard to comparison 
shop. The second problem is that because of their limited size, small 
business don't have the purchasing or negotiating power of a big 
company.
  The Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act of 2004 (SEHBP) will 
address both of these problems while maintaining insurance solvency and 
benefit standards.
  Our bill will create a program based on the successful Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program or ``FEHBP,'' which offers Federal 
employees a range of private sector options at affordable prices. This 
new program would draw from FEHBP's strengths: plan choice, group 
purchasing savings, comprehensive benefits, low administrative costs 
and nationwide availability.
  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which has forty years of 
experience running FEHBP, would set up a separate SEHBP national 
purchasing pool open to businesses with 100 employees or less. OPM 
would annually negotiate benefit packages with private health insurers 
interested in offering an insurance plan through the SEHBP program. OPM 
would send out summaries of health plans available to all participating 
and interested employers during an annual open enrollment season. Plan 
guides would include a description of each plan offered and

[[Page S2225]]

the associated costs, as well as results of a customer satisfaction 
survey of the plans.
  Each employee would choose a plan right for them and enroll directly 
with the health insurer. To help defray costs for the employers and 
encourage them to offer insurance to low-income employees, employers 
would receive an annual refundable tax credit if they agree to pay at 
least 60 percent of the insurance premium. The tax credit would be 
equal to 25 percent of the employer contribution for self-only 
policies, 30 percent for policies covering married couples with no 
dependents, and 35 percent for family policies, for workers making up 
to $25,000 per year.
  There would also be a refundable 10 percent bonus tax credit for 
those employers who enroll in the first year and an additional bonus to 
employers who cover more than 60 percent of the premium. The bonus 
would be equivalent to a 5 percent add-on per additional 10 percent of 
premium covered. So, if an employer covers 70 percent, the employer 
would receive an additional 5 percent tax credit. If they cover 80 
percent of the premium, they would get an additional 10 percent tax 
credit.
  All self-employed persons and employees in small businesses of 100 
employees or less would be eligible to enroll in SEHBP health plans. 
OPM would have the authority to grant waivers to businesses with more 
than 100 employees.
  One of the few differences from FEHBP is that SEHBP plans would be 
allowed to vary premiums by age, so that younger enrollees would be 
more likely to enroll. The more young healthy people join the program, 
the lower the premiums will be for everyone.
  SEHBP health plans would not be allowed to impose any preexisting 
condition exclusions on new SEHBP enrollees who have at least one year 
of health insurance coverage immediately prior to enrollment in an 
SEHBP plan. However, to prevent people from waiting until they get sick 
to enroll, health plans would be allowed to exclude coverage for known 
preexisting conditions for up to one year for people without coverage 
immediately prior to enrollment, while covering costs associated with 
new conditions.
  Mr. President, Secretary Tommy Thompson of the Department of Health 
and Human Services said yesterday that people without health insurance 
in this country get health care. I disagree. There are millions of 
Americans forgoing care because they don't have access to affordable 
health care. Additionally, small businesses are forgoing hiring because 
of the cost of offering health care to new employees. These problems 
can and should be solved and I believe this legislation could open the 
door for many Americans to obtain good health insurance coverage.
  SEHBP would provide small employers a way to offer their workers an 
array of health insurance options at a group discounted rate. With a 
limited administrative effort and a refundable tax credit, employers 
would be able to participate in a health insurance program that offers 
greater affordability, access and choice without compromising benefit 
and solvency standards.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Durbin, to introduce the Small Employer Health Benefits Program 
Act of 2004.
  This legislation seeks to address an enormous problem facing small 
businesses in Arkansas and all across the country: accessibility and 
affordability of health insurance. I have talked with many small 
business owners in Arkansas who have been forced to drop or 
dramatically reduce health insurance for their employees even though 
they desperately want to offer it. Small employers say that offering 
health insurance has a positive impact on recruitment, retention, 
employee attitude, performance, health status, and the overall success 
of the business. What better way to get our economy going again than to 
help small businesses succeed?
  Small businesses are the number one source for jobs in Arkansas. And 
the smaller the businesses, the less likely they will offer health 
insurance. Nationally, 58 percent of all private sector employers offer 
health insurance. Only three States fall below this average: my home 
State of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Montana. Arkansas, rate for private 
coverage is 43 percent.
  That is why I am proud to introduce legislation today that will offer 
small employers a real solution to the problem of accessing affordable, 
comprehensive health insurance for their employees. Our legislation 
calls for the creation of a new Small Employers Health Benefits Program 
which will offer small employers affordable choices among private 
health insurance plans by giving them access to a large purchasing pool 
and negotiated rates. Our bill combines the best of what government-run 
health care, but harnesses the power of market competition to bring 
down health insurance costs by using a proven government negotiator.
  Under our bill, small businesses across America would be able to pool 
their risk and purchasing power together to offer affordable health 
insurance options for their employees. Based on the successful Federal 
Employees Health Benefits program, which has provided quality benefit 
choices to Federal employees for decades, our program would offer small 
businesses a range of benefit packages from a variety of insurance 
companies, ensuring them a choice of affordable products.
  All small employers with under 100 employees could voluntarily 
participate in the new SEHBP. Why only 100 employees or less? We target 
help to those who need it the most. Take Arkansas as an example. 87 
percent of the businesses in Arkansas with 100 to 200 employees do 
offer health insurance. However, most businesses in Arkansas, 76 
percent to be exact, have less than 50 employees and less than one-
third of them are able to offer health insurance to their employees.
  Also under our bill, if employers agree to pay a minimum percentage 
of the premium for workers making under $25,000, they would receive a 
refundable tax credit in return. Why only low-wage workers? Studies 
show that more than half of workers in firms under 100 people make less 
than $25,000. And firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers are 
much less likely to offer insurance.
  Further, current health tax-credits are not targeted to those who 
need help the most. A recent study shows that only 28 percent of 
current health benefit tax expenditures will go to families with 
incomes below $50,000 this year. This is bad considering that these 
families account for more than half of all families in our country. In 
contrast, families with incomes of $100,000 or more comprise 14 percent 
of the population but will account for 26 percent of all health benefit 
tax expenditures.
  By giving small employers a refundable tax credit to defray part of 
the employer contribution for low-income workers, we provide help to 
those struggling families who need it the most.
  One of the best aspects of our program is that every person working 
for a small business anywhere in the country--rural or urban--would 
have access to a choice of plans. And workers who move from one SEHBP-
participating company to another anywhere in the Nation would be able 
to maintain their same health coverage.
  For example, a florist working in Helena, AR, who is enrolled in an 
SEHBP nationwide plan could move to Carbondale, IL, without changing 
her health insurance. It's that easy.
  Consumers are protected because plans in SEHBP will be subject to the 
same strict regulatory and solvency standards applied to plans in 
FEHBP. And small employers would be relieved of the burden of comparing 
insurers, benefit packages, costs and negotiating contracts.
  I hope that our colleagues will take a careful look at our 
legislation and present it to the small businesses in their States. I 
hope they will ask them about their struggle to find affordable health 
insurance in today's market and see if they'd view this as a better 
alternative.
  The number of uninsured in our country is alarming and should be a 
national priority. It is apparent by the statements of HHS Secretary 
Tommy Thompson yesterday that President Bush's administration doesn't 
recognize the severity of this crisis. Secretary Thompson said: ``Even 
if you don't have health insurance in America, you get taken care of. 
That could be defined as universal health care.''

[[Page S2226]]

  With all due respect to Secretary Thompson, I don't know where he's 
getting his information. Just look at the facts:
  Twenty percent of the working-aged adults in Arkansas (who are 
between 19 and 64 years of age) are uninsured. Forty-four million 
Americans nationwide don't have health insurance.
  Uninsured families have less access to important screenings, state-
of-the art technology, and prescription drugs. We just passed a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit because we know how important access 
to prescription drugs are in improving health.
  Uninsured adults have a 25 percent greater mortality risk than adults 
with coverage. About 18,000 deaths among people younger than 65 are 
attributed to lack of health insurance coverage every year.
  Uninsured adults with chronic conditions like diabetes, 
cardiovascular disease, HIV infection and mental illness have less 
access to preventive care and have worse clinical outcomes than insured 
patients. They try to buy insurance, but it is virtually impossible to 
get in the individual market.
  Uninsured adults negatively affect our health care providers and 
local economies too. A community's high rate of uninsurance can 
adversely affect the overall health status of the community, the 
financial stability of its health care institutions and providers, and 
access to emergency departments and trauma centers. My hospitals in 
Arkansas will tell you how expensive uncompensated care can be.
  These facts make it clear: people without health insurance don't 
``get taken care of'' as Thompson said. Those who lack health insurance 
don't get access to timely and appropriate health care. The facts are 
that Americans without health insurance--children and adults--suffer 
worse health and die sooner than those who do have health insurance.
  In Arkansas, the number one cause of bankruptcy is high medical 
bills. These working families need help with this problem.
  The fact is that people who lack health insurance are sicker and die 
sooner. You ``don't get taken care of'' if you have no health 
insurance. You fend for yourself.
  That's why our small businesses employers--who make up most of the 
businesses in Arkansas--want to offer health insurance to their 
employees. And that is why our bill that Senator Durbin and I are 
introducing today is good for America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2164. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to authorize local educational agencies in rural areas to 
obtain a limited waiver of certain requirements relating to the 
employment of highly qualified teachers; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that I hope 
will be a useful tool for America's rural schools. The ``Assisting 
America's Rural Schools Act'' will address the concerns of rural Local 
Education Agencies (LEAs) that are trying to comply with the teacher 
quality standards set by the ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.''
  Every day, rural communities are confronted by a shortage of 
resources. It may surprise some people to know there are still small 
towns in rural America where the citizens wait for a doctor to make his 
rounds, a mail truck to drop off the mail. These families have elected 
to stay in their communities despite all the obstacles, and they 
deserve an opportunity to enjoy a good quality of life.
  It should come as no shock that there aren't many teachers who want 
to move to the remotest areas of a State, and teach in the few 
scattered schools in those areas. Furthermore, rural school districts' 
salaries and benefits are usually dwarfed by what urban school 
districts can offer, which presents another barrier to attracting 
teachers to rural areas.
  Imagine the community's sigh of relief when a rural school does 
acquire a teacher. Now imagine the look on the teacher's face when she 
realizes she is expected to be ``highly qualified'' to instruct in 
multiple subjects.
  The small town of Austin in Lander County, NV is one such community. 
Austin boasts a grand total of 63 students in grades K-12. For grades 
6-12, there are only three teachers for all subjects. Yes, only three 
teachers.
  These teachers are considered ``highly qualified'' in the areas of 
science, English, math, and physical education. In order for Austin to 
acquire a teacher who is ``highly qualified'' in the subject of 
history, the LEA must either find and recruit another teacher, or send 
one of its three current teachers back to school to get accredited in 
history via distance learning. Unfortunately, Lander County doesn't 
have the money to do either of these things.
  Another quandary is presented in the event that one of these three 
teachers retires, quits, or leaves the school system. Again, it is 
incumbent upon the LEA to decide how to spend its limited funds.
  Make no mistake about it: The issue is not whether teachers in rural 
areas should be qualified to teach multiple subjects--they should. 
However, requiring them to attain ``highly qualified'' status in all 
subjects simultaneously is unreasonable.
  The ``Assisting America's Rural Schools Act'' provides rural LEAs 
with some flexibility in meeting the definition of a ``highly qualified 
teacher'' without diminishing the accountability standards for such 
teachers. Once the Department of Education deems a rural school 
district eligible, it will be allowed to exempt for 1 year any teacher 
already highly qualified in at least one core academic subject from the 
Federal requirement to be ``highly qualified'' in every subject taught. 
A highly qualified teacher who is working toward that certification in 
another subject can still teach both subjects.
  Nevada is not alone in facing this dilemma. While 13 out of 17 
counties in my state would qualify as rural LEA's under the bill, it 
would also provide relief for rural school systems in 48 other states.
  There is no question that every child deserves a quality education 
regardless of whether he or she lives in urban rural America. We have 
the responsibility in Congress of making sure the door of opportunity 
is open to all our children.
  The ``highly qualified'' teacher provision in the ``No Child Left 
Behind Act'' is having the unintended consequence of depleting the 
already scarce supply of teachers in rural areas. To correct this 
situation, Congress should pass the ``Assisting America's Rural 
Teachers Act'' in the near future.
  This bill was authored by Representative Jim Gibbons of Nevada and 
has been introduced in the House. I am proud to author the Senate 
Companion and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
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. 2164

       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 ``Assisting America's Rural 
     Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. RURAL WAIVER OF CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1119(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Availability of waiver for rural local educational 
     agencies.--
       ``(A) New hires.--Upon application by a rural local 
     educational agency, the Secretary may grant the agency the 
     authority to defer, for a 1-year period beginning on the date 
     any teacher who is new to the profession first begins 
     employment with the agency as a middle or secondary school 
     teacher, the application to such teacher of the requirement 
     in section 9101(23)(B)(ii) regarding demonstration of a high 
     level of competency in each of the academic subjects in which 
     the teacher teaches. During the deferral period, the teacher 
     shall be considered to have satisfied such requirement if the 
     teacher has demonstrated a high level of competency, in 
     accordance with such section, in 1 of the academic subjects 
     in which the teacher teaches.
       ``(B) Existing employees.--Upon application by a rural 
     local educational agency, the Secretary may grant the agency 
     the authority to defer, for a 1-year period beginning on the 
     date any middle or secondary school teacher who is not new to 
     the profession first begins teaching an academic subject that 
     the teacher has not previously taught, the application to 
     such teacher of the requirement in section 9101(23)(C)(ii) 
     regarding demonstration of competence in all of the academic

[[Page S2227]]

     subjects in which the teacher teaches. During the deferral 
     period, the teacher shall be considered to have satisfied 
     such requirement if the teacher has demonstrated competence, 
     in accordance with such section, in 1 of the academic 
     subjects in which the teacher teaches.
       ``(C) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, establish such terms and conditions 
     on the authority granted to a rural local educational agency 
     under this paragraph as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(D) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `rural local educational agency' means a local educational 
     agency with respect to which--
       ``(i) each county in which a school served by the agency is 
     located has a total population density of fewer than 10 
     persons per square mile; or
       ``(ii) all schools served by the agency are designated with 
     a school locale code of 7 or 8, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) Deadline.--The Secretary of Education shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a) 
     not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Application procedures.--The regulations promulgated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall specify procedures to be used 
     by rural local educational agencies in submitting 
     applications under section 1119(a)(4) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as added by subsection (a)).
       (3) Eligibility.--The regulations promulgated pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall specify the criteria the Secretary of 
     Education will use in--
       (A) determining whether to grant a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 1119(a)(4) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as added by 
     subsection (a)); and
       (B) establishing terms and conditions under subparagraph 
     (C) of such section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2165. A bill to specify the end strength for active duty personnel 
of the Army as of September 30, 2005; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we are on a very important piece of 
legislation. We also, on a daily basis, are confronted with a very 
important situation internationally, and that is our continued struggle 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today Senator Hagel and I have announced 
legislation that would increase the end strength of the U.S. Army by 
30,000 soldiers to meet these responsibilities worldwide.
  This legislation will address a serious shortcoming in our Nation's 
defense policy, ensuring that we have sufficient forces to carry out 
all of our missions around the globe, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. This 
legislation would increase and authorize the end strength of the U.S. 
Army from its present total of 482,400, to a total of 512,400.
  I am introducing this legislation today not only with Senator Hagel, 
but also with Senator McCain, Senator Akaka, Senator Bill Nelson, and 
Senator Clinton.
  End strength is the number of personnel permitted to serve in the 
military. Retired GEN Gordon R. Sullivan once stated that the objective 
of end strength is:

       To have enough soldiers to execute Army missions at the 
     right time and the right place, have enough in the total to 
     have both tactical and operational flexibility and to have 
     adequate depth in numbers to support leader development, 
     required force structure manning and the requisite balance 
     needed across the ranks.

  Each year in the Defense authorization bill, Congress authorizes the 
end strength of each branch of the military service, including the 
National Guard and Reserves.
  The importance of the authorized end strength is that it is the 
number of soldiers the budget funds. On average, each soldier costs 
$329 a day or about $120,000 a year to fully house, pay, train, and 
equip.
  Last October, when we were debating the emergency supplemental for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Hagel and I offered an 
amendment to increase the active-duty end strength of the Army by 
10,000 soldiers and to pay for that increase out of the supplemental.
  At that time, the administration vehemently opposed the amendment. 
The Pentagon argued that an increase was not necessary, that it was too 
expensive, and using funds from the supplemental would disrupt current 
plans to win the war in Iraq. The Army stated in its message, 
``Increasing end strength is a last resort to fix the challenge'' of 
balancing forces properly to win the war in Iraq and the global war on 
terrorism.
  Yet on January 28 of this year, a mere 3 months later, Army Chief of 
Staff General Peter Schoomaker announced he had received emergency 
authority to add 30,000 soldiers over the next 4 years to help 
``rebalance the force.'' Moreover, the Army would pay for these 
additional troops with funds from the fiscal year 2004 supplemental.
  Needless to say, I am happy the Department of Defense has adopted the 
position Senator Hagel and I had last October. Indeed, they have raised 
our request of 10,000 up to 30,000. But it is one thing to have the 
soldiers--it is an important thing--but, unfortunately, the Department 
of Defense is using the supplemental process to avoid putting these 
troops in the budget, and I think that is the appropriate way to pay 
for it.
  Our Army is the finest fighting force in the world, but it is in 
danger of being overextended and, in the process of that overextension, 
degraded in its quality and its effectiveness.
  Despite the heroic efforts of soldiers every day--men and women--who 
sacrifice themselves for our benefit, without the assistance, the 
resources, the support they need, they will find it more and more 
difficult to do the job.
  In January 2004, the National Journal summed up the serious situation 
facing our Army:

       The occupation of Iraq, the largest single deployment since 
     the Vietnam war, is lasting longer than expected, and comes 
     on top of major deployments elsewhere around the globe. Tens 
     of thousands of reservists have been sent away on lengthy 
     tours that they never expected. Emergency ``stop loss'' 
     orders have prevented soldiers from leaving the services 
     once their enlistments are up. . . . [and] demoralized 
     families are demanding relief.

  The legislation we propose will address the major portion of that 
relief. On January 21 of this year, LT GEN John Riggs, the director of 
the Objective Force Task Force, or the Army of the future, told the 
Baltimore Sun:

       You probably are looking at substantially more than 
     10,000--

  Meaning 10,000 personnel.

       I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the 
     Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today. . . .It's 
     not my intent to be provocative but to be intellectually 
     honest with my feelings on the strategy and commitment of the 
     Army.

  It is not Senator Hagel's and my intent to be provocative but to be 
intellectually honest.
  In a November 23, 2003, article in the Wall Street Journal, retired 
GEN Barry McCaffrey stated:

       The U.S. Army is stretched to the breaking point. We do not 
     need more U.S. troops in Iraq. We do need to increase active-
     duty strength of the U.S. Army in order to sustain the 
     current effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan--while remaining 
     prepared to counter North Korea. Many of us are concerned 
     that we won't be able to carry out the strategy we've 
     embarked on in Iraq because we won't be able to sustain it. 
     Next summer, we could be saying that we're breaking the U.S. 
     Army, and that we can't do a third rotation.

  I would disagree with General McCaffrey on the need for additional 
troops in Iraq. This week's experience of almost 200 civilian 
casualties and suicide attacks on Shi'a pilgrims suggests there is 
perhaps a need for more U.S. security, as well as better Iraqi 
security.
  The major point he makes is the point we are making: We have to 
increase the overall size of the Army if we want to carry out the 
strategy we embarked upon.
  Jeffrey Record of the Army's Strategic Studies Institute stated in a 
report published in December of 2003 that the ``groundforce 
requirements in Iraq have forced the U.S. Army to the breaking point.'' 
He goes on to say that:

       The Army appeared incapable of sustaining a commitment of 
     16 of its 33 active-duty combat brigades in Iraq absent a 
     reduction in commitments elsewhere or an expansion of its 
     force structure.

  Since 1989, the Army's military end strength has been cut by more 
than 34 percent and civilian end strength by more than 45 percent while 
undergoing a 300-percent increase in mission rate. Their force 
structure is going down both in terms of military and civilian 
personnel, but their operations tempo has increased dramatically, and 
they are being stretched and stretched to the breaking point.

[[Page S2228]]

  Today the Army presently has 492,242 soldiers serving on active duty. 
This has been the average rate for the past few weeks. This means that 
on the average, the Army needs 8,000 more soldiers each day to 
accomplish its mission than Congress has authorized and budgeted for.
  We already know there is a shortfall in troops, and unless we adopt 
increases as we have proposed, this shortfall will become a huge chasm 
between the missions and capabilities to carry out those missions.
  The situation in Iraq remains uncertain, but what is certain is the 
Army is already planning to have a force of slightly more than 100,000 
troops in Iraq through 2006. This is not just a quick spike, a month or 
two that you can carry out through some emergency funding mechanisms, 
something temporary; this is several years. Indeed, I would suggest 
many years to complete the missions.

  In order to address the stresses caused by Iraq, the Army is intent 
on rebalancing its force, or transforming it. The transformation is 
what General Schoomaker says requires the additional forces.
  The Army is caught in a very difficult situation. They have to 
modernize and transform themselves into a more agile, more 
technologically sophisticated units, but still they have 
responsibilities of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those 
responsibilities are not amenable to high-tech solutions. They require 
the old-fashioned solutions: troops on the ground, troops talking to 
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, gathering intelligence, analyzing 
intelligence and having the force, both the perception of that force 
and the reality of that force, to ensure our adversaries are in check.
  I am glad that today the Department of Defense now agrees with the 
proposal that was offered last fall by Senator Hagel and myself and 51 
of our colleagues who supported us that the Army needs more soldiers. 
What we disagree on is the way in which we should pay for these forces.
  As I stated previously, every U.S. soldier costs the taxpayers 
approximately $120,000 per year. Therefore, an additional 30,000 troops 
would cost approximately $3.6 billion annually. There are two possible 
ways to authorize and fund an increase in end strength with its 
accompanying costs. One way is to put the end strength increase in the 
budget, raise the authorization levels in the Defense authorization 
bill, and find the funds in the $401 billion Defense budget to pay for 
the troops. That is a method used in the bill we are introducing today.
  The Defense Department, however, has chosen a different route. It 
intends to increase end strength by using the emergency authority 
granted under 10 U.S. Code section 123a which waives the end strength 
restrictions for a fiscal year if there is a war or national emergency.
  When this authority is used, the $3.6 billion cost of additional 
30,000 troops is paid through supplemental or deficit funding.
  This year, the extra troops will be paid for out of the fiscal year 
2004 supplemental, but that supplemental will be depleted on September 
30, 2004, if not earlier. So by my calculation, on October 1, 2004, 
there will be no funding and those 30,000 additional soldiers, or a 
significant portion of those troops, will still be in the field as they 
are recruited, trained, and deployed. That means the Defense Department 
will have to quickly request the Congress to provide another emergency 
funding for these troops, troops they know full well will be in the 
service or be recruited to the service or trained for the service by 
September 30, 2004.
  Moreover, if the Pentagon persists in using this waiver, then they 
will repeat the scenario year after year. Pretend these troops do not 
exist when they send the regular budget up and then suddenly come to us 
with a supplemental at a convenient time and ask for additional money. 
That is not a way to budget for our forces.
  I also point out that I am very concerned because I am hearing 
reports that the budget sent to us by the Budget Committee will include 
cuts to the overall defense line. How can the defense line overall be 
cut at the same time our military leaders are saying they need more 
troops?
  There are those who are talking about the situation of abandoning 
Iraq. That is absolutely foolish. We are committed. Not only do we have 
to stay, we have to win. The only way to do that, in my view, is to 
maintain and provide the real resources for the troops to do their job. 
It is ironic to me, to say the least, that we would be contemplating a 
budget that cuts defense spending right now when we literally have so 
many unmet defense needs directly associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.
  There is another problem with this supplemental approach. First, the 
definition of what is an emergency, the fiscal year 2000 budget 
resolution states that emergency funding must meet the following 
criteria: necessity; second, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not 
building up over time; third, urgent; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, 
and unanticipated; and five, temporary in nature.
  These troops will not be temporary. The need is for several years. 
Certainly we know already what is coming before us. So this is not 
something quickly coming into being, something that is being built up 
suddenly.
  The cost of 30,000 additional troops is now predictable and 
anticipated for at least the next 4 years. It does not qualify as an 
emergency. This device is simply hiding the true cost of ongoing 
operations and transformation.
  As I said before, there are some who say this is a spike. It is not a 
spike. It is a plateau, or at least an ascending hill and a very slow 
decline.
  This chart was presented to the Armed Services Committee staff by the 
Army on February 12, 2004. It shows the transformation plan. It shows 
the increase in the present end strength of 482,400 up to an end 
strength of roughly 512,400, from about 33 brigades to about 48 
brigades. Then it shows the gradual decline.
  I note this decline gets us back to current end strength around 
fiscal year 2010 or 2011. That is 7 years from now. That is not a 
spike. That is a tough hike up a steep hill and then a slow decline 
from that hill.
  Also, this scenario assumes there are no other major contingencies 
such as North Korea; that there can be a successful transfer of 
military duties to more civilians; that we can reduce the time our 
soldiers are in training, in transit, in hospitals, and other 
nondeployed or nondeployable categories. These are all assumptions that 
might not be met.

  The most prudent action today is to increase the forces that we 
suggest in our legislation. It is much easier to bring a force down 
than to build it up. When it is brought down, it saves money. When it 
is brought down, stop-loss orders do not have to be relied upon. These 
are orders which basically tell soldiers they have reached their 
enlistment termination date but we are not letting them go. They are no 
longer a volunteer, in some respects. They are with us until we tell 
them they can go. So that is something of which we have to be very 
conscious.
  We have to also be concerned that these 30,000 troops might not come 
online at one moment. Obviously, it takes time to recruit and train. 
The Army may not need or be able to handle all of these troops. That 
does not argue against authorizing this increased end strength. What it 
does is argue for flexibility in the way the Army brings the troops on, 
and that is something I am sure we can talk about in the conduct of our 
discussions this year on the defense authorization legislation.
  We have a point now where our Army is stretched. It is under 
tremendous stress, and to a degree this also applies to the Marine 
Corps, our land forces. We can do the responsible thing, which is to 
stand up and in the clear light of day increase the end strength of our 
military forces and pay for that end strength, or we can employ 
budgetary gimmicks.
  We can avoid the reality. Through smoke and mirrors we can try to 
somehow persuade ourselves and maybe the American public that we do not 
have to pay for these operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would be 
wrong in terms of our responsibility to the American public and our 
responsibility, just as importantly, to the troops who are in the 
field. They have to know we are not playing budget games with our 
military forces. They have to know we support them, that we just cannot 
talk about a generational

[[Page S2229]]

struggle against terrorism if we have to fund that struggle.
  We also have to be particularly cognizant that so many of our 
National Guard and Reserve forces are engaged in this conflict. Of the 
100,000-plus troops who will be in Iraq in the next several weeks after 
this rotation, 40 percent will be Reserve and National Guard forces, 
the largest deployment of Reserve and National Guard forces since World 
War II in a combat area of operations.
  What is the message we are sending to them? If we do not increase the 
size of our Active Forces, the message is simple: When you serve well--
and they are--and honorably, and you return home, do not unpack your 
bags because you are going back before you know it.
  We just do not have the Active Forces to carry out the missions.
  I hope in the process of our deliberations on the Defense 
authorization bill we can include the Hagel-Reed amendment. I thank my 
colleagues who supported this amendment. Certainly, I think we want to 
do all we can for our forces in the field.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator 
Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the endstrength of the 
U.S. Army by 30,000 additional troops.
  Last month, the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker 
informed the Congress that the administration had approved an 
additional 30,000 Army troops on a ``temporary'' basis for the next 4 
years.
  Over the last year the Congress has been expressing grave concern 
that our Armed Forces are too small to meet the extraordinary demands 
being placed on them today. Demands that will likely continue to be 
with us well into the future.
  The United States has over 125,000 troops in Iraq. Global commitments 
of our Armed Forces have soared since September 11, 2001. In order to 
prevent back-to-back deployments of our Active-Duty soldiers the Army 
National Guard and Army Reserve will comprise about 40 percent of the 
current troop rotation in Iraq.
  In addition to dealing with the extraordinary demands being placed on 
the U.S. Army, the Secretary of defense has tasked General Schoomaker 
to transform the Army.
  By some accounts this transformation will be the most significant and 
complex undertaking to face the Army in half a century. It will not 
only directly affect the Active-Duty Army, it will also change the 
nature of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.
  Secretary Ramsfeld stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
that the Army must ``move away from the Napoleonic division structure 
designed for the 19th century, focusing instead on creating a 21st 
century `Modular Army' made up of self-contained, more self-sustaining 
brigades that are available to work with any division commander.''
  Transformation of the Armed Forces has been a mantra of the 
Department of Defense. To show unwavering commitment to transformation 
the Secretary has created the Office of Force Transformation and a 
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation at NATO. Using the Quadrennial 
Defense Review as a compass Secretary Rumsfeld has been 
``transforming'' almost everything the Pentagon does . . . including 
senior officer lunch rooms in the Pentagon.
  The transformation of the Army's Total Force will affect about 1\1/2\ 
million people in uniform and a significant number of DOD civilians, 
employers, and families.
  So, why will the transformation of the U.S. Army be done off budget 
using the emergency supplemental appropriations process? Why will some 
of the additional manpower that General Schoomaker needs to transform 
the Army and rebalance the National Guard and Army Reserve come from 
preventing soldiers from leaving the Army at the end of their 
enlistments or delaying their retirement? An action referred to by the 
Pentagon as ``stop loss.''
  The Constitution tasks the Congress with significant responsibility 
regarding our national security.
  Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress 
the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support 
Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws 
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing 
powers.''
  In executing this responsibility Senator Reed and I are introducing 
legislation to permanently increase the endstrength of the U.S. Army by 
30,000 troops. This legislation will give the Army Chief of Staff 
additional help he needs to fight the war on terrorism, stabilize Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and meet the global demands being placed on the total 
force today. Our legislation also gives General Schoomaker the manpower 
``headroom'' he has testified he needs to transform the total force . . 
. the Active-Duty Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard.
  This legislation will set the U.S. Army's endstrength at 512,400, 
30,000 soldiers higher than it is currently set.
  It is not our intention to put the Army in a position that to fund 
the additional troops they must deplete critical recapitalization, 
modernization, research, and MILCON accounts. The Department of Defense 
should be required to better rationalize the department budget to make 
U.S. Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve transformation one of 
the highest, fully funded, priorities of our Armed Forces.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Collins, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 2166. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to exempt 
abortions of pregnancies in cases of rape and incest from a limitation 
on use of Department of Defense funds; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, over the past several months, we have 
heard about tragic incidents in which female cadets at the Air Force 
Academy and military service women in Iraq have been the victims of 
rape and sexual assault. This is deplorable. There are 200,000 women in 
uniform, yet while they are protecting our Nation, our Nation is 
failing to protect them from rape and sexual assault.
  It is an even greater insult that we are telling our service women 
that the Department of Defense will not pay if they choose to terminate 
a pregnancy that is the result of rape.
  Current law states that DoD funds may not be used to perform 
abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered. It 
does not provide any exception for cases of rape and incest--such as is 
the case in the Medicaid program. The Boxer-Snowe bill would add rape 
and incest to the life exception that is now law.
  While current law allows service members to use military treatment 
facilities for abortions resulting from rape and incest, the service 
woman must pay for the procedure out of her own pocket. This is an 
insult.
  According to a study by the Iowa Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 30 
percent of female U.S. military veterans report having been raped or 
having been the victim of an attempted rape during their military 
service. This legislation will provide help for our female troops in 
cases of such horrific crimes.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                        Population Connection,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2004.
     Hon. Senator Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing on behalf of 90,000 
     members and supporters of Population Connection to express 
     our support for your bill providing that women who are 
     victims of rape or incest and serving in the U.S. military--
     or are the dependents of members of the armed forces--have 
     access to government funded abortions. The legislation is a 
     critical first step in bringing to an end the appalling 
     policy that denies military women the basic freedom of choice 
     that all Americans are guaranteed.
       Every individual has the fundamental right to freely decide 
     the number and spacing of her children and reproductive 
     choice is basic to the principle of individual liberty 
     cherished by all Americans and most people worldwide. Far too 
     many American women have been denied the full range of 
     reproductive choices for too long. We strongly support 
     efforts to expand choices for all those women denied them, 
     and that includes the

[[Page S2230]]

     women serving in our armed forces. Your bill is an important 
     first step in bringing constitutionally guaranteed health 
     services to women making huge sacrifices on behalf of all of 
     us.
       We applaud your efforts to ensure reproductive freedom by 
     ending irrational and harmful barriers to the health and well 
     being of women. Please let us know what we can do to assist 
     you in your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brian E. Dixon,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                     NARAL Pro-Choice America,

                                                    March 2, 2004.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I write to express NARAL Pro-Choice 
     America's strong support for your legislation to allow 
     federal funding for abortions in military facilities in cases 
     of rape or incest. This legislation is needed to support our 
     female troops and military dependents who have been the 
     victims of such unspeakable crimes.
       Current law only allows federal funding for abortions at 
     military hospitals in cases of life endangerment. However, 
     recent reports of sexual assault from female service members 
     returning from duty in Iraq and other overseas stations 
     demonstrate, sadly, that this policy fails to acknowledge the 
     reality some servicewomen face. In addition, a 2003 study 
     conducted by Dr. Anne Sadler with the Iowa City Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Center found that 30 percent of female U.S. 
     military veterans report having been raped or suffered a rape 
     attempt during their military service.
       More than 100,000 women live on military bases overseas and 
     rely on military hospitals for their health care--not to 
     mention those posted stateside. The current-law ban on 
     publicly funded abortions in cases of rape and incest may 
     make some women reluctant to seek these medical services or 
     force them to delay the procedure for several weeks. For each 
     week an abortion is delayed, the risk to the woman's health 
     increases. This ban further harms the women and families who 
     have volunteered to serve their country, placing yet another 
     obstacle in front of those who have already suffered an 
     unspeakable assault and may wish to exercise their 
     constitutionally protected right to choose.
       Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently directed the 
     department's undersecretary for personnel and readiness to 
     review the military's procedures for medical care for sexual-
     assault victims. A policy of allowing federal funding for 
     abortion services in overseas military hospitals for victims 
     of rape and incest is an important and common-sense first 
     step.
       We commend your courageous leadership on this important 
     issue, and hope to work with you closely toward your 
     legislation's enactment. It is vital that Congress pass 
     critical measures such as this to support our troops and 
     ensure that they are able to receive the health care the 
     need.
           Warm regards,
                                                   Kate Michelman,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2168. A bill to extend the same Federal benefits to law 
enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher education 
and rail carriers, that apply to law enforcement officers serving units 
of State and local government; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Equity in 
Law Enforcement Act, to extend to sworn, licensed, or certified police 
officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail 
carriers, the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement 
officers serving units of State and local government.
  Each day, thousands of law enforcement officers put their lives on 
the line to protect the public's safety on our Nation's university and 
college campuses and our railways.
  The attacks of September 11, 2001, marked a significant change in the 
way the United States regarded the threat of terrorism against our 
homeland. These events also highlighted the important role of the 
nation's law enforcement officers in the security of our country.
  Sworn officers on private university campuses protect the public's 
safety and secure assets similar to those that are found on public 
university campuses, including nuclear laboratories and critical 
research and development infrastructure. Events such as last year's 
bombing at Yale University have highlighted the risks facing our 
nation's college and university campuses.
  In addition, the protection of our transportation systems, such as 
our railways, is now more important than ever. Railroad police officers 
are charged with enforcing State and local laws in any jurisdiction in 
which the rail carrier owns property. They attend the same police 
academies as State and local police in the state in which they are 
domiciled, and most come from law enforcement backgrounds.
  The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act of 1976 was enacted 
to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and 
firefighters, by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible 
survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result 
of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, 
Congress enacted this legislation to address concerns that the hazards 
inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of 
State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals 
from seeking careers in these fields.
  The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private 
universities and railways. Indeed, names of 59 railway officers are 
inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in 
Washington, D.C. Of these 59 officers, 44 of them were shot to death, 
and the rest were killed in the line of duty. Since 1878, the Union 
Pacific Railroad has suffered the loss of 16 police officers, 10 of 
those killed by gunfire, and the Norfolk Southern Railroad has lost 
another 14 officers in the line of duty. All but one of these 14 
officers were killed by gunfire. These sobering facts are evidence of 
the dangers faced by these officers every day.
  Similar dangers face many police officers serving private 
institutions of higher education. Take the case of Tulane University 
Police Sergeant Gilbert J. Mast. On January 20, 1996, Sergeant Mast was 
killed while on patrol, when he was struck by a hit-and-run vehicle. 
The driver surrendered to officers of the New Orleans Police Department 
several days later. Although Sergeant Mast had bravely served as a law 
enforcement officer on Tulane's campus, and the Director of Public 
Safety at Tulane had filed the required paperwork for survivor 
benefits, his family was denied because he was not employed by the 
public sector.
  Sergeant Mast is just one example of the many brave police officers 
who protect our railways and college and university campuses every day, 
yet who are not covered under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, 
and are thus excluded from receiving the same Federal death benefits as 
law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.
  I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in 
introducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to help remedy this 
discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers.
  This bi-partisan legislation will extend Federal benefits to law 
enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education 
and rail carriers, including line-of-duty death benefits under the 
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grants through the Department of Justice. 
The bill would ensure that these public safety officers have access to 
the protective equipment they need, and that they and their families 
receive benefits if an officer is killed or seriously injured.
  The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State 
certification or licensing, and is supported by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the International 
Association of Campus Law enforcement Administrators (IACLEA).
  Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 
recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has found that there 
would be no significant budget impact by its enactment.
  The importance of police officers on our campuses and railways is 
more apparent than ever. I believe that it is necessary that these 
brave men and women are able to receive the same benefits as their 
counterparts in State and local law enforcement units, and I am pleased 
that this legislation has also been introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman Chris Bell, along with 3 bi-partisan 
cosponsors.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in 
co-sponsoring and passing the Equity in Law enforcement Act, to ensure 
that the brave officers that serve our private college and university 
campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S2231]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2168

       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 ``Equity in Law Enforcement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. LINE-OF-DUTY DEATH AND DISABILITY BENEFITS.

       Section 1204(8) of part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an individual who is--
       ``(i) serving a private institution of higher education in 
     an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law 
     enforcement officer; and
       ``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a 
     State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to 
     meet the training standards for law enforcement officers 
     established by the relevant governmental appointing 
     authority); or
       ``(E) a rail police officer who is--
       ``(i) employed by a rail carrier; and
       ``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a 
     State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to 
     meet the training standards for law enforcement officers 
     established by the relevant governmental appointing 
     authority).''.

     SEC. 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS.

       (a) Grant Program.--Section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and Indian tribes'' and inserting 
     ``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher education, 
     and rail carriers''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``and law 
     enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher 
     education and rail carriers who are sworn, licensed, or 
     certified under the laws of a State for the purposes of law 
     enforcement (and trained to meet the training standards for 
     law enforcement officers established by the relevant 
     governmental appointing authority)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' 
     and inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''.
       (b) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
     1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Indian tribes'' 
     and inserting ``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher 
     education, and rail carriers''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 2503(6) of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
     2(6)) is amended by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''.

     SEC. 4. OTHER GRANTS.

       Section 510(a)(2) of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3760(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``and 
     local units of government'' and inserting ``, units of local 
     government, private institutions of higher education, and 
     rail carriers''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
  S. 2169. A bill to modify certain water resources projects for the 
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Florida, and 
Alabama; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, the locals call it ``God's 
country.'' The Apalachicola River, beginning at the confluence of the 
Chattachoochee and Flint River, near the borders of Alabama, Florida, 
and Georgia, was and remains an important waterway in the southeast. 
The river's purpose as a waterway, however, has changed since its 
colonial fame.
  The Apalachicola is the largest river east of the Mississippi. In its 
heyday, the Apalachicola was an important tributary that served as the 
largest port of the Gulf of Mexico--harboring ships carrying cotton to 
Europe and New England.
  In the 21st century, while no longer an essential route of transport, 
the Apalachicola River is an important environmental and commercial 
asset. The history of the Apalachicola River as an Army Corps of 
Engineers project began in 1945 and the Rivers and Harbors Act, which 
authorized dredging of navigation channels. Over the past 59 years, 
millions of taxpayer dollars have been swept down the river in an 
effort to dredge and maintain the 9-foot-deep channel.
  The Corps has had difficulty maintaining the channel, and combines 
dredging with water releases in order to raise water levels and provide 
navigation windows. This system is hopelessly flawed. Dredging is 
unmanageable and navigation windows are unreliable, making the process 
a fiscal waste.
  Add to this fact that over the last few years, commercial barge 
traffic has slowed from an intermittent stream to a virtually non-
existent trickle. River traffic dropped dramatically in the late 1990s, 
with fewer than 200 barges a year using the river system. By 2001, only 
30 barges used the entire tri-river system with the cost of dredging 
the channel exceeding $30,000 per barge. Most recently, in 2004 the 
only company that used barges to carry cargo on the upper reaches of 
the river ceased operations.
  Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
average cost per ton-mile from 1995-98 at 14.1 cents, almost 24 times 
more than the cost of the Upper Mississippi River at .597 cents. In 
light of these circumstances, continued dredging of Florida's largest 
river is not just wasteful, it is foolish.
  Ending the dredging is not just about how wasteful this project is--
it is also about the environmental destruction that is being inflicted 
on the Apalachicola River and Bay. There are beaches of sand where 
there were once river banks. There are walls of dredged spoil--some 
towering like buildings four stories high--where the river waters used 
to meander. To date, dredged sand has resulted in the destruction of 
approximately one-quarter of the banks of the Apalachicola. The large 
amounts of sand have choked sloughs and cut off the water supply to 
surrounding habitat, ultimately threatening the local economy.
  Navigation windows remain a imperil threatened and endangered species 
like the Gulf Sturgeon, the Fat Three-Ridge and the Purple Bank 
Climber. The April 2000 navigation window resulted in an almost 
complete failure of sportfish spawn along the entire Apalachicola River 
and reservoirs upstream. Sportfish population have been in rapid 
decline along the river since 1990. This time frame corresponds with 
the Corps' continued reliance on water releases to provide adequate 
water for navigation.
  The constant and gross interruptions of the natural system have 
degraded the environment of the Apalachicola River and quality of life 
of those who depend upon it. It comes as no surprise that the 
Apalachicola has repeatedly earned the designation by American Rivers 
as one of our Nation's Most Endangered Rivers. The Apalachicola has 
also been included in the 2000 Troubled Waters Report and the 2001 and 
2002 Green Scissors Report.
  Manipulation of the Apalachicola poses a serious risk to the local 
economy. Important businesses, such as farmers who produce Tupelo honey 
and the fishermen who harvest oysters and shrimp in Apalachicola Bay, 
are dependent on the river's overall health. Additionally, commercial 
fishing operations along the Gulf Coast also rely on the Bay for their 
livelihood.
  The negative impacts of dredging and the low commercial use of the 
Apalachicola River led former Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 
Joe Westphal, to describe the project as not ``economically justified 
or environmentally defensible.''
  Dredging the Apalachicola exacts too high a price from both taxpayers 
and the environment. Clearly it is time to rethink this expensive and 
ecologically devastating practice.
  The bill I offer today, the Restore the Apalachicola River Ecosystem 
(RARE) Act, was originally introduced in 2002 and subsequently passed 
by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It authorizes the 
actions necessary to reform the Apalachicola River project. It is my 
hope that this legislation will again be approved by the committee and 
then by the full Senate.
  The first thing my bill does is put an end to the navigational 
dredging on the river.

[[Page S2232]]

  Second, it instructs the Corps to submit to Congress a comprehensive 
restoration plan that corrects the past harms done to the Apalachicola.
  The only way to restore the Apalachicola River to its former 
greatness is to cease navigational dredging. The designation of the 
Apalachicola as one of the nation's most endangered rivers should be a 
wake-up call to Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently 
end the dredging of the Apalachicola and allow the river to return to 
its natural state free of man's manipulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is both 
fiscally sound and environmentally responsible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2169

       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 ``Restore the Apalachicola 
     River Ecosystem Act'' or the ``RARE Act''.

     SEC. 2. APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE, AND FLINT RIVERS, 
                   GEORGIA, FLORIDA, AND ALABAMA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Apalachicola, 
     Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Florida, and 
     Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 
     (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and modified by the first section 
     of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), and 
     the project for the West Point Reservoir, Chattahoochee 
     River, Georgia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), are modified--
       (1) to deauthorize the 9-foot by 100-foot channel between 
     the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near Apalachicola, Florida, to 
     Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee, Florida; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army, in consultation 
     with the State of Florida, to develop the plan described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Plan for Restoration of Apalachicola River.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and before commencement of any 
     restoration activity under subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     the Army, in coordination with the State of Florida, the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United 
     States Geological Survey, shall--
       (A) develop a comprehensive plan to restore the 
     Apalachicola River basin; and
       (B) submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives the plan 
     developed under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Required elements.--The plan under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) have as its sole goal the reestablishment of the 
     ecological integrity of the Apalachicola River basin 
     ecosystem (including restoration of bendways, interconnecting 
     waterways, sloughs, watersheds, associated land areas, and 
     fish and wildlife habitat);
       (B) reestablish an ecosystem that supports and sustains a 
     balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having 
     species composition, diversity, and functional organization 
     comparable to those of the natural habitat of the 
     Apalachicola River; and
       (C) include a method of monitoring and assessing the biota, 
     habitats, and water quality of the Apalachicola River basin 
     for use in assessing restoration activities and impacts of 
     restoration activities.
       (3) Funding.--The plan under paragraph (1) shall be 
     developed at a total cost of $4,000,000.
       (c) Public Outreach.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall engage in significant public 
     outreach.
       (d) Relationship to Other Activities.--The Secretary of the 
     Army shall ensure that activities conducted under this 
     section do not interfere with water compact activities and 
     negotiations being carried out as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act with respect to the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and 
     Flint Rivers, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
       (e) Operation of Locks and Dams.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the authority under which locks and dams on the 
     Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 
     Florida, and Alabama, are operated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (f) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section limits 
     the authority of any agency under any other provision of law 
     to require compliance with any applicable statutory or 
     regulatory requirement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 2170. A bill to establish the Weather Modification Operations and 
Research Board and outline its duties and responsibilities; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
recognize the importance and need for increased weather modification 
research. Weather modification is the general term that refers to any 
human attempt to alter the weather. While we may not be able to stop 
Mother Nature entirely, we can sometimes alter her course, changing the 
weather in small, yet significant ways. These efforts have been used in 
the U.S. for more than 50 years to reduce crop and property damage, 
optimize useable precipitation during growing seasons and lessen the 
impact of periodic, often severe droughts.
  The weather modification projects in Texas and other States in the 
U.S. are much more than well considered responses to drought. They are 
trying to use the latest technological developments in the science to 
chemically squeeze more precipitation out of clouds. Moisture that is 
needed to replenish fresh-water supplies in aquifers and reservoirs. 
Political subdivisions like water conservation districts and county 
commissions have embraced the technology of rain enhancement as one 
element of a long-term, water-management strategy. This is critical to 
ensure growing populations have enough water to meet future needs.
  This bill will develop a comprehensive and coordinated national 
weather modification policy through federal and state research and 
development programs. It will also establish a Weather Modification 
Advisory and Research Board within the Department of Commerce to 
promote and expand the practical knowledge of weather modification. 
Further, it recognizes the significance of state and federal 
collaboration in this endeavor.
  I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this 
important research and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization 
Act. 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. 2170

       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 ``Weather Modification 
     Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a 
     comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification 
     policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program 
     of weather modification research and development.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``board'' means the Weather 
     Modification Advisory and Research Board.
       (2) Executive director.--The term ``executive director'' 
     means the executive director of the Weather Modification 
     Advisory and Research Board.
       (3) Research and development.--The term ``research and 
     development'' means theoretical analysis, explorations, 
     experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings 
     and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical 
     application for experimental and demonstration purposes, 
     including the experimental production and testing of models, 
     devices, equipment, materials, and processes.
       (4) Weather modification.--The term ``weather 
     modification'' means changing or controlling, or attempting 
     to change or control, by artificial methods the natural 
     development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms 
     which occur in the troposphere.

     SEC. 4. WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY AND RESEARCH BOARD 
                   ESTABLISHED.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Department of 
     Commerce the Weather Modification Advisory and Research 
     Board.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The board shall consist of 11 members 
     appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, of whom--
       (A) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American 
     Meteorological Society;
       (B) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American 
     Society of Civil Engineers;
       (C) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National 
     Academy of Sciences;
       (D) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National 
     Center for Atmospheric Research of the National Science 
     Foundation;
       (E) at least 2 shall be representatives of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of 
     Commerce;
       (F) at least 1 shall be a representative of institutions of 
     higher education or research institutes; and
       (G) at least 1 shall be a representative of a State that is 
     currently supporting operational weather modification 
     projects.
       (2) Service as members.--A member of the board shall serve 
     at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.

[[Page S2233]]

       (3) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the board shall be filled in 
     the same manner as the original appointment.
       (b) Advisory Committees.--The board may establish advisory 
     committees to advise the board and to make recommendations to 
     the board concerning legislation, policies, administration, 
     research, and other matters.
       (c) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the board have been appointed, the 
     board shall hold its first meeting.
       (d) Meetings.--The board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chair.
       (e) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (f) Chair and Vice Chair.--The board shall select a Chair 
     and Vice Chair from among its members.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE BOARD.

       (a) Promotion of Research and Development.--In order to 
     assist in expanding the theoretical and practical knowledge 
     of weather modification, the board shall promote and fund 
     research and development, studies, and investigations with 
     respect to--
       (1) improved forecast and decision-making technologies for 
     weather modification operations, including tailored computer 
     workstations and software and new observation systems with 
     remote sensors; and
       (2) assessments and evaluations of the efficacy of weather 
     modification, both purposeful (including cloud-seeding 
     operations) and inadvertent (including downwind effects and 
     anthropogenic effects).
       (b) Financial Assistance.--Unless the use of the money is 
     restricted or subject to any limitations provided by law, the 
     board shall use amounts in the Weather Modification Research 
     and Development Fund--
       (1) to pay its expenses in the administration of this Act, 
     and
       (2) to provide for research and development with respect to 
     weather modifications by grants to, or contracts or 
     cooperative arrangements, with public or private agencies.
       (c) Report.--The board shall provide the Secretary with a 
     report of its findings and research results biennially.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE BOARD.

       (a) Studies, Investigations and Hearings.--The board may 
     make any studies or investigations, obtain any information, 
     and hold any hearings necessary or proper to administer or 
     enforce this Act or any rules or orders issued under this 
     Act.
       (b) Personnel.--The board may hire an executive director 
     and other support staff, as provided by the appropriations 
     act, necessary to perform duties and functions under this 
     Act.
       (c) Cooperation With Other Agencies.--The board may 
     cooperate with public or private agencies to promote the 
     purposes of this Act.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--The board may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the agencies of the United 
     States, States of the United States and their counties and 
     cities, or with any private or public agencies or 
     organizations for conducting weather modification activities 
     or cloud-seeding operations.
       (e) Conduct and Contracts for Research and Development.--
     The executive director, with approval of the board, may 
     conduct and may contract for research and development 
     activities relating to the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 7. COOPERATION WITH THE WEATHER MODIFICATION OPERATIONS 
                   AND RESEARCH BOARD.

       Agencies of the United States and other public or private 
     agencies and institutions that receive research funds from 
     the United States are directed to the extent possible to give 
     full support and cooperation to the board and to initiate 
     independent research and development programs that address 
     weather modifications.

     SEC. 8. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--There is established within the Treasury 
     of the United States the Weather Modification Research and 
     Development Fund, which shall consist of amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (b) or received by the board under 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the board for the purposes of carrying 
     out the provisions of this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2013. Any sums appropriated under this 
     subsection shall remain available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, until expended.
       (c) Gifts.--The board may accept, use, and dispose of gifts 
     or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall apply on and after October 
     1, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2171. A bill to establish a first responder and terrorism 
preparedness grant information hotline, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to introduce the First Responders Homeland 
Defense Act of 2004. This bill would help alleviate funding shortages 
that our Nation's first responders are experiencing, and would help 
alleviate confusion about Federal grant programs.
  The first provision of the First Responders Homeland Defense Act is a 
grant assistance hotline. When the Department of Homeland Security was 
created, many local emergency responder agencies were hopeful that a 
one-stop shop for homeland security resources would be available. 
Unfortunately, an easily accessible and understandable resource does 
not yet exist.
  In addition to grants from the Department of Homeland Security, there 
are many grant programs available to first responders from other 
federal departments. For example, as part of the Department of Health 
and Human Services, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention 
assists state and local public health officials improve hospital 
preparedness. The Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of 
Justice distributes funding for law enforcement agencies to prepare for 
terrorist events.
  For a local law enforcement agency or fire department, determining 
eligibility for the wide range of grant programs in a number of 
different Federal agencies--not to mention even knowing the full range 
of funding that is available--could be a confusing and daunting task. 
In order to help make it easier for first responders, my bill would 
establish a grant assistance hotline at the Department of Homeland 
Security that would provide local first responders with information on 
available grants and how to apply for them.
  The First Responders Homeland Defense Act also creates a new grant 
program for tax-exempt non-profit organizations that provide first 
responder training. Many public and private agencies are creating 
projects and training programs that involve the business community in 
defending the homeland. Organizations with non-profit, tax exempt 
status should be eligible for Federal grant funds when working on 
community-wide terrorism preparedness. The Department of Homeland 
Security should fulfill the goal of community-wide preparation by 
providing Federal assistance to non-profit organizations that operate 
training programs in conjunction with a local agency.
  Finally, the First Responders Homeland Defense Act creates a grant 
program for another important purpose: interoperable communications 
systems. Many homeland security experts recognize that while there are 
many Federal funding opportunities for anti-terrorism activities, there 
is very little money dedicated to interoperable communications systems. 
These are systems that allow different local and State agencies to 
communicate directly with one another--something that is vital to 
terrorism prevention and response. Yet these systems are all too rare. 
This bill establishes a grant program at the Department of Homeland 
Security for the specific purpose of assisting local agencies improve 
existing communications systems or purchase new systems.
  Making the Department of Homeland Security more accessible to local 
communities and making more resources available to first responders 
should be a top priority. Many law enforcement officials and other 
first responders have reviewed this legislation, and I am pleased to 
introduce the First Responders Homeland Defense Act in response to many 
of their concerns.
  This bill is an important step in fulfilling the Federal 
responsibility to protect the homeland. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.

                          ____________________