[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15704-15767]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2835. A bill to promote the development of health care 
cooperatives that will help businesses to pool the health care 
purchasing power of employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing 
cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, 
and to improve quality for their employees' health care.
  High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across 
the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access 
to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the 
system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than 
by what they need.
  This year has been the third year in a row of double-digit increases 
in health care costs. Companies will likely face average increases of 
12 to 15 percent in 2003, on top of the 12.7 percent increase this 
year.
  For some employers in Wisconsin, costs will rise much more sharply. A 
recent study found health care cost for businesses in southeastern 
Wisconsin were 55 percent higher than the Midwest average. While 
nationwide, the average health care premium for a family currently 
costs about $588 per month, in Wisconsin an average family pays $812 
per month.
  We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I 
strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to 
health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives 
to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees; 
health care.
  By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers 
have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their 
employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, 
there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States 
that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses 
are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery 
of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions 
represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees 
nation-wide.
  Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of 
care. By investing in the delivery of quality health car, we will be 
able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as 
quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care 
expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services 
and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health 
care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with 
health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.
  Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and 
access to healthcare are felt most intensely in the local markets. 
Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and 
implemented locally.
  Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care 
coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and 
safety, and encourage group purchasing.
  In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that 
have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of 
care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance 
Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit 
cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane 
County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member 
employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain 
affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and 
dependents.
  This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such 
as The Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase 
access to affordable and high-quality health care.
  The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize 
grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group-
purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care 
rates, and improve quality.
  This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different 
types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both 
programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program 
would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while 
the second program would help small businesses that purchase their 
health insurance.
  My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective 
cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. 
First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from 
physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling 
their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could 
better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance 
rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would 
be able to share information regarding the quality of these services 
and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of 
their employees.
  For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the 
formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at 
lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within 
these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with 
better information about the health care options that are available to 
them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements 
by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care 
providers.
  By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance 
plans and negotiate better rates.
  Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and 
have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an 
incentive to join the pool by giving grants to a group of similar 
businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also 
given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as 
enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving 
quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which 
creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they 
will be invested in the organization.
  We must reform health care in America and give employers and 
employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the 
formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve

[[Page 15705]]

the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve 
the quality and ease the costs of health care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2837. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
businesses to qualify as renewal community businesses if such 
businesses employ residents of certain other renewal communities; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to make 
a small change to the Renewal Community program that will make a big 
difference for the people of my State. This legislation will spur job 
growth and economic development in many impoverished areas that have 
been designated as renewal communities.
  Renewal communities were authorized under the Community Renewal Tax 
Relief Act of 2000. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal 
communities that are eligible to share in an estimated $17 billion in 
tax incentives to stimulate job growth, promote economic development, 
and create affordable housing. The purpose of the Act is to help bring 
needed investment to areas with demonstrated economic distress. The 
poverty rate in renewal communities is at least 20 percent, and the 
unemployment rate is one-and-a-half times the national level. The 
households in the renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent 
below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions.
  Businesses in renewal communities are eligible to receive wage 
credits, tax deductions, and capital gains exclusions for hiring 
workers living in the renewal communities. In order for businesses to 
qualify for participation in the program they must meet certain 
criteria. For example, at least fifty percent of the total gross income 
of a business must come from operations within the renewal community 
and a substantial part of its tangible property must lie within the 
renewal community. Furthermore, at least thirty-five percent of its 
employees must be residents of the renewal community and the employees' 
services must be performed in the renewal community.
  The Renewal Community program is targeted to help small businesses in 
poor communities. Through the tax benefits provided, the small and 
family-owned businesses are able to maintain their operations and 
continue supplying goods and services to their neighborhoods. These 
businesses are the true essence of the entrepreneurial spirit and are 
the engines of economic growth and development. The Renewal Community 
program also encourages the start of new businesses. Louisiana has 
really benefited from this program. It has been a catalyst in boosting 
local economics and cutting unemployment.
  Louisiana has four renewal communities. Some of them border one 
another. Under the rules of the program, however, a business cannot 
take advantage of the tax incentives if they hire someone who lives 
outside the renewal community, even if that person lives in the renewal 
community next door. In rural areas, this rule poses a problem for 
people living in one renewal community who often find jobs with 
companies in an adjacent renewal community.
  A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of 
Louisiana, home of the North Louisiana Renewal Community and the 
Ouachita Renewal Community. The City of Monroe is located at the heart 
of the Ouachita Renewal Community. Monroe serves as the hub for 
Northeast Louisiana. All around Monroe and the Ouachita Renewal 
Community there are parishes which all fall in the North Louisiana 
Renewal Community, Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to 
the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. 
We know that many companies in the Ouachita Renewal Community would 
qualify for the tax benefits if they could count any employees they 
hired from the adjacent North Louisiana Renewal Community toward 
meeting the thirty-five percent requirement. My legislation will allow 
the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an 
adjacent or nearby renewal community areas and still receive the tax 
benefits granted through the Act.
  The goal of the Renewal Community Program is to provide a vehicle for 
change in poverty stricken areas. It makes sense that we take steps to 
add flexibility to the program. Employees with a particular skill set 
may be better suited to work at companies located in an adjacent 
renewal community. My legislation provides employers and employees with 
the opportunity to take full advantage of the Renewal Community 
program.
  This legislation is an opportunity for continued assistance to low 
income people and economically distressed areas of our country. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2838. A bill to provide for the conveyance of Forest Service 
facilities and lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center 
in the State of California to the Clovis Unified School District, to 
authorize a new special use permit regarding the continued use of 
unconveyed lands comprising the Center, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation 
today to transfer 27 acres of land from the Stanislaus National Forest 
to the Clovis Unified School District.
  This bill allows the school district to continue operating the 
California Five Mile Regional Learning Center and, more importantly, 
raise the necessary funds to renovate the facilities.
  Since 1989, Clovis Unified School District has leased the Five Mile 
Regional Learning Center from the Forest Service to offer programs to 
students living in the Central Valley. And each year, thousands of 
eager children come to the Center to take classes that emphasize 
natural resource conservation. During this past academic year, for 
instance, more than 14,000 students benefitted from classes ranging 
from forest management to aviary studies to team building.
  In addition to classes, students have the option of attending summer 
basketball camps offered in the Center's gymnasium and participating in 
individual activities given on the Center's adjacent 93 acres. To date, 
the district has invested $14 million of local funds to provide these 
opportunities.
  Unfortunately, in the last few years, the Regional Learning Center 
has fallen into a state of disrepair. The buildings that occupy the 27 
acres are over 40 years old, but have never undergone major renovations 
to modernize and improve them. As a result, the Center has a laundry 
list of items in need of repair: from cracked asphalt and leaky roofs 
to unreliable electrical wiring. And while Clovis Unified School 
District officials have done a fine job of operating the Center and are 
willing to invest in renovations, the Forest Service can not permit the 
district to spend local funds to renovate these federally owned 
buildings.
  This bill enables the Forest Service to convey the acreage that the 
buildings occupy to the school district allowing the district to make 
the necessary repairs. Clovis Unified has already committed to 
investing $5 million over 5 years to make the renovations, in addition 
to the district's $1.2 million of annual contributions spent on routine 
maintenance and operating costs. These investments will be used to 
expand and enhance the Center's environmental educational curriculum. I 
believe that given the budget constraints that schools nationwide are 
facing that this commitment speaks to the quality of these programs and 
to the need to keep the Center in operation.
  The Forest Service has already acknowledged that this transfer would 
be in the best interest of both the Forest Service and the general 
public. At the Forest Service's request, reversionary language was 
added to this bill to ensure that the Federal government would retain 
ownership of the land should the school district decide to no longer 
operate the facilities.

[[Page 15706]]

  Without this important legislation, in a few years time, the 
California Five Mile Regional Learning Center will be uninhabitable and 
another educational resource that benefits our children will close its 
doors. I believe that this bill is the perfect example of what can 
happen when local, state, and federal governments work together to get 
something done. It is this type of partnership that Congress should 
support in our efforts to diversify and improve educational 
opportunities for students and encourage multi-use activities on 
federal land. In this case, I believe everyone wins and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  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. 2838

       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 ``California Five Mile 
     Regional Learning Center Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. LAND CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL USE AGREEMENT, FIVE MILE 
                   REGIONAL LEARNING CENTER, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall convey 
     to the Clovis Unified School District of California all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of National Forest System land consisting of 27.10 
     acres located within the southwest \1/4\ of section 2, 
     township 2 north, range 15 east, Mount Diablo base and 
     meridian, California, which has been utilized as the Five 
     Mile Regional Learning Center by the school district since 
     1989 pursuant to a special use permit (Holder No. 2010-02) to 
     provide natural resource conservation education to California 
     youth. The conveyance shall include all structures, 
     improvements, and personal property shown on original map 
     #700602 and inventory dated February 1, 1989.
       (b) Special Use Agreement.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     enter into negotiations with the Clovis Unified School 
     District to enter into a new special use permit for the 
     approximately 100 acres of National Forest System land that, 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is being used by 
     the school district pursuant to the permit described in 
     subsection (a), but is not included in the conveyance under 
     such subsection.
       (c) Reversion.--In the event that the Clovis Unified School 
     District discontinues its operation of the Five Mile Regional 
     Learning Center, title to the real property conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall revert back to the United States.
       (d) Costs and Mineral Rights.--The conveyance under 
     subsection (a) shall be for a nominal cost. Notwithstanding 
     such subsection, the conveyance does not include the transfer 
     of mineral rights.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 2839. A bill to enhance the protection of privacy of children who 
use school or library computers employing Internet content management 
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in December 2000, New York Times 
reporter, John Schwartz, wrote ``When Congress passed a new bill last 
week requiring virtually every school and library in the nation to 
install technology to protect minors from adult materials online, it 
created a business opportunity for companies that sell Internet 
filtering systems. . . . Some of the filtering companies' business 
plans include tracking students' Web wanderings and selling the data to 
market research firms.'' While I support the use of filtering 
technology in schools and libraries that will be visited by our 
children, this statement alarmed me.
  A month later, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department 
of Defense was buying information about our school children's Internet 
habits from a filtering company without the knowledge of their parents 
or the school officials. The Defense Department contracted directly 
with the filtering company. As one of our most vulnerable populations, 
I believe it is Congress's duty to act in a manner to ensure families 
knowledge of the information that is collected about our children and 
to restrict the collection of personal information on children. The 
fact that this arrangement could occur without anyone with direct 
responsibility for the children having knowledge of it is a serious 
oversight. We need a solution, and to that end, I am introducing the 
Children's Electronic Access Safety Enhancement, or CEASE Act.
  This legislation is a commonsense approach to dealing with this 
problem in order to ensure our children are protected. The first 
section of the bill requires an Internet filtering government 
contractor to disclose its treatment of collected information to the 
school or library with which it is contracting. Additionally, if 
changes to these policies are made, the filtering company must inform 
the school or library of these changes. If adequate notice is not 
provided, the entity has the option to cancel the contract. Armed with 
such information about the company's practices, the school or library 
officials can make an informed decision of whether it wishes to 
contract with a particular company.
  The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, which passed 
Congress and was signed into law in 1998, prohibits the collection of 
personal information about children on commercial websites. In the 
second section of my legislation, a similar COPPA prohibition would 
extend to Internet content management services at schools and 
libraries. If personal information is collected on a child, the 
provider is required to inform the school or library and the Federal 
Trade Commission and to indicate how it will treat this information so 
that it will not be disclosed or distributed. When children go to 
schools and libraries, these environments are supposed to be safe. 
Parents and guardians should not have to worry about how their 
children's personal information may be compromised, especially by a 
company that markets itself to protect children and in some cases 
facilitate learning. I believe my legislation will help put to rest 
such concerns.
  Protecting the privacy of children has been widely supported, as it 
should be. When Congress was debating COPPA in 1998, the bill received 
broad support. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in September 
1998, Arthur Sackler, representing the Direct Marketing Association, 
DMA stated, ``Although DMA usually supports self-regulation of 
electronic commerce, we believe it may be appropriate to consider 
targeted legislation in this area.'' Kathyrn Montgomery from the Center 
for Media Education stated, ``Children are not little adults. . . . 
Because many young children do not fully understand the concept of 
privacy, they can be quite eager and willing to offer up information 
about themselves and their families when asked. Children also tend to 
be particularly trusting of computers, and thus more open to 
interacting with them.''
  An April 2002 FTC report on the implementation of COPPA draws the 
conclusion that Web sites have generally been able to comply with 
COPPA. That is why I have every hope and expectation that the CEASE Act 
can also be implemented.
  Given the fact that we have evidence of some Internet content 
management companies already sharing information with outside entities, 
the CEASE Act is timely. If an Internet content management company 
believes it is a good business plan to share information, even in 
aggregate, with outside parties, these companies should not be adverse 
to disclosing this practice with a potential client. And, I believe 
that a number of communities may not wish to allow these practices at 
all because they believe that, as Alex Molnar, a professor at the 
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, stated, ``Providing demographic 
information about students to special interests, even in aggregate 
form, is a potential violation of the privacy of children and their 
families.'' Communities with such beliefs should be able to act upon 
them in the best interest of their children, and my legislation 
requires the disclosure that will help make this a reality.
  There is no arguing that the Internet is, and will continue to be, an 
important part of the learning process. Personally, I support wiring 
the schools and libraries in this Nation as rapidly as possible because 
I understand the

[[Page 15707]]

educational and job opportunities the Internet can bring. However, 
especially for our children, we need to ensure there are safeguards. 
Providing more information and empowering local officials to make 
decisions based on this information are good policies. As the Nation's 
children prepare to return to school--schools that are more wired now 
than ever before--I urge my colleagues to support the CEASE bill to 
protect our children.
  I ask unanimous consent 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. 2839

       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 ``Children's Electronic Access 
     Safety Enhancement (CEASE) Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE BY INTERNET CONTENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF 
                   COLLECTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION 
                   UNDER CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES.

       (a) Initial Disclosure of Policies.--
       (1) In general.--A provider of Internet content management 
     services shall, before entering into a contract or other 
     agreement to provide such services to or for an elementary or 
     secondary school or library, notify the local educational 
     agency or other authority with responsibility for the school, 
     or library, as the case may be, of the policies of the 
     provider regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of 
     information from or about children whose Internet use will be 
     covered by such services.
       (2) Elements of notice.--Notice on policies regarding the 
     collection, use, disclosure of information under paragraph 
     (1) shall include information on the following:
       (A) Whether any information will be collected from or about 
     children whose Internet use will be covered by the services 
     in question.
       (B) Whether any information so collected will be stored or 
     otherwise retained by the provider of Internet content 
     management services, and, if so, under what terms and 
     conditions, including a description of how the information 
     will be secured.
       (C) Whether any information so collected will be sold, 
     distributed, or otherwise transferred, and, if so, under what 
     terms and conditions.
       (3) Form of notice.--Any notice under this subsection shall 
     be clear, conspicuous, and designed to be readily 
     understandable by its intended audience.
       (b) Modification of Policies.--
       (1) In general.--A provider of Internet content management 
     services shall, before implementing any material modification 
     of the policies described in subsection (a)(1) under a 
     contract or other agreement with respect to an elementary or 
     secondary school or library, notify the local educational 
     agency or other authority with responsibility for the school, 
     or library, as the case may be, of the proposed modification 
     of the policies.
       (2) Timeliness.--Notice under paragraph (1) shall be 
     provided in sufficient time in advance of the modification 
     covered by the notice to permit the local educational agency 
     or other authority concerned, or library concerned, as the 
     case may be, to evaluate the effects of the modification.
       (c) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of the administration of this 
     section. The regulations shall include provisions regarding 
     the elements of notice required under subsection (a)(2) and 
     the timeliness of notice under subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall be enforced by the 
     Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     41 et seq.).
       (2) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any 
     other provision of law.
       (e) Noncompliance.--
       (1) In general.--The violation of any provision of this 
     section, including the regulations prescribed by the 
     Commission under subsection (c), shall be treated as a 
     violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or 
     practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (2) Termination of contract or agreement.--
       (A) Authority to terminate.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of a contract or agreement to the contrary, if a provider of 
     Internet content management services for a school or library 
     fails to comply with a policy in a notice under subsection 
     (a), or fails to submit notice of a modification of a policy 
     under subsection (b) in a timely manner, the local 
     educational agency or other authority concerned, or library 
     concerned, may terminate the contract or other agreement with 
     the provider to provide Internet content management services 
     to the school or library, as the case may be.
       (B) Resolution of disputes.--Any dispute under subparagraph 
     (A) regarding the failure of a provider of Internet content 
     management services as described in that subparagraph shall 
     be resolved by the Commission.
       (C) Relationship to other relief.--The authority under this 
     paragraph with respect to noncompliance of a provider of 
     Internet content management services is in addition to the 
     power of the Commission to treat the noncompliance as a 
     violation under paragraph (1).
       (f) Notice to Parents.--A school or library shall provide 
     reasonable notice of the policies of an Internet content 
     management service provider used by that school or library to 
     parents of students, or patrons of the library, as the case 
     may be.

     SEC. 3. COLLECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN 
                   OLDER CHILDREN BY PROVIDERS OF INTERNET CONTENT 
                   MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES.

       (a) Prohibition.--A provider of Internet content management 
     services to or for an elementary or secondary school or 
     library may not collect through such services personal 
     information from or about a child who is a student at that 
     school or a user of that library.
       (b) Responsibilities Upon Collection.--
       (1) In general.--If a provider of Internet content 
     management services to or for an elementary or secondary 
     school or library collects through such services personal 
     information from or about a child who is a student at that 
     school or a user of that library, the provider shall--
       (A) provide prompt notice of such collection--
       (i) to either--

       (I) the local educational agency or other authority with 
     responsibility for the school and appropriate officials of 
     the State in which the school is located; or
       (II) the library; and

       (ii) to the Federal Trade Commission; and
       (B) take appropriate actions to treat the personal 
     information--
       (i) in a manner consistent with the provisions of the 
     Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 
     6501 et seq.) if the personal information was collected from 
     a child as defined in section 1302(1) of that Act; or
       (ii) in a similar manner, under regulations prescribed by 
     the Commission, if the personal information was collected 
     from a child over the age of 12.
       (2) Elements of notice.--Notice of the collection of 
     personal information by a provider of Internet content 
     management services under paragraph (1)(A) shall include the 
     following:
       (A) A description of the personal information so collected.
       (B) A description of the actions taken by the provider with 
     respect to such personal information under paragraph (1)(B).
       (c) Response to Notice.--A local educational agency or 
     other authority, or library, receiving notice under 
     subsection (b) with respect to a covered child shall take 
     appropriate actions to notify a parent or guardian of the 
     child of receipt of such notice.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF COPPA.

       Section 1302 of the Children's Online Privacy Protection 
     Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(13) Provider of internet content management services 
     treated as operator.--The term `operator' includes a provider 
     of Internet content management services (as defined in 
     section 5(4) of the Children's Electronic Access Safety 
     Enhancement Act) who collects or maintains personal 
     information from or about the users of those services, or on 
     whose behalf such information is collected or maintained, if 
     those services are provided for commercial purposes involving 
     commerce described in paragraph (2)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii).''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (2) Child.--Except as provided in section 3(b)(1)(B), the 
     term ``child'' means an individual who is less than 19 years 
     of age.
       (3) Personal information.--The term ``personal 
     information'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1301(8) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 
     1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501(8)).
       (4) Provider of internet content management services.--The 
     term ``provider of Internet content management services'' 
     includes a provider of Internet content management software 
     if such software operates, in whole or in part, by or through 
     an Internet connection or otherwise provides information on 
     users of such software to the provider by the Internet or 
     other means.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Schumer, 
        and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2841. A bill to adjust the indexing of multifamily mortgage 
limits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the 
FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Improvement Act, to expand the 
supply of affordable housing by increasing the

[[Page 15708]]

Federal Housing Administration's multifamily housing loan limit to 
account for inflation.
  Providing access to decent, safe, affordable housing for individuals 
and families remains an enormous challenge for our Nation. Throughout 
the country, rising construction costs have resulted in shortage of 
affordably priced rental units. In fact, the shortage of affordable 
housing should be considered nothing short of a crisis. After all, 
housing is among the most basic of human needs, and it is critically 
important for all American communities.
  The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, was established as part of a 
national commitment to providing affordable housing, particularly for 
those most in need. Overall, the FHA, through its various initiatives, 
has been successful in providing increased access to housing. But as 
the crisis of affordable housing has grown, so has the need for 
Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to 
promote increased production of affordable housing.
  That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Carper, Ensign and 
Schumer in introducing this legislation to increase the production and 
availability of affordable housing for American families. The bill 
would improve upon legislation I introduced last year, ``The FHA 
Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act,'' which Congress 
approved last year as part of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. That 
legislation increased by twenty-five percent the statutory limits for 
multifamily project development loans that are insurable by the FHA. 
The change reflected the increased costs associated with the production 
of multifamily units since 1992, the last time those limits were 
revised upwards.
  In other words, it had taken Congress ten years to modify the 
underlying statute to account for rising prices and simply maintain the 
effectiveness of the program. That is too long. The legislation we are 
introducing today would ensure that it does not take another decade or 
longer to assist those who need affordable housing.
  This bill is simple, it ensures that the insurable FHA loan limit 
amounts, as adjusted under ``The FHA Multifamily Loan Adjustment Act,'' 
would keep pace with economic growth by indexing them each year to the 
Annual Construction Cost Index, issued annually by the Census Bureau.
  This bill also promotes the production of affordable housing in 
another important way, by promoting the development of affordable 
housing in high-cost cities like Newark, NJ, New York, Philadelphia and 
San Francisco. Currently in those communities, the cost of living is so 
high that the FHA insurance program is rendered largely ineffective.
  This bill improves the FHA multifamily program by adjusting its 
statutory limits to promote increased housing production in high-cost, 
primarily urban, communities.
  There is a very real need for Congress to address the shortage of 
affordable housing. A report released last year by the Center for 
Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the 
severity of this need. The report found that more than fourteen million 
people faced severe housing needs because of the lack of affordable 
housing. That number may well be higher now.
  This bill will provide the proper incentive for public/private 
investment in affordable housing in communities throughout America and 
spur new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for 
the elderly, new construction or substantial rehabilitation of 
apartments by for- and non-profit entities, condominium developments 
and refinancing of rental properties.
  In short, this bill is good housing policy. That is why the National 
Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors and 
the Mortgage Bankers Association endorse the legislation, along with 
other housing and community advocates.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and 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 the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2841

       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 ``FHA Multifamily Housing Loan 
     Limit Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. INDEXING OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE LIMITS.

       (a) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``11,250'' and inserting ``$17,460'';
       (2) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the 
     following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each 
     such dollar amount limitation set forth in this paragraph (as 
     such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to 
     this paragraph) effective January 1 of each year, beginning 
     in 2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any, 
     during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October, 
     in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following: 
     ``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted 
     pursuant to this paragraph)''.
       (b) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$38,025'', ``$42,120'', ``$50,310'', 
     ``$62,010'', and ``$70,200'', and inserting ``$41,207'', 
     ``$47,511'', ``$57,300'', ``$73,343'', and ``$81,708'', 
     respectively;
       (2) by striking ``$49,140'', ``$60,255'', ``$75,465'', and 
     ``$85,328'', and inserting ``$49,710'', ``$60,446'', 
     ``$78,197'', and ``$85,836'', respectively;
       (3) by inserting after the colon at the end of the first 
     proviso the following: ``Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation set forth in 
     this paragraph (as such limitation may have been previously 
     adjusted pursuant to this paragraph) effective January 1 of 
     each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with the 
     percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period 
     ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction 
     Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of 
     Commerce:''; and
       (4) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following: 
     ``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted 
     pursuant to this paragraph)''.
       (c) Section 220 Limits.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this clause'', the first place such 
     phrase appears, the following: ``(as such limitations may 
     have been previously adjusted pursuant to this clause)''.
       (2) by inserting after ``Provided,'' the following: ``That 
     the Secretary shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation 
     set forth in this clause (as such limitation may have been 
     previously adjusted pursuant to this clause) effective 
     January 1 of each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with 
     the percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period 
     ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction 
     Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of 
     Commerce: Provided further,''; and
       (3) by striking ``(as determined after the application of 
     the preceding proviso)'' and inserting ``(as such limitations 
     may have been previously adjusted pursuant to the preceding 
     proviso and as determined after application of any percentage 
     increase authorized in this clause relating to units with 2, 
     3, 4, or more bedrooms)''.
       (d) Section 221(d)(3) Limits.--Section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(3)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the 
     following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each 
     such dollar amount limitation set forth in this clause (as 
     such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to 
     this clause) effective January 1 of each year, beginning in 
     2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any, 
     during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October, 
     in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this clause'' the following: ``(as 
     such limitations may have been previously adjusted pursuant 
     to this clause)''.
       (e) Section 221(d)(4) Limits.--Section 221(d)(4)(ii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the 
     following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each 
     such dollar amount limitation set forth in this clause (as 
     such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to 
     this clause) effective January 1 of each year, beginning in 
     2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any, 
     during

[[Page 15709]]

     the 12-month period ending with the preceding October, in the 
     Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of 
     the Department of Commerce''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this clause'' the following: ``(as 
     such limitations may have been previously adjusted pursuant 
     to this clause)''.
       (f) Section 231 Limits.--Section 231(c)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before ``; and except that'' the 
     following: ``; except that the Secretary shall adjust each 
     such dollar amount limitation set forth in this paragraph (as 
     such limitation may have been previously adjusted pursuant to 
     this paragraph) effective January 1 of each year, beginning 
     in 2003, in accordance with the percentage increase, if any, 
     during the 12-month period ending with the preceding October, 
     in the Annual Construction Cost Index of the Bureau of the 
     Census of the Department of Commerce''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following: 
     ``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted 
     pursuant to this paragraph)''.
       (g) Section 234 Limits.--Section 234(e)(3) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y(e)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before ``; except that'' the second place 
     such phrase appears the following: ``; except that the 
     Secretary shall adjust each such dollar amount limitation set 
     forth in this paragraph (as such limitation may have been 
     previously adjusted pursuant to this paragraph) effective 
     January 1 of each year, beginning in 2003, in accordance with 
     the percentage increase, if any, during the 12-month period 
     ending with the preceding October, in the Annual Construction 
     Cost Index of the Bureau of the Census of the Department of 
     Commerce'';
       (2) by inserting after ``each of the foregoing dollar 
     amounts'' the following: ``(as such amounts may have been 
     previously adjusted pursuant to this paragraph)''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``foregoing dollar amount 
     limitations contained in this paragraph'' the following: 
     ``(as such limitations may have been previously adjusted 
     pursuant to this paragraph and increased pursuant to the 
     preceding clause)''.

     SEC. 2. HIGH-COST AREAS.

       (a) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (b) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (c) Section 220 Limits.--Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (d) Section 221(d)(3) Limits.--Section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(3)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (e) Section 221(d)(4) Limits.--Section 221(d)(4)(ii) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (f) Section 231 Limits.--Section 231(c)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
       (g) Section 234 Limits.--Section 234(e)(3) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y(e)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``140 
     percent''.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with my 
distinguished colleagues from New Jersey, Nevada, and New York to 
introduce legislation to index the Federal Housing Administration's, 
FHA, multifamily loan limits.
  Last year, Senator Corzine and I introduced similar legislation that 
raised the FHA multifamily loan limits, which had not been increased 
since 1992 despite a 23 percent increase in the Annual Construction 
Cost Index. Senators Mikulski and Bond included this increase in last 
year's VA-HUD appropriations legislation. I am pleased that these 
limits were increased last year, however, an important piece of the 
original legislation was left undone. While the FHA loan limits were 
increased, they were not indexed. Construction costs will continue to 
rise, and the multifamily loan limits should be indexed, just like the 
FHA single-family loan limits.
  Affordable housing continues to be a problem in this country. Over 
the July recess, I held a series of housing summits in Delaware to hear 
from Delawareans about the lack of affordable housing. In each county, 
I heard that working families in Delaware are having difficulty finding 
affordable housing. This shortage of affordable housing also comes at a 
time of limited federal resources. Thus, we have to find the best use 
of each dollar at our disposal, as well as the most effective use of 
existing Federal programs to stimulate new housing production and 
substantial rehabilitation. This bill modifies a current federal 
program, FHA multifamily insurance, to make that program more 
effective.
  In the next Congress, I hope to be able to address the affordable 
housing problem in a more comprehensive manner. In the meantime, I 
believe Congress can take some incremental steps to address the 
shortage of affordable housing.
  I ask my colleagues to join Senators Corzine, Ensign, and Schumer and 
me to increase these multifamily loan limits so that more working 
families will have access to affordable housing.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, 
the Senator from New Jersey, to introduce a bill that will help solve 
the affordable housing crisis that is facing this Nation.
  There is a dramatic shortage of rental housing that is affordable to 
low and moderate income working families. FHA multifamily insurance 
programs are designed to stimulate the construction, rehabilitation and 
preservation of properties by insuring lenders against loss in 
financing first mortgages. The programs assist both the private and the 
public sectors towards the goal of providing affordable housing to 
those that otherwise may not be able to afford it.
  Last year, in a remarkable step, Congress granted a 25 percent 
increase in the FHA multifamily loan limits. The new loan limits are 
one great remedy to the affordable housing crisis facing our nation, 
but this alone does not do enough.
  Unfortunately, without additional legislation, the loan limits will 
again be outpaced by inflation and today's growing construction costs.
  The legislation that we are introducing solves this problem by 
indexing the multifamily loan limits to the annual construction costs 
index of the Bureau of the Census. This will allow loan limits to 
increase automatically, as costs increase. Without such a fix, the FHA 
multifamily loan program will again be limited in its ability to 
stimulate the development of affordable housing.
  This legislation will help halt the growing shortage of affordable 
rental housing faced by millions of Americans and give builders and 
lenders the confidence that they will be able to use the programs in 
their communities every year, even as construction and land costs rise 
over time.
  Additionally, this legislation raises the loan limits in high-cost 
areas. This will allow several major urban markets to take advantage of 
the new FHA multifamily insurance programs, and to provide much needed 
new affordable housing to low and moderate income families.
  I believe this legislation is an important step in our ongoing battle 
to ensure that each American has access to affordable housing. I would 
like to once again thank the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, for 
his hard work on this bill, and for recognizing the significant effect 
this legislation will have for many low and moderate income families by 
dramatically increasing their access to affordable housing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
  S. 2842. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to authorize 
appropriations for demonstration projects to provide supportive 
services

[[Page 15710]]

to older individuals who reside in naturally occurring retirement 
communities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, we are all familiar with our changing 
demographics. Those once a part of the baby boom are now well on their 
way to creating a senior boom. By the year 2020, one in six Americans 
will be age 65 or over. By 2040, the number of seniors aged 85 and 
older will more than triple from about 4 million to 14 million. This 
boom will create a dramatic increase in the demand for services for 
seniors especially long-term care.
  Long-term care is more than just health care. It includes any 
services that seniors need to maintain their quality of life, such as 
transportation, nutrition, or other supports that help seniors live 
independently.
  Long-term care can mean help with buying groceries, paying bills each 
month, getting dressed in the morning, getting a ride to the doctor's 
office, or taking medicine at the appropriate time. We need to make 
sure our society is ready to provide these kinds of services for 
seniors, and we need to make sure that we give seniors options. We need 
to be creative in what we offer.
  Last year I learned about an innovative option for providing long-
term care services for seniors. The concept is based on naturally 
occurring retirement communities, NORCs. A naturally occurring 
retirement community develops in a community or neighborhood where 
residents remain for years and age as neighbors. A NORC may be a large 
apartment building or a street of single family homes. According to 
AARP, about 27 percent of seniors currently live in NORCs. NORCs 
represent a new model for giving seniors the support services they 
need. We can bring services directly to seniors, and we can help 
enhance their quality of life and allow them to age in place.
  This is important because most seniors prefer living in their own 
homes. To address the need for long-term care services, I secured $1.2 
million last year to establish a NORC project in downtown St. Louis. To 
get this project underway, first there will be assessment of residents' 
needs. The funds will then be used to meet these individual needs. 
Residents will receive such services as individual case management, 
family education, wellness services, and other needed supports.
  The St. Louis program is only the first step. This unique model could 
be used to deliver support services to seniors in communities across 
the country. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Senior Self-
Sufficiency Act. This legislation would lay the foundation for a new 
way of helping seniors stay in their own homes and in their own 
communities. The Senior Self-Sufficiency Act would create ten 
demonstration projects in naturally occurring retirement communities 
across the country. Each would last 4 years. The grant would be used to 
provide comprehensive support services to seniors.
  The services offered would be created to meet the individual needs of 
the residents and to help them maintain their independence. Funds would 
also be used to make housing improvements that would allow seniors to 
live in their own neighborhoods longer. For example, they could install 
safety bars in bathrooms or replace stairs with wheelchair ramps. Two 
of the ten projects would be located in rural areas where access to 
services is often harder or more distant. We will learn from the 
research how best to expand the program to all areas of the country.
  If given the choice, most people would prefer to grow older in their 
own homes, surrounded by friends and family. This is exactly what this 
legislation will allow seniors to do. By making support services 
available to seniors in their own homes, we can extend the time they 
live independently, and we can improve their quality of life. We can 
provide services at lower cost, and we can start preparing now for the 
future needs of our population.
  I am pleased to announce that the Senior Self-Sufficiency Act has the 
support of the Missouri Department of Health and the Jewish Federation 
of St. Louis.
  We need to begin now to plan for the future senior boom. The Senior 
Self-Sufficiency Act is a step in the right direction, making it 
possible for seniors to remain in their home longer and to retain their 
independence. That is a goal worth pursuing.
  I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support and the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                     Missouri Department of Health


                                          and Senior Services,

                                Jefferson City, MO, July 31, 2002.
     Hon. Jean Carnahan,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: The Missouri Department of Health 
     and Senior Services is charged with the mission of enhancing 
     the quality of life for all Missourians by protecting and 
     promoting the community's health and well-being of citizens 
     of all ages. In following that mission, we are pleased to 
     offer our support of your proposed legislation known as the 
     Senior Self-Sufficiency Act.
       This legislation, which would authorize demonstration 
     projects in naturally occurring retirement communities, would 
     help show the effectiveness of providing comprehensive 
     supportive services to older individuals who reside in their 
     homes to enhance their quality of life and reduce the need 
     for institutionalization. Missouri has long supported the 
     concept of ``options in care'' to include comprehensive home 
     and community based services and supports. This legislation 
     would help focus and define the concept and value of 
     communities, to include the significance of retaining seniors 
     within their natural occurring communities. The comprehensive 
     nature of the services to be offered under this concept, such 
     as health services, nutrition services, transportation, home 
     and personal care, socialization, continuing adult education, 
     information and referral, and any other services to enhance 
     quality of life will greatly increase a person's ability to 
     remain in their home and community.
       I can assure you the Department of Health and Senior 
     Services is eager to assist with the implementation of this 
     concept. Your proposed legislation is paramount in supporting 
     our mission to protect and promote our community's health, 
     and well-being of citizens of all ages. Please feel free to 
     contact Jerry Simon, Interim Department Deputy Director, at 
     (573) 751-8535, if we can offer any additional information or 
     support to this important concept.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Ronald W. Cates,
                                                 Interim Director.
                                 ______
                                 


                               Jewish Federation of St. Louis,

                                     St. Louis, MO, July 29, 2002.
     Hon. Jean Carnahan,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: I am writing regarding the 
     legislation you will be introducing to amend the Older 
     Americans act of 1965 authorizing appropriations for 
     demonstration projects to provide services to older 
     individuals residing in NORCs. As you are aware, the St. 
     Louis community has a large senior citizen population 
     compared with other communities of similar size. It is 
     essential that we find ways to help our older adults remain 
     health, productive, and independent for as long as possible 
     in order to enhance their quality of life.
       Your bill, the Senior Self-Sufficiency Act, authorizing ten 
     demonstration projects to provide comprehensive supportive 
     services to residents of naturally occurring retirement 
     communities will ensure that best practices are developed 
     and/or replicated nationwide. It is an innovative and 
     exciting opportunity to study aging-in-place populations and 
     postpone or avoid institutionalization for these populations.
       I strongly support this legislation and appreciate your 
     tireless efforts on behalf of older adults.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Barry Rosenberg,
                                         Executive Vice President.

                                S. 2842

       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 ``Senior Self-Sufficiency 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

       Part A of title IV of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3001 et seq) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 422. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN NATURALLY OCCURRING 
                   RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     award grants to eligible entities to carry out 10 
     demonstration projects to provide comprehensive supportive 
     services to older individuals who reside in noninstitutional 
     residences in naturally occurring retirement communities to 
     enhance the quality of life of such individuals and reduce 
     the need to institutionalize such individuals. Those 
     residences for which assistance is provided under section 202 
     of the National Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) in 
     naturally

[[Page 15711]]

     occurring retirement communities shall not receive services 
     through a demonstration project under this section if such 
     services would otherwise be provided as part of the 
     assistance received by such residences under such section 
     202.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a nonprofit public 
     or private agency, organization, or institution that proposes 
     to provide services only in geographical areas considered to 
     be low- or middle-income areas.
       ``(c) Priority.--
       ``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall give priority to eligible 
     entities that provided comprehensive supportive services in 
     fiscal year 2002 to older individuals who resided in 
     noninstitutional residences in naturally occurring retirement 
     communities.
       ``(2) Rural areas.--Two of the 10 grants awarded under this 
     section shall be awarded to eligible entities that propose to 
     provide services to residents in rural areas.
       ``(d) Grant Period.--Each grant awarded under this section 
     shall be awarded for a period of 4 years, with not more than 
     $1,000,000 being awarded annually.
       ``(e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Assistant Secretary in such form and containing such 
     information as the Assistant Secretary may require, including 
     a plan for continuing services provided under the grant after 
     the grant expires.
       ``(f) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Cost-sharing.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section may require cost-sharing from individuals 
     receiving services only in a manner consistent with the 
     requirements of title III.
       ``(2) Construction.--An entity may not use funds received 
     under a grant under this section to construct or permanently 
     improve (other than remodeling to make facilities accessible 
     to older individuals) any building or other facility.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Naturally occurring retirement community.--The term 
     `naturally occurring retirement community' means a 
     geographical area in which not less than 40 percent of the 
     noninstitutional residences are occupied for not less than 10 
     years by heads of households who are older individuals, but 
     does not include residences for which assistance is provided 
     under section 202 of the National Housing Act of 1959 (12 
     U.S.C. 1701q). The definition provided for in the previous 
     sentence may be modified by the Secretary as such definition 
     relates to grants for rural areas.
       ``(2) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services' 
     means services offered to residents that may include--
       ``(A) case management;
       ``(B) health services and education;
       ``(C) nutrition services, nutrition education, meals, and 
     meal delivery;
       ``(D) transportation services;
       ``(E) home and personal care services;
       ``(F) continuing adult education;
       ``(G) information and referral services; and
       ``(H) any other services and resources appropriate to 
     enhance the quality of life of residents and reduce the need 
     to institutionalize such individuals.
       ``(h) Matching Requirement.--The Assistant Secretary may 
     not make a grant to an eligible entity under this section 
     unless that entity agrees that, with respect to the costs to 
     be incurred by the entity in carrying out the program for 
     which the grant was awarded, the entity will make available 
     in cash or in-kind (directly or through donations from public 
     or private entities) non-Federal contributions equaling 5 
     percent of Federal funds provided under the grant for the 
     second year that such grant is provided, 10 percent of 
     Federal funds provided under the grant for the third year 
     that such grant is provided, and 15 percent of Federal funds 
     provided under the grant for the fourth year that such grant 
     is provided.
       ``(i) Report.--Not later than the beginning of the fourth 
     year of distributing grants under this section, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall evaluate services provided with funds under 
     this section and submit a report to Congress summarizing the 
     results of such evaluation and recommending what services 
     should be taken in the future.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, not 
     more than $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2843. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
promulgate a rule that requires manufacturers of certain consumer 
products to establish and maintain a system for providing notification 
of recalls of such products to consumers who first purchase such a 
product; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to come to the floor 
today and introduce a bill that I believe will make it easier for 
parents to learn about dangerous products that may harm their children, 
and remove these products from their homes.
  Every year, more than 1.7 million children under the age of 5 are 
harmed by defective or hazardous products. As my colleagues know, each 
year the Consumer Products Safety Commission recalls hundreds of 
products which have been found to pose a danger to consumers. 
Unfortunately, many times parents do not get the word about these 
recalls, because companies often do not have a way of getting in touch 
with their customers. This is particularly significant when you are 
talking about children's products. The manufacturers of these products 
rarely have records of who their customers are; often all they can do 
is publicize the recall as best they can. It is for this reason, that I 
am introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness 
Act of 2002.
  This legislation would require the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission to establish a rule to require manufacturers to establish 
and maintain a system for notifying consumers of the recall of certain 
products that may cause harm to children. The database could be 
assembled through the use of shortened product registration cards, 
Internet registration, or other alternate means of encouraging 
consumers to provide vital contact information.
  As an example for my colleagues, I just want to touch on one method 
that this bill would encourage companies to use. We've all seen the 
registration cards that come with many products. It is these cards that 
provide companies with much of the information on their customers, and 
could be used to help spread the word about a recall. Unfortunately, 
many consumers just throw these cards away without even sending them 
in. In fact, by some estimates 90 percent of these cards are thrown 
away. Why? Well, one reason is because the cards ask for personal and 
marketing information that many people do not want to give out. So they 
throw the card away.
  But if you shorten the card, to just ask for the basic information, 
name, address, and phone number, people are much more likely to return 
them. This is particularly true if the card specifies the information 
will not be used for marketing purposes. These cards are an idea that 
Ann Brown, former chairman of the CPSC and now Chairman of the non-
profit group SAFE, a Safer America for Everyone Foundation, has been 
advocating for years. And studies done with companies like Mattel and 
BrandStamp have shown that these methods really do increase the number 
of consumers who respond.
  So, I come to the floor today to say that this is something we need 
to do, and we need to do it as quickly as possible. This is a very 
important bill for our citizens. I am hopeful that we can get a hearing 
on this legislation very soon.
  Before I close, I just want to commend Ann Brown and the folks at 
SAFE for all of their hard work on product recall. I introduced this 
legislation in the Senate today, but Ann is the one who has been 
pushing this issue for years, since she served on the CPSC. I am proud 
to work with her on this and want to thank her for her monumental 
efforts to bring this to the forefront. I also want to acknowledge my 
colleagues, Congressman Jim Moran and Congressman James McGovern, who 
introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. And, of course, I 
look forward to working with the CPSC on this bill. I know they had 
some problems with this bill initially, and I am hopeful we have 
addressed most of these concerns.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed 
legislation. By passing this bill, we can give parents the information 
they need to protect their children. When a child is hurt or killed by 
a defective product that has already been recalled, there simply is no 
excuse. This legislation would go a long way towards ensuring that this 
kind of tragedy never happens again.
  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:

[[Page 15712]]



                                S. 2843

       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 ``Product Safety Notification 
     and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Consumer Product Safety Commission conducts 
     approximately 300 recalls of hazardous, dangerous, and 
     defective consumer products each year.
       (2) In developing comprehensive corrective action plans 
     with recalling companies, the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission staff greatly relies upon the media and retailers 
     to alert consumers to the dangers of unsafe consumer 
     products, because the manufacturers do not generally possess 
     contact information regarding the purchasing consumers. Based 
     upon information received from companies maintaining customer 
     registration lists, such contact information is known for 
     generally less than 7 percent of the total consumer products 
     produced and distributed.
       (3) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has found 
     that most consumers do not return purchaser identification 
     cards because of requests for marketing and personal 
     information on the cards, and the likelihood of receiving 
     unsolicited marketing materials.
       (4) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has 
     conducted research demonstrating that direct consumer contact 
     is one of the most effective ways of motivating consumer 
     response to a consumer product recall.
       (5) Companies that maintain consumer product purchase data, 
     such as product registration cards, warranty cards, and 
     rebate cards, are able to effectively notify consumers of a 
     consumer product recall.
       (6) The Consumer Product Safety Commission staff has found 
     that a consumer product safety owner card, without marketing 
     questions or requests for personal information, that 
     accompanied products such as small household appliances and 
     juvenile products would increase consumer participation and 
     information necessary for direct notification in consumer 
     product recalls.
       (7) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has, 
     since March 1993, required similar simplified, marketing-free 
     product registration cards on child safety seats used in 
     motor vehicles.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to reduce the 
     number of deaths and injuries from defective and hazardous 
     consumer products through improved recall effectiveness, by--
       (1) requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
     promulgate a rule to require manufacturers of juvenile 
     products, small household appliances, and certain other 
     consumer products, to include a simplified product safety 
     owner card with those consumer products at the time of 
     original purchase by consumers, or develop effective 
     electronic registration of the first purchasers of such 
     products, to develop a customer database for the purpose of 
     notifying consumers about recalls of those products; and
       (2) encouraging manufacturers, private labelers, retailers, 
     and others to use creativity and innovation to create and 
     maintain effective methods of notifying consumers in the 
     event of a consumer product recall.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Terms defined in consumer product safety act.--The 
     definitions set forth in section 3 of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) shall apply to this Act.
       (2) Covered consumer product.--The term ``covered consumer 
     product'' means--
       (A) a juvenile product;
       (B) a small household appliance; and
       (C) such other consumer product as the Commission considers 
     appropriate for achieving the purpose of this Act.
       (3) Juvenile product.--The term ``juvenile product''--
       (A) means a consumer product intended for use, or that may 
     be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age 
     of 5 years; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) full-size cribs and nonfull-size cribs;
       (ii) toddler beds;
       (iii) high chairs, booster chairs, and hook-on chairs;
       (iv) bath seats;
       (v) gates and other enclosures for confining a child;
       (vi) playpens;
       (vii) stationary activity centers;
       (viii) strollers;
       (ix) walkers;
       (x) swings;
       (xi) child carriers; and
       (xii) bassinets and cradles.
       (4) Product safety owner card.--The term ``product safety 
     owner card'' means a standardized product identification card 
     supplied with a consumer product by the manufacturer of the 
     product, at the time of original purchase by the first 
     purchaser of such product for purposes other than resale, 
     that only requests that the consumer of such product provide 
     to the manufacturer a minimal level of personal information 
     needed to enable the manufacturer to contact the consumer in 
     the event of a recall of the product.
       (5) Small household appliance.--The term ``small household 
     appliance'' means a consumer product that is a toaster, 
     toaster oven, blender, food processor, coffee maker, or other 
     similar small appliance as provided for in the rule 
     promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

     SEC. 4. RULE REQUIRING SYSTEM TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF RECALLS OF 
                   CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall promulgate a rule 
     under section 16(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2065(b)) that requires that the manufacturer of a 
     covered consumer product shall establish and maintain a 
     system for providing notification of recalls of such product 
     to consumers of such product.
       (b) Requirement To Create Database.--
       (1) In general.--The rule shall require that the system 
     include use of product safety owner cards, Internet 
     registration, or an alternative method, to create a database 
     of information regarding consumers of covered consumer 
     products, for the sole purpose of notifying such consumers of 
     recalls of such products.
       (2) Use of technology.--Alternative methods specified in 
     the rule may include use of on-line product registration and 
     consumer notification, consumer information data bases, 
     electronic tagging and bar codes, embedded computer chips in 
     consumer products, or other electronic and design strategies 
     to notify consumers about product recalls, that the 
     Commission determines will increase the effectiveness of 
     recalls of covered consumer products.
       (c) Use of Commission Staff Proposal.--In promulgating the 
     rule, the Commission shall consider the staff draft for an 
     Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled ``Purchaser 
     Owner Card Program'', dated June 19, 2001.
       (d) Exclusion of Low-Price Items.--The Commission shall 
     have the authority to exclude certain low-cost items from the 
     rule for good cause.
       (e) Deadlines.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission--
       (A) shall issue a proposed rule under this section by not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) shall promulgate a final rule under this section by not 
     later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Extension.--The Commission may extend the deadline 
     described in paragraph (1) if the Commission provides timely 
     notice to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2844. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary 
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals 
who achieve certification from the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, perhaps the most effective way to 
improve the education of America's children is to ensure that they 
begin their education in an uncrowded classroom led by a qualified 
teacher. This body recognized that fact when we overwhelmingly passed 
the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' last year, mandating the hiring of 
qualified teachers by every school in every district.
  Unfortunately, without our help, America's poor and rural schools may 
not be able to attract the qualified teachers this legislation mandates 
and our children deserve. Isolated and impoverished, competing against 
higher paying and well-funded school districts for scarce classroom 
talent, they are already facing a desperate shortage of qualified 
teachers. As pressure to hire increases, that shortage will become a 
crisis, and children already at a disadvantage in relation to their 
more affluent and less isolated peers will be the ones who suffer most.
  Today, I propose a bill that will help bring dedicated and qualified 
teaching professionals to West Virginia's and America's poor and rural 
schools, and help give their students the opportunity to learn and 
flourish that every child deserves. The Incentives To Educate American 
Children Act, or ``I Teach'' Act, will provide teachers a refundable 
tax credit every year they practice their profession in the public 
schools where they are needed most. And it will give every public 
school teacher, whichever school they choose, a refundable tax credit 
for earning certification by the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards. Together, these two tax credits will give

[[Page 15713]]

economically depressed areas a better ability to recruit and retain 
skilled teachers.
  One-fourth of America's children attend public schools in rural 
areas, and of the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are 
rural. West Virginia has rural schools scattered through 36 of its 55 
counties, and these schools face real challenges in recruiting and 
retaining teachers, as well as dealing with other issues related to 
their rural location.
  Attracting teachers to these schools is difficult in large part due 
to the vast gap between what rural districts are able to offer and the 
salaries paid by more affluent school districts, as wide as $20,000 a 
year, according to one study. Poor urban schools must overcome similar 
difficulties. It is often a challenge for these schools to attract and 
keep qualified teachers. Yet, according to the 2001 No Child Left 
Behind Act, every school must have qualified teachers by the end of the 
2005-2006 school year.
  My ``I Teach'' Act will reward teachers willing to work in rural or 
high poverty schools with an annual $1,000 refundable tax credit. If 
the teacher obtains certification by the National Board for 
Professional Teaching Standards, they will receive an additional annual 
$1,000 refundable tax credit.
  Every teacher willing to work in underserved schools will earn a tax 
credit. Every teacher who gets certified will earn a tax credit. 
Teachers who work in rural or poor schools and get certified will earn 
both. Schools who desperately need help attracting teachers will get a 
boost. And children educated in poor and rural schools will benefit 
most.
  In my State of West Virginia, as in over 30 other States, there is 
already a State fiscal incentive for teachers who earn National Board 
certification. My legislation builds upon the West Virginia program; 
together, they add up to a powerful tax incentive for teachers to 
remain in the classroom and to use their skills where they are most 
needed.
  I have spent a great deal of time in West Virginia classrooms this 
year, and it has become obvious to me that our education agenda suffers 
greatly from inadequate funding on a number of fronts. In response, I 
have introduced a series of bills attacking different aspects of the 
problem.
  A qualified teacher is a great start, but children also deserve a 
safe, modern classroom. And so, in addition to the ``I Teach'' Act, I 
have introduced a measure to encourage investment in school 
construction and renovations.
  I am promoting legislation to develop Math and Science Partnerships 
at the National Science Foundation, to place needed emphasis on these 
core subjects.
  And to ensure that every student, including those in rural areas, has 
access to modern technology and the wealth of educational resources on 
the web, I remain vigilant in protecting the E-Rate, which provides 
$2.25 billion in annual discounts to connect our schools and libraries 
to the Internet.
  Education is among our top national priorities, essential for every 
family with a child and vital for our economic and national security. I 
supported the bold goals and higher standards of the 2001 No Child Left 
Behind Act, but they won't be met unless our schools have the teachers 
and resources they need. I am committed to working closely with my 
Senate colleagues this fall to secure as much funding as possible for 
our children's education.
  No amount of construction or technology can replace a qualified and 
motivated teacher, however, and making it easier for underserved 
schools to attract the teachers they need remains one of my most 
important objectives. I hope each of my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this important legislation which takes a great stride toward 
better education for every child in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2847. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting 
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with 
expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the 
conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or 
indirectly affect cranes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane 
Conservation Act of 2002. I propose this legislation in the hope that 
Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, 
whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. 
This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State 
provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this 
legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts 
both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a 
larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the 
boundaries of my home State.
  In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided 
support for multinational Rhino and Tiger conservation through the 
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. 
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF 
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation 
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its 
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover 
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
  Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to 
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds 
in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of 
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation 
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial 
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying 
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The 
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007.
  In keeping with my belief that we should maintain fiscal integrity, 
this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over 
five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this 
legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds 
from funds carried over the Department of Energy's Clean Coal 
Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to 
transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act 
back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my 
bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or 
its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should 
expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.
  I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant 
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without 
conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, 
the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by 
these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire 
world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence 
today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to 
the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists 
in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North 
American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its 
winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being 
reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the 
Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
  This flock of five birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to 
regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and 
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from 
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude 
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National 
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in 
the spring,

[[Page 15714]]

this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering 
grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, 
predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and 
vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the 
conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is 
still very much in danger of extinction.
  While over the course of the last half-century, North American 
whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of 
crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of 
Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.
  The sarus crane is a symbol of marital fidelity in many Asian 
cultures, especially Laos, Thailand and Indonesia. Additionally, in 
northern India, western Nepal, and Vietnam, these birds are a symbol of 
fertility, lending them as important religious significance. Standing 
at four feet tall, these birds can be found in the wetlands of northern 
India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered 
plains or marshes to breed and survive.
  Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin 
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides, which is 
found to be highly prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus 
crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a 
high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the 
Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and 
China, human population growth and planned development projects 
threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand 
have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as 
well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus 
crane.
  Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in 
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one 
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the 
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In 
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
  The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation 
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found 
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the 
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of 
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, 
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of 
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further 
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or 
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of 
oversight and education over the actions of humans, industry, and 
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which 
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in 
these regions.
  If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the 
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the 
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit 
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local 
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest 
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile 
habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these 
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, 
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Kerry, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Miller):
  S. 2848. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a clarification of the definition of homebound for purposes 
of determining eligibility for home health services under the medicare 
program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators 
Cleland, Hutchinson, Kerry, Snowe and Miller in introducing the David 
Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2002 to modernize 
Medicare's outdated ``homebound'' requirement that has impeded access 
to needed home health services for many of our nation's elderly and 
disabled Medicare beneficiaries.
  Health care in American has gone full circle. People are spending 
less time in institutions, and recovery and care for patients with 
chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in 
the home. The highly skilled and often technically complex care that 
our home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most 
vulnerable older and disabled individuals to avoid hospitals and 
nursing homes and stay just where they belong, in the comfort and 
security of their own homes.
  Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered 
``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services. 
While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to qualify 
for benefits, his or her conditions must be such that ``there exists a 
normal inability to leave home.'' The statute does allow for absences 
from the home of ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration.'' 
Unfortunately, however, it does not define precisely what this means. 
It leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many 
absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short those absences must 
be. Interpretations of this definition have therefore varied widely.
  As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an 
overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned 
elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries, who are dependent upon 
Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival, into 
virtual prisoners in their own home. We have heard disturbing accounts 
of individuals on Medicare who have had their home health benefits 
terminated for leaving their homes to visit a hospitalized spouse or to 
attend a family gathering, including, in one case, to attend the 
funeral of their own child.
  Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered 
``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services. 
While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to quality 
for benefits, his or her condition must be such that ``there exists a 
normal inability to leave home.''
  The statute does allow for absences from the home that are 
``infrequent and of short duration.'' It also gives specific permission 
for the individual to leave home to attend medical appointments, adult 
day care or religious services. Otherwise, it leaves it to the fiscal 
intermediaries to interpret just how many absences qualify as 
``frequent'' and just how short those absences must be. Interpretations 
of this definition have therefore varied widely.
  As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an 
overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned 
elderly or disabled Medicare recipients, who are dependent upon 
Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival, into 
virtual prisoners in their own homes.
  The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, 
disabled Medicare patients. For example, I recently met with David 
Jayne, a 40-year old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who is confined to 
a wheelchair and cannot swallow, speak or even breathe on his own. Mr. 
Jayne needs several skilled nursing visits per week to enable him to 
remain independent and out of an inpatient facility. Despite his 
disability, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with youth and church groups. 
Speaking through a computerized voice synthesizer, he gives 
inspirational talks about how the human spirit can endure and even 
overcome great hardship.
  The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne 
and his activities, including a report about how he had, with the help 
of family and friends, attended a football game to root for the 
University of Georgia Bulldogs. A few days later, at the direction

[[Page 15715]]

of the fiscal intermediary, his home health agency, which had been 
sending a health care worker to his home for two hours, four mornings a 
week, notified him that he could no longer be considered homebound, and 
that his benefits were being cut off. While his benefits were 
subsequently reinstated due to the media attention given the case, this 
experience motivated him to launch a crusade to modernize the homebound 
definition and led him to found the National Coalition to Amend the 
Medicare Homebound Restriction.
  The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, 
disabled individuals who are on Medicare. The fact is that the current 
requirement reflects an outmoded view of life for persons who live with 
serious disabilities. The homebound criteria may have made sense thirty 
years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might expect to live in 
the confines of their home, perhaps cared for by an extended family. 
The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and 
medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with 
significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to 
reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals, like Mr. 
Jayne, which allow them brief periods of relative wellness.
  It also fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity and 
physical stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the 
body and mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four 
walls of a home.
  The David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2002 will 
amend the homebound definition to base eligibility for the home health 
benefit on the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition, 
rather than on an arbitrary limitation on absences from the home. It 
will provide a specific, limited exception to the homebound rule for 
individuals who:
  One, have been certified by a physician has having a permanent and 
severe condition that will not improve;
  Two, who need assistance from another person with 3 or more of the 5 
activities of daily living and require technological and/or personal 
assistance with the act of leaving home;
  Three, who have received Medicare home health services during the 
previous 12 month period; and
  Four, who are only able to leave home because the services provided 
through the home health benefit makes it possible for them to do so.
  We believe that our legislation is budget neutral because it is 
specifically limited to individuals who are already eligible for 
Medicare and whose conditions require the assistance of a skilled 
nurse, therapist or home health aide to make it functionally possible 
for them to leave the home. Our legislation does not expand Medicare 
eligibility--it simply gives people who are already eligible for the 
benefit their freedom.
  This issue was first brought to my attention by former Senator Robert 
Dole, who has long been a vigorous advocate for people with 
disabilities. Our proposal is also supported by the Consortium of 
Citizens with Disabilities, the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, 
the National Association for Home Care, Advancing Independence: 
Modernizing Medicare and Medicaid, AIMM, and the National Coalition to 
Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction.
  Moreover, the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 
2002 is consistent with President Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative'' 
which has, as its goal, the removal of barriers that impede 
opportunities for those with disabilities to integrate more fully into 
the community. By allowing reasonable absences from the home, our 
amendment will bring the Medicare home health benefit into the 21st 
Century, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to getting it 
done.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2849. A bill to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for 
research, to provide better coordination of Federal efforts and 
information on islet cell transplantation, and to collect the data 
necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental 
procedure to a standard therapy; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Washington, Senator Murray, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell 
Transplantation Act of 2002 which will help to advance important 
research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than one million 
Americans with Type 1 or juvenile diabetes.
  As the founder and Co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have 
learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties 
and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families 
as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long condition 
that affects people of every age, race and nationality. It is the 
leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations 
not related to injury. Moreover, diabetes costs the nation more than 
$105 billion a year, one out of every ten health care dollars, in 
health-related expenditures.
  The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young 
adults with juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most 
common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that 
they never outgrow.
  In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system 
attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. 
While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the 
treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with 
juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, 
life-threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their 
quality of life.
  Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen 
some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and 
I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will 
be cured in the near future.
  We were all encouraged by the development of the ``Edmonton 
Protocol,'' an experimental treatment developed at the University of 
Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic 
islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in 
diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the 
approximately 70 patients who have been treated using variation of the 
Edmonton Protocol over the past two years, all have seen a reversal of 
their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have 
maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 
two years.
  Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment--which uses 
more islet cells and a less-toxic combination of immunosuppressive 
drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild, and the 
therapy has been generally well-tolerated by most patients.
  Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has 
side-effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in 
children. Researchers, however, are working hard to find a way to 
reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the 
procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the 
protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough 
and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the 
most immediate chance to achieve a cure for juvenile diabetes, and the 
research is moving forward rapidly.
  New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the 
science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of 
islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a 
serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell 
transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated 
annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for 
islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells 
from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.
  The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of 
pancreases available for these trials

[[Page 15716]]

and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations, 
OPS, for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested 
and used for islet cell transplantation and research.
  Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the 
number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of 
the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been 
procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ 
transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the 
pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or 
research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to 
step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for 
this purpose.
  In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on 
islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the 
federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The 
many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist 
are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation--
while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not 
rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues 
associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and 
financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused 
effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warranted 
since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such 
remarkable results.
  And finally, to help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell 
transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy 
covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine 
to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the 
health-related quality of life for individuals with juvenile diabetes 
as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.
  Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with juvenile 
diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation, addresses some of the specific obstacles 
to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all 
of our colleagues to join us in sponsoring it.
                                 ______
                                 

      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2853. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
the Missouri River Monitoring and Research Program, to authorize the 
establishment of the Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Committee, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Byron 
dorgan in introducing legislation that will establish a world-class, 
science-based long-term monitoring program for the Missouri River. As 
America's longest river, fed by the headwaters of thousand, year-old 
glaciers, the Missouri is intertwined into the fabric of the American 
experience. Fed by dozens of tributaries crisscrossing Montana, North 
and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, the Missouri River 
supports hundreds of river species and provides crucial wildlife 
habitat for migratory birds and other animals. The Missouri River also 
sustains trophy walleye fishing on South Dakota's main stem reservoirs 
and is the hub for the cultural and economic development of several 
communities and Indian Tribes.
  The Missouri River faces challenges on several fronts: The 
manipulation of its water levels by the Corps of Engineers, the 
continued development of river shoreline, and the invasion of nonnative 
fish and plants. The Missouri River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 
2002 creates a comprehensive monitoring program to investigate and 
examine how the multiple uses of the Missouri are impacting water 
quality and the sustainability of fish and wildlife.
  The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal research 
program through the Biological Resources Division of the USGS, the 
Department of the Interior's research engine. The strength of the bill, 
however, stems from the participation of the states, Indian Tribes, and 
academic institutions all who have a stake in the health of the River. 
To that end, the legislation authorizes the establishment of monitoring 
field stations throughout the Missouri River basin. The bill also 
includes a competitive funding process to contract with Indian Tribes 
and basin States for the recovery of threatened species and specific 
habitat restoration projects. These focused investigations will 
encourage States and Indian Tribes to study the impact of water flows 
on fish populations at main stem reservoirs.
  Earlier this year, water releases from South Dakota reservoirs 
damaged the spring fish spawn and the ecology of the Missouri River. 
This bill authorizes funds for State agencies with jurisdiction over 
fish and wildlife habitat to initiate projects that will be able to 
tell us how low water levels at South Dakota reservoirs impact fish 
populations and recreational opportunities.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the South Dakota 
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks in support of the Missouri River 
Monitoring Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Department of Game,


                                               Fish and Parks,

                                        Pierre, SD, July 23, 2002.
     Senator Tim Johnson,
     Hart Senate Office,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: I would like to express my 
     appreciation for all of your efforts on behalf of Missouri 
     River fish and wildlife resources, especially the 
     introduction of the ``Missouri River Monitoring Act of 
     2002.'' The framework for this legislation. ``The Missouri 
     River Environmental Assessment Program (MOREAP), was 
     developed by the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee 
     (MRNRC) during 1996 and 1997 in partnership with the 
     Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological 
     Survey (USGS) and 79 Missouri River scientists and fish and 
     wildlife managers. The MRNRC was established in 1987 by my 
     agency and other main stem state fish and wildlife agencies 
     with statutory responsibilities for management and 
     stewardship of river fish and wildlife resources held in 
     trust for the public. We are accountable to the public for 
     management of those resources.
       My staff and I have reviewed the proposed legislation and I 
     want you to know that we support your bill. The Missouri 
     River lacks a basin wide biological monitoring program and 
     environmental assessment is desperately needed. The need for 
     collecting comprehensive, long-term natural resource data to 
     understand the effects of future river management decisions 
     cannot be over-stated. This program will generate a system-
     wide database on Missouri River water quality, habitat, and 
     biota that will provide the scientific foundation for 
     management decisions.
       The Missouri River is 2,341 miles long and drains one-sixth 
     of the United States. It is one of the most important 
     resources in our country. Harnessing the river's flow and 
     constricting its channel has altered and reduced native fish 
     and wildlife habitat. Recovering declining fish and wildlife 
     resources in this extremely large, diverse and complex river 
     environment, while maintaining the important economic 
     benefits the river and reservoir system provides, will 
     require sound and ongoing scientific data.
       The time has come to make management changes on the 
     Missouri River and those changes should be based on a 
     thorough understanding of how those changes affect the 
     river's environment. Scientific data will help us understand 
     the complex relationships between river management and fish 
     and wildlife habitat recovery.
       I thank you once again for your help. This legislation has 
     the strong support of the South Dakota Department Game Fish 
     and Parks.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John L. Cooper,
                                             Department Secretary.

  Mr. JOHNSON. The time for a monitoring program for the Missouri River 
has arrived. With the Corps of Engineers poised to revise the Missouri 
River Master Water Control Manual, a monitoring program will establish 
a baseline for judging the impact of new water flows. Years of 
scientific analysis and research from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service point toward Corps management of the river as the reason for 
diminished riparian habitat and a laundry list of threatened fish and 
bird species. Scientific monitoring must be part of a new Master Manual

[[Page 15717]]

to examine how the new water flows impact fish and wildlife 
populations. The Corps has spent nearly 13 years and millions of 
dollars to find a consensus and implement a new, more balanced Master 
Manual. The Missouri River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 
establishes a comprehensive database to analyze and examine how fish 
and wildlife respond to a new management plan. A long-term monitoring 
program will ensure that future decisions over the Missouri River are 
based on sound science and not politics.
  As we approach the 200 year anniversary of Lewis and Clark's journey 
up the Missouri River, I call on Congress to pass the Missouri River 
Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 to ensure the health and 
vitality of the River for the enjoyment of future generations.
  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. 2853

       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 ``Missouri River Enhancement 
     and Monitoring Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the River Studies 
     Center of the Biological Resources Division of the United 
     States Geological Survey, located in Columbia, Missouri.
       (2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Missouri 
     River Basin Stakeholder Committee established under section 
     4(a).
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Missouri River 
     monitoring and research program established under section 
     3(a).
       (5) River.--The term ``River'' means the Missouri River.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Biological Resources 
     Division of the United States Geological Survey.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means--
       (A) the State of Iowa;
       (B) the State of Kansas;
       (C) the State of Missouri;
       (D) the State of Montana;
       (E) the State of Nebraska;
       (F) the State of North Dakota;
       (G) the State of South Dakota; and
       (H) the State of Wyoming.
       (8) State agency.--The term ``State agency'' means an 
     agency of a State that has jurisdiction over fish and 
     wildlife of the River.

     SEC. 3. MISSOURI RIVER MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish the 
     Missouri River monitoring and research Program--
       (1)(A) to coordinate the collection of information on the 
     biological and water quality characteristics of the River; 
     and
       (B) to evaluate how those characteristics are affected by 
     hydrology;
       (2) to coordinate the monitoring and assessment of biota 
     (including threatened or endangered species) and habitat of 
     the River; and
       (3) to make recommendations on means to assist in restoring 
     the ecosystem of the River.
       (b) Consultation.--In establishing the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the Biological Resources Division of the United States 
     Geological Survey;
       (2) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (3) the Chief of Engineers;
       (4) the Western Area Power Administration;
       (5) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (6) the Governors of the States, acting through--
       (A) the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee; and
       (B) the Missouri River Basin Association; and
       (7) the Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin.
       (c) Administration.--The Center shall administer the 
     program.
       (d) Activities.--In administering the program, the Center 
     shall--
       (1) establish a baseline of conditions for the River 
     against which future activities may be measured;
       (2) monitor biota (including threatened or endangered 
     species), habitats, and the water quality of the River;
       (3) if initial monitoring carried out under paragraph (2) 
     indicates that there is a need for additional research, carry 
     out any additional research appropriate to--
       (A) advance the understanding of the ecosystem of the 
     River; and
       (B) assist in guiding the operation and management of the 
     River;
       (4) use any scientific information obtained from the 
     monitoring and research to assist in the recovery of the 
     threatened species and endangered species of the River; and
       (5) establish a scientific database that shall be--
       (A) coordinated among the States and Indian tribes of the 
     Missouri River Basin; and
       (B) readily available to members of the public.
       (e) Contracts With Indian Tribes.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall enter into contracts in accordance 
     with section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450f) with Indian tribes that have--
       (A) reservations located along the River; and
       (B) an interest in monitoring and assessing the condition 
     of the River.
       (2) Requirements.--A contract entered into under paragraph 
     (1) shall be for activities that--
       (A) carry out the purposes of this Act; and
       (B) complement any activities relating to the River that 
     are carried out by--
       (i) the Center; or
       (ii) the States.
       (f) Monitoring and Recovery of Threatened Species and 
     Endangered Species.--The Center shall provide financial 
     assistance to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     State agencies to monitor and recover threatened species and 
     endangered species, including monitoring the response of 
     pallid sturgeon to reservoir operations on the mainstem of 
     the River.
       (g) Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall carry out a competitive 
     grant program under which the Center shall provide grants to 
     States, Indian tribes, research institutions, and other 
     eligible entities and individuals to conduct research on the 
     impacts of the operation and maintenance of the mainstem 
     reservoirs on the River on the health of fish and wildlife of 
     the River, including an analysis of any adverse social and 
     economic impacts that result from reoperation measures on the 
     River.
       (2) Requirements.--On an annual basis, the Center, the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
     Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the 
     Missouri River Natural Resources Committee, shall--
       (A) prioritize research needs for the River;
       (B) issue a request for grant proposals; and
       (C) award grants to the entities and individuals eligible 
     for assistance under paragraph (1).
       (h) Allocation of Funds.--
       (1) Center.--Of amounts made available to carry out this 
     section, the Secretary shall make the following percentages 
     of funds available to the Center:
       (A) 35 percent for fiscal year 2003.
       (B) 40 percent for fiscal year 2004.
       (C) 50 percent for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017.
       (2) States and indian tribes.--Of amounts made available to 
     carry out this section, the Secretary shall use the following 
     percentages of funds to provide assistance to States or 
     Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin to carry out 
     activities under subsection (d):
       (A) 65 percent for fiscal year 2003.
       (B) 60 percent for fiscal year 2004.
       (C) 50 percent for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017.
       (3) Use of allocations.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amount made available to the Center 
     for a fiscal year under paragraph (1)(C), not less than--
       (i) 20 percent of the amount shall be made available to 
     provide financial assistance under subsection (f); and
       (i) 33 percent of the amount shall be made available to 
     provide grants under subsection (g).
       (B) Administrative and other expenses.--Any amount 
     remaining after application of subparagraph (A) shall be used 
     to pay the costs of--
       (i) administering the program;
       (ii) collecting additional information relating to the 
     River, as appropriate;
       (iii) analyzing and presenting the information collected 
     under clause (ii); and
       (iv) preparing any appropriate reports, including the 
     report required by subsection (i).
       (i) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which 
     the program is established under subsection (a), and not less 
     often than every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the individuals and agencies referred to in 
     subsection (b), shall--
       (1) review the program;
       (2) establish and revise the purposes of the program, as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       (3) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on the environmental health of the River, including--
       (A) recommendations on means to assist in the comprehensive 
     restoration of the River; and
       (B) an analysis of any adverse social and economic impacts 
     on the River, in accordance with subsection (g)(1).

[[Page 15718]]



     SEC. 4. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Governors of the States and the 
     governing bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri River 
     Basin shall establish a committee to be known as the 
     ``Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Committee'' to make 
     recommendations to the Federal agencies with jurisdiction 
     over the River on means of restoring the ecosystem of the 
     River.
       (b) Membership.--The Governors of the States and governing 
     bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin shall 
     appoint to the Committee--
       (1) representatives of--
       (A) the States; and
       (B) Indian tribes of the Missouri River Basin;
       (2) individuals in the States with an interest in or 
     expertise relating to the River; and
       (3) such other individuals as the Governors of the States 
     and governing bodies of the Indian tribes of the Missouri 
     River Basin determine to be appropriate.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
       (1) to carry out section 3--
       (A) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (B) $8,500,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (C) $15,100,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2017; 
     and
       (2) to carry out section 4, $150,000 for fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson today in introducing this Missouri 
River Enhancement and Monitoring Act of 2002 and thank him for his 
efforts in working with me on this legislation. This bill will 
establish a program to conduct research on, and monitor the health of, 
the Missouri River to help recover threatened and endangered species, 
such as the pallid sturgeon and piping plover.
  This bill will enable those who are active in the Missouri River 
Basin to collect and analyze baseline data, as river operations change, 
so that we can monitor changes in the health of the river and in 
species recovery in future years.
  The program would also provide an analysis of the social and economic 
impacts along the river. And, it would establish a stakeholder group to 
make recommendations on the recovery of the Missouri River ecosystem.
  The bill establishes a cooperative working arrangement between state, 
regional federal, and tribal entities that are active in the Missouri 
River Basin. I look forward to working with all of the stakeholders in 
the Basin to implement this important legislation.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad 
range of stakeholders, including the North Dakota State Water 
Commission, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the North Dakota 
Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Three Affiliated Tribes, the Missouri 
River Natural Resources Committee, The Missouri River Basin 
Association, the South Dakota Game and Fish Department, American 
Rivers, and Environmental Defense.
  I am confident that this legislation will enjoy bipartisan support, 
because of its significance in helping to monitor and restore the 
health of this historic River. Lewis and Clark traveled on this River. 
This River also contributes to $80 million in recreation, fishing, and 
tourism benefits in the Basin. I look forward to holding hearings on 
this bill and hope that we will be able to pass it into law in the near 
future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 2854. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve disproportionate share medicare payments to hospitals serving 
vulnerable populations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation 
today with Senators Roberts and Enzi that addresses some inequities in 
the current Medicare disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program. 
The bill incorporates the recommendations by the Medicare Payment 
Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, to address the current inequities in 
the formula that harm rural hospitals and to better target the money to 
safety net hospitals.
  The Medicare DSH program was created with the purpose of assisting 
hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income 
beneficiaries, including seniors and disabled citizens served by 
Medicare. To protect access to low-income Medicare beneficiaries, DSH 
funds are provided to hospitals whose viability is threatened by 
providing care, including unreimbursed care, to low-income patients.
  Unfortunately, the current Medicare DSH formula does not adequately 
reflect or target money appropriately to these safety net institutions 
and it also inappropriately sets limits and inequities for rural 
hospitals, which are a life-line to many of our Nation's senior 
citizens and yet struggle due to such payment inequities in the 
Medicare system.
  This legislation adopts the recommendations of MedPAC to address 
these inequities. According to MedPAC from its March 2000 ``Report to 
the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy''--

       The Commission believes that special policy changes are 
     needed to ameliorate several problems inherent in the 
     existing disproportionate share payment system. The current 
     low-income share measure does not include care to all the 
     poor; most notably, it omits uncompensated care. Instead, the 
     measure relies on the share of resources devoted to treating 
     Medicaid recipients to represent the low-income patient load 
     for the entire nonelderly poor population.

  New Mexico leads the Nation in the percentage of uninsured in its 
populations, according to the Census Bureau. Consequently, as MedPAC 
has noted repeatedly, the hospitals in my state lose more money to 
uncompensated care than similarly situated hospitals in other states. 
Because the Medicare DSH formula fails to account for uncompensated 
care directly but instead uses Medicaid as a proxy, the hospitals in 
New Mexico are not fairly compensated by the Medicare DSH formula.
  To address this problem, MedPAC recommends the formula ``include the 
costs of all poor patients in calculating low-income shares used to 
distribute disproportionate share payments. . . .'' The legislation we 
are introducing today would make that important change on behalf of our 
Nation's safety net hospitals.
  In addition, MedPAC notes that the current Medicare DSH program has 
10 different formulas. MedPAC adds, ``In particular, current policy 
favors hospitals located in urban areas; almost half of urban hospitals 
receive DSH payments, compared with only one-fifth of rural 
facilities.''
  Although BIPA improved the equity of DSH payments by raising the 
minimum low-income share needed to qualify for a payment adjustment for 
rural hospitals to that of urban hospitals, BIPA capped the DSH add-on 
payments a rural hospital can receive at just 5.25 percent, except for 
those rural hospitals already receiving higher payments due to the sole 
community hospital or rural referral center status. While MedPAC 
estimated the change made about 840 additional rural hospitals, or 40 
percent of all rural facilities, eligible to receive DSH payments, the 
cap maintains some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals.
  Again, according to MedPAC in its June 2001 ``Report to Congress: 
Medicare in Rural America'':

       Rural hospitals were responsible for 12.8 percent of the 
     care provided to Medicaid and uncompensated care patients 
     nationally in 1999. With the DSH payment rules in effect 
     through 2000, only 3.1 percent of payments went to rural 
     facilities; BIPA rules would increase that proportion to 6.9 
     percent.

  To address this problem, MedPAC also recommends using the ``same 
formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by prospective 
payment.''
  In incorporating the recommendations of MedPAC in this legislation, 
it is estimated the bill would increase rural DSH payments by 5.4 
percent across the country, including an 8.4 percent increase for rural 
hospitals with less than 50 beds. Our Nation's public hospitals would 
also benefit greatly, as urban public hospitals and rural government 
facilities are estimated to receive increases of 3.6 percent and 7.7 
percent, respectively, under this legislation.
  This legislation I am introducing with Senators Roberts and Enzi 
addresses some long-standing inequities

[[Page 15719]]

in the Medicare DSH formula. I urge its adoption this year.
  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. 2854

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Safety Net Hospital 
     Improvement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF DATA AND MODIFICATION OF 
                   DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO 
                   HOSPITALS SERVING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

       (a) Collection of Data.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xiv) The Secretary shall collect from each subsection 
     (d) hospital annual data on inpatient and outpatient charges, 
     including all such charges for each of the following 
     categories:
       ``(I) All patients.
       ``(II) Patients who are entitled to benefits under part A 
     and are entitled to benefits (excluding any State 
     supplementation) under the supplemental security income 
     program under title XVI.
       ``(III) Patients who are entitled to (or, if they applied, 
     would be eligible for) medical assistance under title XIX or 
     child health assistance under title XXI.
       ``(IV) Patients who are beneficiaries of indigent care 
     programs sponsored by State or local governments (including 
     general assistance programs) which are funded solely by local 
     or State funds or by a combination of local, State, or 
     Federal funding.
       ``(V) The amount of charity care charges and bad debt.''.
       (b) Modification.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)), as amended by 
     subsection (a), is amended--
       (1) by striking all the matter preceding clause (xiv) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(F)(i) The Secretary shall provide, in accordance with 
     this subparagraph, for an additional payment amount for each 
     subsection (d) hospital which serves a significantly 
     disproportionate number of low-income patients (as defined in 
     clause (iv)).
       ``(ii) The amount of the payment described in clause (i) 
     for each discharge shall be determined by multiplying--
       ``(I) the sum of the amount determined under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii)(II) (or, if applicable, the amount determined 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(iii)) and, for cases qualifying for 
     additional payment under subparagraph (A)(i), the amount paid 
     to the hospital under subparagraph (A) for that discharge, by
       ``(II) the disproportionate share adjustment percentage 
     established under clause (iii) for the cost reporting period 
     in which the discharge occurs.
       ``(iii) The disproportionate share adjustment percentage 
     for a cost reporting period for a hospital is equal to (P-
     T)(C), where--
       ``(I) `P' is equal to the hospital's disproportionate 
     patient percentage (as defined in clause (v)) for the period;
       ``(II) `T' is equal to the threshold percentage established 
     by the Secretary under clause (iv); and
       ``(III) `C' is equal to a conversion factor established by 
     the Secretary in a manner so that, in applying such 
     conversion factor for cost reporting periods beginning in 
     fiscal year 2002--
       ``(aa) the total of the additional payments that would have 
     been made under this subparagraph for cost reporting periods 
     beginning in fiscal year 2002 if the amendment made by 
     section 2(b) of the Medicare Safety Net Hospital Improvement 
     Act of 2002 had been in effect; are equal to
       ``(bb) the total of the additional payments that would have 
     been made under this subparagraph for cost reporting periods 
     beginning in fiscal year 2002 if such amendment was not in 
     effect but if the disproportionate share adjustment 
     percentage (as defined in clause (iv) (as in effect during 
     such cost reporting periods)) for all hospitals was equal to 
     the percent determined in accordance with the applicable 
     formulae described in clause (vii) (as so in effect).
     The Secretary shall establish the conversion factor under 
     subclause (III) based upon the data described in clause (iv) 
     that is collected by the Secretary.
       ``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, a hospital 
     `serves a significantly disproportionate number of low-income 
     patients' for a cost reporting period if the hospital has a 
     disproportionate patient percentage (as defined in clause 
     (v)) for that period which equals or exceeds a threshold 
     percentage, as established by the Secretary in a manner so 
     that, if the amendment made by section 2(b) of the Medicare 
     Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2002 had been in 
     effect for cost reporting periods beginning in fiscal year 
     2002 and if the disproportionate share adjustment percentage 
     (as defined in clause (iv) (as in effect during such 
     periods)) for all hospitals was equal to the percent 
     determined in accordance with the applicable formulae 
     described in clause (vii) (as so in effect), 60 percent of 
     subsection (d) hospitals would have been eligible for an 
     additional payment under this subparagraph for such periods. 
     The Secretary shall establish such threshold percentage based 
     upon the data described in clause (iv) that is collected by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(v) In this subparagraph, the term `disproportionate 
     patient percentage' means, with respect to a cost reporting 
     period of a hospital (expressed as a percentage)--
       ``(I) the charges described in subclauses (II) through (V) 
     of clause (vi) for such period; divided by
       ``(II) the charges described in subclause (I) of such 
     clause for such period.''; and
       (2) by redesignating clause (xiv) as clause (vi).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Medicare.--
       (A) Qualified long-term care hospital.--Section 
     1886(b)(3)(G)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(b)(3)(G)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``of at least 
     70 percent (as determined by the Secretary under subsection 
     (d)(5)(F)(vi))'' and inserting ``under subsection 
     (d)(5)(F)(v) equal to or greater than an appropriate 
     percentage (as determined by the Secretary)''.
       [(B) Provider-based status.--Section 404(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-507), as enacted into 
     law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended by 
     striking ``greater than 11.75 percent or is described in 
     clause (i)(II) of such section'' and inserting ``greater than 
     an appropriate percent (as determined by the Secretary)''.]
       (2) Medicaid.--Section 1923(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section 
     1886(d)(5)(F)(iv)'' and inserting ``section 
     1886(d)(5)(F)(iii)''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence.
       (3) Public health service act.--Section 340B(a)(4)(L)(ii) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     256b(a)(4)(L)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) for the most recent cost reporting period that ended 
     before the calendar quarter involved--

       ``(I) in the case of a calendar quarter involved that 
     begins prior to April 1, 2004, had a disproportionate share 
     adjustment percentage (as determined under section 
     1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act) greater than 11.75 
     percent or was described in section 1886(d)(5)(F)(i)(II) of 
     such Act; and
       ``(II) in the case of a calendar quarter involved that 
     begins on or after April 1, 2004, had a disproportionate 
     share adjustment percentage (as so determined) that is 
     greater than an appropriate percent, as established by the 
     Secretary in a manner so that, with respect to the 12-month 
     period beginning on such date, the number of hospitals that 
     are described in this subparagraph is the same as, or greater 
     than, the number of hospitals that would have been described 
     in this subparagraph if the Medicare Safety Net Hospital 
     Improvement Act of 2002 had not been enacted; and''.

       (d) Technical Amendments.--Section 1815(e)(1)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a'' 
     before ``hospital''; and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``(as established in clause 
     (iv) of such section)'' and inserting ``(as established in 
     section 1886(d)(5)(F)(iv), as in effect during fiscal year 
     1987)''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Collection.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Modification and conforming amendments.--The amendments 
     made by subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to payments for 
     discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2004.
       (3) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (d) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of section 9311(a) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509; 100 Stat. 
     1996).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2855. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
improve the qualified medicare beneficiary (QMB) and special low-income 
medicare beneficiary (SLMB) programs within the medicaid program; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with 
Senator Rockefeller that will make significant and long-overdue 
improvements in the programs that provide assistance to low-income 
Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 5276, 
which was introduced by Representatives John Dingell, Sherrod Brown, 
Henry Waxman, and Pete Stark last week.

[[Page 15720]]

  Medicare provides coverage to all 40 million elderly and disabled 
beneficiaries, regardless of income, but the cost of uncovered 
services, premiums, and cost-sharing is a serious burden on those with 
the lowest incomes.
  More than 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 200 
percent of poverty, including 47 percent or 102,000 seniors in New 
Mexico, at income levels below $17,720 for an individual and $23,880 
for a couple. These low-income beneficiaries are nearly twice as likely 
as higher-income beneficiaries to report their health status as fair or 
poor, but are less likely to have private supplemental insurance to 
cover the cost of uncovered services or Medicare cost-sharing. Poor 
beneficiaries also bear a disproportionate burden in out-of-pocket 
health care costs, spending more than a third of their incomes on 
health care compared to only 10 percent for higher-income 
beneficiaries.
  Medicaid, through what is known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs,'' 
fills in Medicare's gaps for low-income beneficiaries, providing 
supplemental coverage to 17 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. 
According to the Center for Medicare Education, which is funded by the 
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the costs for low-income beneficiaries 
enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, or QMB, program drops 
out-of-pocket expenditures from 34 percent to 13 percent for low-income 
beneficiaries. Moreover, Medicare beneficiaries with full Medicaid 
coverage have out-of-pocket expenses of about 5 percent of their income 
or $295 a year.
  This is a significant and important protection for our Nation's most 
financially vulnerable seniors and disabled citizens. Unfortunately, 
millions of beneficiaries, who are eligible for assistance under the 
Medicare Savings Programs, are not enrolled. Again, the Center for 
Medicare Education estimates that only half of the beneficiaries below 
poverty who are eligible for assistance are actually enrolled. Lack of 
outreach, complex and burdensome enrollment procedures, and restrictive 
asset requirements keep millions of seniors from receiving the 
assistance they desperately need.
  The ``Medicare Beneficiary Improvement Act of 2002'' takes a number 
of steps to address these problems. First, the legislation improves 
eligibility requirements for these programs. It raises the income level 
for eligibility for Medicare Part B premium assistance from 120 to 135 
percent of poverty. This expansion was originally enacted in 1997 but 
it expires this year. The Congress needs to take action this year to 
maintain these important protections for the Nation's elderly and 
should take the additional action to make this provision permanent.
  In addition, the bill also ensures that all seniors who meet 
supplemental security income, or SSI, criteria are automatically 
eligible for assistance. Currently, automatic eligibility is only 
required in certain States, meaning that beneficiaries in other states 
may miss out on critical assistance unless they know enough to apply.
  The bill also eliminates the restrictive assets test that requires 
seniors to become completely destitute in order to qualify for 
assistance. Most low-income Medicare beneficiaries have limited assets 
to begin with but the asset restrictions are so severe, a beneficiary 
could not keep a fund or more than $1,500 for burial expenses without 
being disqualified from assistance. Moreover, own a car and you are 
likely to be denied financial protections under current law.
  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is estimated that up to 
40 percent of low-income elderly that are otherwise eligible for 
financial assistance are denied protections due to the assets test. Any 
senior citizen making less than $13,290 a year who somehow has managed 
to scrape together $4,000 in a savings account for emergency are not 
eligible for financial protections from Medicare's cost sharing 
requirements. This runs counter to the goal of the Medicare program of 
providing security to the elderly rather than requiring impoverishment 
of them.
  Furthermore, the legislation take steps to eliminate barriers to 
enrollment under the program. Again, according to the Center for 
Medicare Education, ``While some states have conducted activities to 
reach and enroll people in the Medicare Savings Programs, there is a 
need for more outreach activity in states. For example, in 1999, only 
18 states reported that they used a short application form for the 
Medicare Savings Programs, and less than half of the states placed 
eligibility workers in settings other than welfare offices.''
  The bill allows Medicare beneficiaries to apply for assistance at 
local social security offices, encourages states to station eligibility 
workers at these offices, as well as at other sites frequented by 
senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, and ensures that 
beneficiaries can apply for the program using a simplified application 
form. In addition, this bill will ensure that once an individual is 
found eligible for assistance, the individual remains continuously 
eligible and does not need to re-apply annually.
  Another important step the legislation takes for low-income Medicare 
beneficiaries is that it provides 3 months of retroactive for QMBs. All 
other groups of beneficiaries have this protection currently. In 
addition, it prohibits estate recovery for QMBs for the cost of their 
cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program. The fear that 
Medicaid will recoup such costs from a surviving spouse is often a 
deterrent for many seniors to apply for such assistance.
  And finally, the legislation funds a demonstration project to improve 
information and coordination between federal state, and local entities 
to increase enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. This 
demonstration would help agencies identify individuals who are 
potentially eligible for assistance by coordinating various data and 
sharing it with states for the purposes of locating and enrolling these 
individuals. In addition, the legislation provides grant money for 
additional innovative outreach and enrollment projects for the Medicare 
Savings Programs.
  I would like to thank Representative Dingell for his leadership on 
this issue and am pleased to be introducing the Senate companion bill 
to his legislation.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
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. 2855

       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 ``Medicare 
     Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Renaming program to eliminate confusion.
Sec. 3. Expanding protections by increasing SLMB eligibility income 
              level to 135 percent of poverty.
Sec. 4. Eliminating barriers to enrollment.
Sec. 5. Elimination of asset test.
Sec. 6. Improving assistance with out-of-pocket costs.
Sec. 7. Improving program information and coordination with State, 
              local, and other partners.
Sec. 8. Notices to certain new medicare beneficiaries.

     SEC. 2. RENAMING PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION.

       The programs of benefits for lower income medicare 
     beneficiaries provided under section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)) shall be 
     known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs''.

     SEC. 3. EXPANDING PROTECTIONS BY INCREASING SLMB ELIGIBILITY 
                   INCOME LEVEL TO 135 PERCENT OF POVERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iii)) is amended by 
     striking ``120 percent in 1995 and years thereafter'' and 
     inserting ``120 percent in 1995 through 2002 and 135 percent 
     in 2003 and years thereafter''.
       (b) Conforming Removal of QI-1 and QI-2 Provisions.--
       (1) Section 1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(E)) is further amended--

[[Page 15721]]

       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
       (C) by striking clause (iv).
       (2) Section 1933 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3) is 
     repealed.
       (3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take 
     effect as of January 1, 2003.
       (c) Application of CHIP Enhanced Matching Rate for SLMB 
     Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1905(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(b)(4)) is amended by inserting ``or section 
     1902(a)(10)(E)(iii)'' after ``section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to medical assistance for medicare cost-sharing 
     for months beginning with January 2003.

     SEC. 4. ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO ENROLLMENT.

       (a) Automatic Eligibility for SSI Recipients in 209(b) 
     States and SSI Criteria States.--Section 1905(p) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)) is amended--
       (1) be redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (11); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) In the case of a State which has elected treatment 
     under section 1902(f) for aged, blind, and disabled 
     individuals, individuals with respect to whom supplemental 
     security income payments are being paid under title XVI are 
     deemed for purposes of this title to be qualified medicare 
     beneficiaries.''.
       (b) Self-Certification of Income.--Section 1905(p) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by 
     subsection (a), is further amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) In determining whether an individual qualifies as a 
     qualified medicare beneficiary or is eligible for benefits 
     under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the State shall permit 
     individuals to qualify on the basis of self-certifications of 
     income without the need to provide additional 
     documentation.''.
       (c) Automatic Reenrollment Without Need To Reapply.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a) and (b), 
     is further amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(8) In the case of an individual who has been determined 
     to qualify as a qualified medicare beneficiary or to be 
     eligible for benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii), the 
     individual shall be deemed to continue to be so qualified or 
     eligible without the need for any annual or periodic 
     application unless and until the individual notifies the 
     State that the individual's eligibility conditions have 
     changed so that the individual is no longer so qualified or 
     eligible.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1902(e)(8) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)) is amended by striking 
     the second sentence.
       (d) Use of Simplified Application Process.--Section 1905(p) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended 
     by subsections (a), (b), and (c), is further amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) A State shall permit individuals to apply to qualify 
     as a qualified medicare beneficiary or for benefits under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii) through the use of the simplified 
     application form developed under section 1905(p)(5)(A) and 
     shall permit such an application to be made over the 
     telephone or by mail, without the need for an interview in 
     person by the applicant or a representative of the 
     applicant.''.
       (e) Role of Social Security Offices.--
       (1) Enrollment and provision of information at social 
     security offices.--Section 1905(p) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)), as amended by subsections (a), (b), 
     (c), and (d) is further amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (9) the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide, 
     through local offices of the Social Security Administration--
       ``(A) for the enrollment under State plans under this title 
     for appropriate medicare cost-sharing benefits for 
     individuals who qualify as a qualified medicare beneficiary 
     or for benefits under section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iii); and
       ``(B) for providing oral and written notice of the 
     availability of such benefits.''.
       (2) Clarifying amendment.--Section 1902(a)(5) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5)) is amended by inserting ``as provided 
     in section 1905(p)(10)'' after ``except''.
       (f) Outstationing of State Eligibility Workers at SSA Field 
     Offices.--Section 1902(a)(55) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(55)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``subsection (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), (a)(10)(A)(i)(VI), 
     (a)(10)(A)(i)(VII), or (a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (10)(A)(i)(IV), (10)(A)(i)(VI), (10)(A)(i)(VII), 
     (10)(A)(ii)(IX), or (10)(E)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1905(1)(2)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``1905(l)(2)(B), and in the case of applications of 
     individuals for medical assistance under paragraph (10)(E), 
     at locations that include field offices of the Social 
     Security Administration''.

     SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF ASSET TEST.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(p)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking ``, and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to eligibility determinations for medicare cost-
     sharing furnished for periods beginning on or after January 
     1, 2003.

     SEC. 6. IMPROVING ASSISTANCE WITH OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS.

       (a) Eliminating Application of Estate Recovery 
     Provisions.--Section 1917(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(but not including medical assistance for medicare cost-
     sharing or for benefits described in section 
     1902(a)(10)(E))'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Providing for 3-Months Retroactive Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1905(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(a)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``described in subsection (p)(1), if provided after 
     the month'' and inserting ``described in subsection (p)(1), 
     if provided in or after the third month before the month''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) The first sentence of 
     section 1902(e)(8) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(8)), as 
     amended by section 4(c)(2), is amended by striking ``(8)'' 
     and the first sentence.
       (B) Section 1848(g)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     4(g)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Treatment of retroactive eligibility.--In the case of 
     an individual who is determined to be eligible for medical 
     assistance described in subparagraph (A) retroactively, the 
     Secretary shall provide a process whereby claims previously 
     for services furnished during the period of retroactive 
     eligibility which were not submitted in accordance with such 
     subparagraph are resubmitted and re-processed in accordance 
     with such subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVING PROGRAM INFORMATION AND COORDINATION WITH 
                   STATE, LOCAL, AND OTHER PARTNERS.

       (a) Data Match Demonstration Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare 
     & Medicaid Services), the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall enter into an 
     arrangement under which a demonstration is conducted, 
     consistent with this subsection, for the exchange between the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Internal 
     Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration of 
     information in order to identity individuals who are medicare 
     beneficiaries and who, based on data from the Internal 
     Revenue Service that (such as their not filing tax returns or 
     other appropriate filters) are likely to be qualified 
     medicare beneficiaries or individuals otherwise eligible for 
     medical assistance under section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)).
       (2) Limitation on use of information.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, specific information on income or 
     related matters exchanged under paragraph (1) may be 
     disclosed only as required to carry out subsection (b) and 
     for related Federal and State outreach efforts.
       (3) Period.--The project under this subsection shall be for 
     an initial period of 3 years and may be extended for 
     additional periods (not to exceed 3 years each) after such an 
     extension is recommended in a report under subsection (d).
       (b) State Demonstration Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into a demonstration project with States (as 
     defined for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S..C 1396 et seq.) to provide funds to States to use 
     information identified under subsection (a), and other 
     appropriate information, in order to do ex parte 
     determinations or other methods for identifying and enrolling 
     individuals who are potentially eligible to be qualified 
     medicare beneficiaries or otherwise eligible for medical 
     assistance described in section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)).
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of 
     making grants under this subsection.
       (c) Additional CMS Funding for Outreach and Enrollment 
     Projects.--There are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services through the Administrator of the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, $100,000,000 which 
     shall be used only for the purpose of providing grants to 
     States to fund projects to improve outreach and increase 
     enrollment in Medicare Savings Programs. Such projects may 
     include cooperative grants and contracts with community 
     groups and other groups (such as the Department of Veterans' 
     Affairs and the Indian Health Service) to assist in the 
     enrollment of eligible individuals.

[[Page 15722]]

       (d) Reports.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall submit to Congress periodic reports on the projects 
     conducted under this section. Such reports shall include such 
     recommendations for extension of such projects, and changes 
     in laws based on based projects, as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 8. NOTICES TO CERTAIN NEW MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) SSA Notice.--At the time that the Commissioner of 
     Social Security sends a notice to individuals that they have 
     been determined to be eligible for benefits under part A or B 
     of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
     seq., 1395j et seq.), the Commissioner shall send a notice 
     and application for benefits under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) to those individuals 
     the Commissioner identifies as being likely to be eligible 
     for benefits under clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 
     1902(a)(10)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)). Such 
     notice and application shall be accompanied by information on 
     how to submit such an application and on where to obtain more 
     information (including answers to questions) on the 
     application process.
       (b) Including Information in Medicare & You Handbook.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall include in the 
     annual handbook distributed under section 1804(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-2(a)) information on the 
     availability of Medicare Savings Programs and a toll-free 
     telephone number that medicare beneficiaries may use to 
     obtain additional information about the program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2857. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve the requirements regarding advance directives in order 
to ensure that an individual's health care decisions are complied with, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am extremely pleased to be joined by 
my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Wyden, in introducing the 
Advanced Directives and Compassionate Care Act of 2002.
  The end of life is a difficult time for individuals and their 
families. A complex web of emotional, legal, medical, and spiritual 
demands magnify the pain and turmoil already being experienced. Loss of 
control can result in depression and confusion, sometimes even 
hastening death. And, too often, a lifetime's dignity can be stripped 
away in a person's final months, leaving their survivors an inheritance 
of sadness and regret.
  The Advanced Directives and Compassionate Care Act will help families 
and individuals avoid this bitter legacy, by helping maintain greater 
control of their final months. It gives patients greater information 
and power in determining treatment and hospice options. The legislation 
addresses legal issues that often arise at the end-of-life, and makes 
it more certain that advanced directives, such as ``living wills'' will 
be followed. It promotes the hospice-based care that most terminally 
ill patients prefer. Most important, it gives people a better chance to 
maintain their dignity in their final hours. I urge that the Senate 
take up this vital and compassionate legislation this year, and that we 
ensure it's passage before we return home this fall.
  According to a 1999 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization 
survey, Americans are hesitant to talk with their elderly parents about 
how they would like to be cared for at the end of life. This same study 
showed that less than twenty-five percent of Americans have put into 
writing instructions for how we'd like to be cared for personally at 
the end of our lives. Many health care providers overlook the equally 
important issue of providing adequate and appropriate care such as 
relief of pain, or family support services to those who are at the end 
of life. In addition, there is great variation among State laws with 
respect to advanced directives.
  Our legislation takes real and tangible steps toward improving the 
practices and care that affect our citizens when they are facing death 
or the real possibility of death.
  First, and perhaps most important, the Compassionate Care Act gives 
patients greater power to control their final days, by directly 
addressing the improvement of advanced directives. In my home state, a 
2000 survey showed that three-quarters of West Virginians would prefer 
to die at home, yet nearly 60 percent of all deaths occur in a 
hospital. West Virginia has perhaps the most progressive state laws 
with regard to living wills and power of attorney, yet only one-third 
of those surveyed have either. These figures are unacceptable--people 
need to have a greater say in their own destiny.
  Currently, state laws on the execution of advance directives vary 
greatly. Too often, this means a serious problem when the patient's 
wishes about their medical care are ignored--even when family members 
attest to their validity--because they moved to another state after 
creating the directive, but before or at the time that care is needed. 
Most of the differences that cause one state not to honor an advance 
directive created in another state are technical in nature--for 
example, one state requires two witnesses while another only one. This 
variance should not deny a person the type of care desired. Only a 
federal portability statute can address this problem.
  Under our legislation, an advance directive valid in the state in 
which it is executed would be honored in any other state in which it 
may be presented. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services would be required to gather information and consult with 
experts about the feasibility and desirability of creating a uniform 
advance directive for all Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and 
possibly others, in the United States, as well as study such issues as 
the provision of adequate palliative care. A uniform advance directive 
would enable people to designate the kind of care they wish to receive 
at the end of their lives in a way that is easily recognizable and 
understood by everyone.
  In 1990, this body passed bipartisan legislation entitled the Patient 
Self-Determination Act. That legislation required hospitals, and other 
health care facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs to provide every adult receiving medical care with written 
information regarding the patient's involvement with their own 
treatment decisions. The Compassionate Care Act builds on this Act, and 
the thinking behind it, to improve the quality of care and the quality 
of life for terminally ill patients.
  Our bill builds on the Patient Self-Determination Act, improving the 
type and amount of information available by ensuring that a person 
entering a hospital, nursing home, or other health care facility is 
helped by a knowledgeable person to create a new advance directive or 
discuss an existing one. The patient's own needs, desires, and values 
must be the basis of decision-making and, whenever possible, the 
patient's family and/or friends should be part of the conversation. 
Further, the bill requires that if a person has an advance directive it 
be placed prominently in the medical record where all doctors and 
nurses involved in the patient's care can clearly see it. Finally, 
under the Compassionate Care Act, a 24-hour, toll-free hotline that 
provides consumers with information on advance directives, end-of-life 
care decision-making, and hospice care would be established.
  Second, our legislation would require the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to develop outcome standards and other measures for 
evaluating the quality of end-of-life care including the 
appropriateness of care and ease of access to high quality care. There 
are currently too few measures or standards available to assess the 
quality of care provided to Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP beneficiaries 
with terminal conditions. There are also significant variations in 
available medical care for patients at the end-of-life based on 
geographic area, ethnic group and alternative models of care.
  Third, this legislation would authorize demonstration projects to 
develop new and innovative approaches to improving end-of-life care and 
pain management for Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP beneficiaries. At 
least one demonstration would focus particularly on pediatric end-of-
life care. Priorities include adequate pain management for terminally 
ill patients--40-80 percent

[[Page 15723]]

of terminally ill patients say they do not receive adequate treatment 
for their pain; treatment of pediatric illnesses--28 thousand children 
die of chronic illness each year, but fewer than 10 percent receive 
hospice care; and treatment of Medicare beneficiaries in hospice care.
  Finally, to help improve communication between federal agencies and 
experts in the fields of hospice, end-of-life, and palliative care, the 
legislation establishes a 15 member End-of-Life Care Advisory Board 
consisting of end-of-life care providers, consumers, professional and 
resource-based groups, and policy/advocacy organizations. Recently, the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has made a concerted effort 
to improve its involvement in the area of end-of-life care. The 
Advisory Board is designed to further assist the Secretary and the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the evaluation of and 
decisions relating to adequate end-of-life care. In addition, it would 
utilize the reports mandated in this bill to create its own evaluation 
of the field and propose recommendations for legislative and 
administrative actions to improve end-of-life care in America.
  Mr. President, death is a hard subject to talk about. It's hard to 
think about--and especially hard to plan for. I know this personally, 
as many of my colleagues may as well, from dealing with the loss of a 
family member to a prolonged illness. Too often discussion about end-
of-life care and adequate pain management focuses around physician 
assisted suicide. The fact is that this quality end-of-life care--
helping the dying and their families who want better, more 
compassionate care--is what we should be talking about, and what our 
legislation does.
  This legislation has been endorsed by the National Hospice and 
Palliative Care Association, Partnership for Caring, The American Bar 
Association, Americans for Better Care of the Dying, and the American 
Academy of Pediatrics. I ask unanimous consent that several of the 
letters of support from these organizations and the full text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2857

       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 ``Advance 
     Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Development of standards to assess end-of-life care.
Sec. 3. Study and report by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
              regarding the establishment and implementation of a 
              national uniform policy on advance directives.
Sec. 4. Improvement of policies related to the use of advance 
              directives.
Sec. 5. National information hotline for end-of-life decisionmaking and 
              hospice care.
Sec. 6. Demonstration project for innovative and new approaches to end-
              of-life care for medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP 
              beneficiaries.
Sec. 7. Establishment of End-of-Life Care Advisory Board.

     SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS TO ASSESS END-OF-LIFE CARE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health, the Administrator of the 
     Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and the End-of-
     Life Care Advisory Board (established under section 7), shall 
     develop outcome standards and measures to--
       (1) evaluate the performance of health care programs and 
     projects that provide end-of-life care to individuals, 
     including the quality of the care provided by such programs 
     and projects; and
       (2) assess the access to, and utilization of, such programs 
     and projects, including differences in such access and 
     utilization in rural and urban areas and for minority 
     populations.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     outcome standards and measures developed under subsection 
     (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                   SERVICES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL UNIFORM POLICY ON 
                   ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to the 
     establishment and implementation of a national uniform policy 
     on advance directives for individuals receiving items and 
     services under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.).
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services under paragraph (1) shall 
     include issues concerning--
       (A) family satisfaction that a patient's wishes, as stated 
     in the patient's advance directive, were carried out;
       (B) the portability of advance directives, including cases 
     involving the transfer of an individual from 1 health care 
     setting to another;
       (C) immunity from civil liability and criminal 
     responsibility for health care providers that follow the 
     instructions in an individual's advance directive that was 
     validly executed in, and consistent with the laws of, the 
     State in which it was executed;
       (D) conditions under which an advance directive is 
     operative;
       (E) revocation of an advance directive by an individual;
       (F) the criteria used by States for determining that an 
     individual has a terminal condition;
       (G) surrogate decisionmaking regarding end-of-life care;
       (H) the provision of adequate palliative care (as defined 
     in paragraph (3)), including pain management; and
       (I) adequate and timely referrals to hospice care programs.
       (3) Palliative care.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(H), the 
     term ``palliative care'' means interdisciplinary care for 
     individuals with a life-threatening illness or injury 
     relating to pain and symptom management and psychological, 
     social, and spiritual needs and that seeks to improve the 
     quality of life for the individual and the individual's 
     family.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative actions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study and developing 
     the report under this section, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall consult with the End-of-Life Care 
     Advisory Board (established under section 7), the Uniform Law 
     Commissioners, and other interested parties.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVEMENT OF POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF ADVANCE 
                   DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by 
     the individual, to include the content of such advance 
     directive in a prominent part of such record'' before the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of 
     the State in which such advance directive is presented by an 
     adult individual to a provider of services, a Medicare+Choice 
     organization, or a prepaid or eligible organization shall be 
     given the same effect by that provider or organization as an 
     advance directive validly executed under the law of the State 
     in which it is presented would be given effect.
       ``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also 
     include actual knowledge of instructions made while an 
     individual was able to express the wishes of such individual 
     with regard to health care.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``actual 
     knowledge'' means the possession of information of an 
     individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider 
     orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's 
     medical power of attorney representative, the individual's 
     health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the 
     health care provider's personal cognizance of these

[[Page 15724]]

     wishes. Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual 
     knowledge.
       ``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and 
     inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current 
     medical record''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual, to 
     include the content of such advance directive in a prominent 
     part of such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of 
     the State in which such advance directive is presented by an 
     adult individual to a provider or organization shall be given 
     the same effect by that provider or organization as an 
     advance directive validly executed under the law of the State 
     in which it is presented would be given effect.
       ``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also 
     include actual knowledge of instructions made while an 
     individual was able to express the wishes of such individual 
     with regard to health care.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``actual 
     knowledge'' means the possession of information of an 
     individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider 
     orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's 
     medical power of attorney representative, the individual's 
     health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the 
     health care provider's personal cognizance of these wishes. 
     Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual knowledge.
       ``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (c) Study and Report Regarding Implementation.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study regarding the implementation of the 
     amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative actions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider 
     agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or extended 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services specifies, but in no case may 
     such date be later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
     In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines requires State 
     legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional 
     requirements imposed by the amendments made by subsection 
     (b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to 
     comply with the requirements of such title solely on the 
     basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements 
     before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning 
     after the close of the first regular session of the State 
     legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a 
     State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session is considered to be a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL INFORMATION HOTLINE FOR END-OF-LIFE 
                   DECISIONMAKING AND HOSPICE CARE.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through 
     the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, shall operate directly, or by grant, contract, or 
     interagency agreement, out of funds otherwise appropriated to 
     the Secretary, a clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free 
     telephone hotline in order to provide consumer information 
     about advance directives (as defined in section 1866(f)(3) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(3)), as amended 
     by section 4(a)), end-of-life decisionmaking, and available 
     end-of-life and hospice care services. In carrying out the 
     preceding sentence, the Administrator may designate an 
     existing clearinghouse and 24-hour toll-free telephone 
     hotline or, if no such entity is appropriate, may establish a 
     new clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline.

     SEC. 6. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INNOVATIVE AND NEW 
                   APPROACHES TO END-OF-LIFE CARE FOR MEDICARE, 
                   MEDICAID, AND SCHIP BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, shall conduct a demonstration project under which 
     the Secretary contracts with entities operating programs in 
     order to develop new and innovative approaches to providing 
     end-of-life care to medicare beneficiaries, medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries.
       (2) Application.--Any entity seeking to participate in the 
     demonstration project shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form and manner as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (3) Duration.--The authority of the Secretary to conduct 
     the demonstration project shall terminate at the end of the 
     5-year period beginning on the date the Secretary implements 
     the demonstration project.
       (b) Selection Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in 
     selecting entities to participate in the demonstration 
     project, the Secretary shall select entities that will allow 
     for programs to be conducted in a variety of States, in an 
     array of care settings, and that reflect--
       (A) a balance between urban and rural settings;
       (B) cultural diversity; and
       (C) various modes of medical care and insurance, such as 
     fee-for-service, preferred provider organizations, health 
     maintenance organizations, hospice care, home care services, 
     long-term care, pediatric care, and integrated delivery 
     systems.
       (2) Preferences.--The Secretary shall give preference to 
     entities operating programs that--
       (A) will serve medicare beneficiaries, medicaid 
     beneficiaries, or SCHIP beneficiaries who are dying of 
     illnesses that are most prevalent under the medicare program, 
     the medicaid program, or SCHIP, respectively; and
       (B) appear capable of sustained service and broad 
     replication at a reasonable cost within commonly available 
     organizational structures.
       (3) Selection of program that provides pediatric end-of-
     life care.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least 1 of the 
     entities selected to participate in the demonstration project 
     operates a program that provides pediatric end-of-life care.
       (c) Evaluation of Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Each program operated by an entity under 
     the demonstration project shall be evaluated at such regular 
     intervals as the Secretary determines are appropriate.
       (2) Use of private entities to conduct evaluations.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the End-of-Life Care Advisory 
     Board (established under section 7), shall contract with 1 or 
     more private entities to coordinate and conduct the 
     evaluations under paragraph (1). Such a contract may not be 
     awarded to an entity selected to participate in the 
     demonstration project.
       (3) Requirements for evaluations.--
       (A) Use of outcome measures and standards.--In coordinating 
     and conducting an evaluation of a program conducted under the 
     demonstration project, an entity shall use the outcome 
     standards and measures required to be developed under section 
     2 as soon as those standards and measures are available.
       (B) Elements of evaluation.--In addition to the use of the 
     outcome standards and measures under subparagraph (A), an 
     evaluation of a program conducted under the demonstration 
     project shall include the following:
       (i) A comparison of the quality of care provided by, and of 
     the outcomes for medicare beneficiaries, medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of 
     such beneficiaries enrolled in, the program being evaluated 
     to the quality of care and outcomes for such individuals that 
     would have resulted if care had been provided under existing 
     delivery systems.
       (ii) An analysis of how ongoing measures of quality and 
     accountability for improvement and excellence could be 
     incorporated into the program being evaluated.
       (iii) A comparison of the costs of the care provided to 
     medicare beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP 
     beneficiaries under the program being evaluated to the costs 
     of such care that would have been incurred under the medicare 
     program, the medicaid program, and SCHIP if such program had 
     not been conducted.
       (iv) An analysis of whether the program being evaluated 
     implements practices or procedures that result in improved 
     patient outcomes, resource utilization, or both.

[[Page 15725]]

       (v) An analysis of--

       (I) the population served by the program being evaluated; 
     and
       (II) how accurately that population reflects the total 
     number of medicare beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and 
     SCHIP beneficiaries residing in the area who are in need of 
     services offered by such program.

       (vi) An analysis of the eligibility requirements and 
     enrollment procedures for the program being evaluated.
       (vii) An analysis of the services provided to beneficiaries 
     enrolled in the program being evaluated and the utilization 
     rates for such services.
       (viii) An analysis of the structure for the provision of 
     specific services under the program being evaluated.
       (ix) An analysis of the costs of providing specific 
     services under the program being evaluated.
       (x) An analysis of any procedures for offering medicare 
     beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP 
     beneficiaries enrolled in the program being evaluated a 
     choice of services and how the program responds to the 
     preferences of such beneficiaries.
       (xi) An analysis of the quality of care provided to, and of 
     the outcomes for, medicare beneficiaries, medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of 
     such beneficiaries, that are enrolled in the program being 
     evaluated.
       (xii) An analysis of any ethical, cultural, or legal 
     concerns--

       (I) regarding the program being evaluated; and
       (II) with the replication of such program in other 
     settings.

       (xiii) An analysis of any changes to regulations or of any 
     additional funding that would result in more efficient 
     procedures or improved outcomes under the program being 
     evaluated.
       (d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance 
     with any of the requirements of titles XI, XVIII, XIX, and 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.; 1395 
     et seq.; 1396 et seq.; 1397aa et seq.) which, if applied, 
     would prevent the demonstration project carried out under 
     this section from effectively achieving the purpose of such 
     project.
       (e) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Annual reports by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the demonstration 
     project and on the quality of end-of-life care under the 
     medicare program, the medicaid program, and SCHIP, together 
     with recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     actions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (B) Summary of recent studies.--A report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include a summary of any recent 
     studies and advice from experts in the health care field 
     regarding the ethical, cultural, and legal issues that may 
     arise when attempting to improve the health care system to 
     meet the needs of individuals with serious and eventually 
     terminal conditions.
       (C) Continuation or replication of demonstration 
     projects.--The first report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     after the 3-year anniversary of the date the Secretary 
     implements the demonstration project shall include 
     recommendations regarding whether such demonstration project 
     should be continued beyond the period described in subsection 
     (a)(3) and whether broad replication of any of the programs 
     conducted under the demonstration project should be 
     initiated.
       (2) Report by end-of-life care advisory board on 
     demonstration project.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     conclusion of the demonstration project, the End-of-Life 
     Advisory Board shall submit a report to the Secretary and 
     Congress on such project.
       (B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall contain--
       (i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the demonstration 
     project; and
       (ii) recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as the Board considers appropriate.
       (f) Funding.--There are appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary for conducting the demonstration project and for 
     preparing and submitting the reports required under 
     subsection (e)(1).
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means the demonstration project conducted under 
     this section.
       (2) Medicaid beneficiaries.--The term ``medicaid 
     beneficiaries'' means individuals who are enrolled in the 
     State medicaid program.
       (3) Medicaid program.--The term ``medicaid program'' means 
     the health care program under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (4) Medicare beneficiaries.--The term ``medicare 
     beneficiaries'' means individuals who are entitled to 
     benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits under part B 
     of the medicare program.
       (5) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means 
     the health care program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (6) SCHIP beneficiary.--The term ``SCHIP beneficiary'' 
     means an individual who is enrolled in SCHIP.
       (7) SCHIP.--The term ``SCHIP'' means the State children's 
     health insurance program under title XXI of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF END-OF-LIFE CARE ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services an End-of-Life Care 
     Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Board'').
       (b) Structure and Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall be composed of 15 members 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'').
       (2) Required representation.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the following groups, organizations, and associations 
     are represented in the membership of the Board:
       (A) An end-of-life consumer advocacy organization.
       (B) A senior citizen advocacy organization.
       (C) A physician-based hospice or palliative care 
     organization.
       (D) A nurse-based hospice or palliative care organization.
       (E) A hospice or palliative care provider organization.
       (F) A hospice or palliative care representative that serves 
     the veterans population.
       (G) A physician-based medical association.
       (H) A physician-based pediatric medical association.
       (I) A home health-based nurses association.
       (J) A hospital-based or health system-based palliative care 
     group.
       (K) A children-based or family-based hospice resource 
     group.
       (L) A cancer pain management resource group.
       (M) A cancer research and policy advocacy group.
       (N) An end-of-life care policy advocacy group.
       (O) An interdisciplinary end-of-life care academic 
     institution.
       (3) Ethnic diversity requirement.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the members of the Board appointed under 
     paragraph (1) represent the ethnic diversity of the United 
     States.
       (4) Prohibition.--No individual who is a Federal officer or 
     employee may serve as a member of the Board.
       (5) Terms of appointment.--Each member of the Board shall 
     serve for a term determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (6) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall designate a member of 
     the Board as chairperson.
       (c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson but not less often than every 3 months.
       (d) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on 
     all matters related to the furnishing of end-of-life care to 
     individuals.
       (2) Specific duties.--The specific duties of the Board are 
     as follows:
       (A) Consulting.--The Board shall consult with the Secretary 
     regarding--
       (i) the development of the outcome standards and measures 
     under section 2;
       (ii) conducting the study and submitting the report under 
     section 3; and
       (iii) the selection of private entities to conduct 
     evaluations pursuant to section 6(c)(2).
       (B) Report on demonstration project.--The Board shall 
     submit the report required under section 6(e)(2).
       (e) Members To Serve Without Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--All members of the Board shall serve on 
     the Board without compensation for such service.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.
       (f) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the Board may, without 
     regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and 
     terminate an executive director and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board to perform 
     its duties. The employment of an executive director shall be 
     subject to confirmation by the Board.
       (2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Board may fix the 
     compensation of the executive director and other personnel 
     without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel 
     may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Board who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.

[[Page 15726]]

       (B) Members of board.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Board.
       (g) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Board without additional 
     reimbursement (other than the employee' regular 
     compensation), and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (h) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The chairperson of the Board may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (i) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14 of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Board.
       (j) Termination.--The Board shall terminate 90 days after 
     the date on which the Board submits the report under section 
     6(e)(2).
       (k) Funding.--Funding for the operation of the Board shall 
     be from amounts otherwise appropriated to the Department of 
     Health and Human Services.
                                  ____

                                   National Hospice and Palliative


                                            Care Organization,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 31, 2002.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: The National Hospice and 
     Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), the nation's largest 
     and oldest organization dedicated to advancing the philosophy 
     and practice of hospice care, appreciates the opportunity to 
     continue to work with you on your proposed draft legislation, 
     ``Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2002''.
       We applaud your efforts to address an important health care 
     issue and appreciate your willingness to work with the NHPCO 
     to incorporate changes relative to hospice into the 
     legislation. Specifically, the NHPCO supports your efforts to 
     make advance directives portable among the states, to study 
     end of life care needs of the general population and to 
     authorize Medicare demonstration projects on end of life 
     care.
       We look forward to working with you on your legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Galen Miller,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                  Partnership for Caring Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2002.
     Senator John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of Partnership for 
     Caring: America's Voices for the Dying I am writing to 
     endorse and support the passage of the ``Compassionate Care 
     and Advance Planning Act of 2002'' Our Board of Directors, 
     staff and membership are grateful for and applaud your 
     continuing leadership and deep commitment to improving care 
     for people nearing the end of their lives.
       Partnership for Caring is a national, nonprofit 
     organization representing consumers of end-of-life care and 
     their families. Our mission is to encourage individuals to 
     think about and plan for the type of care they would like to 
     receive at the end of their journey and to discuss those 
     plans with their families, friends and physicians. 
     Partnership makes available to the public Advance Directives 
     specific to each state's law and educational materials on 
     many aspects of end-of-life care and conversation. We also 
     provide assistance via our 24 hour, toll-free help line, as 
     well as advocacy to improve palliative and end-of-life care.
       The health care systems and reimbursement mechanisms in 
     America today are the focus of a great deal of scrutiny, 
     especially the Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP programs. 
     Unfortunately, the critically important health care 
     components of palliative and end-of-life care too often are 
     overlooked. We thank you and the cosponsors of the 
     legislation for raising the visibility of this essential 
     aspect of care and for proposing immediate improvements in 
     our health systems as well as research and demonstration 
     projects that will inform us about better ways to care for 
     people in the last phase of their lives.
       We are particularly pleased about the proposal to create an 
     End-of-Life Care Advisory Board to work with CMS and HHS. 
     This provision alone will help make certain that any federal 
     government proposals to reform Medicare, Medicaid or S-CHIP 
     will have the informed contributions of experts in the fields 
     of palliative and hospice medicine. Such a Board is vitally 
     important if these programs and other health care laws and 
     regulations are to adequately address the needs of people who 
     are dying. The Board's diversity will help assure that the 
     unique concerns of minorities, children and young adults, 
     various religious and ethnic groups are heard. Consumers and 
     providers of end-of-life care will both have a voice.
       The inclusion of the S-CHIP program in legislation dealing 
     with end-of-life care deserves special thanks. While no one 
     likes to think about children dying, about 53,000 children 
     die each year. Research on caring for terminally ill 
     pediatric patients is minimal and dying children have been 
     woefully underserved in the areas of pain management and 
     hospice care. Mandating that at least one demonstration 
     project focus on pediatric issues is step in the right 
     direction and will benefit thousands of children whose young 
     lives will end too soon.
       Medicare beneficiaries have a compelling reason to seek 
     improvements in end-of-life care: everyone who becomes a 
     Medicare beneficiary will die a Medicare beneficiary. Today 
     27% of all Medicare expenditures are spent caring for people 
     in the last year of their lives, frequently on costly, 
     unnecessary procedures in hospitals and nursing homes. 
     Although hospice care currently accounts for only 1.3% of all 
     Medicare expenditures that percentage will grow as the baby-
     boomers age and seek a qualitatively different end-of-life 
     scenario than the ones many of them watched their parents and 
     grandparents endure. The demonstration projects authorized by 
     your legislation will allow us to learn more about our 
     choices and become better educated consumers of care.
       As you will know, caring for an elderly parent, a sick 
     spouse, or a dying child, can be emotionally, economically, 
     and physically draining under any circumstance. As a consumer 
     based organization, Partnership for Caring knows first hand 
     how much worse it is for those who have never discussed with 
     their loved ones their wishes for end-of-life care, who do 
     not know what resources are available, or who are unaware of 
     palliative and hospice care and how to access these services. 
     Health care providers, too, are often caught having to make 
     decisions or talk to family members without benefit of 
     knowing their patients' wishes or alternative services in 
     their communities. ``The Compassionate Care and Advance 
     Planning Act of 2002'' will help educate the pubic and 
     providers as well as encourage conversations and advance 
     planning. Insuring that each of us can receive the kind of 
     care we would want for ourselves and our loved ones as we 
     near death should be a priority concern as these programs 
     look to the future.
       Again, our thanks to you and all of the senators who join 
     in supporting this bill. Insuring that each of us can receive 
     the kind of care we want for ourselves and our loved ones as 
     we near death should be a national priority as we look to the 
     future of health care. We at Partnership for Caring will be 
     working with you and our partner organizations to assure 
     passage of the ``Compassionate Care Act'' and, more 
     importantly, to assure better quality care for all our loved 
     ones and for ourselves.
           Sincerely,
                                              Karen Orloff Kaplan,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                          American Bar Association


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association, I am writing to commend you and your co-sponsors 
     for introducing the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care 
     Act of 2002. This legislation takes several important steps 
     beyond the 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) which 
     introduced the term ``Advance Directive'' to the American 
     vernacular. The American Bar Association supported the 
     enactment of the PSDA and has continued to encourage greater 
     access to the tools of advance planning, greater uniformity 
     and portability of advance directives, and greater 
     responsiveness to the needs of patients in health care 
     systems at all stages of life, including end-of-life care.
       The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act takes 
     several modest but vital steps towards these goals. Under its 
     provisions there will be an opportunity to discuss advance 
     directives with an appropriately trained individual upon 
     admission to a health care facility, which will help 
     transform the existing paper-disclosure requirement into a 
     meaningful vehicle for discussion and understanding. This 
     will do much to combat the misperception that advance 
     planning means merely signing a form. Good advance planning 
     is, in essence, good communication, not mere form-drafting.
       The portability and research mandates concerning advance 
     directives are seriously needed to move public policy beyond 
     the current Balkanization of legal formalities that 
     characterizes current advance-directive law. In addition, the 
     mandate to examine the feasibility and desirability of 
     creating a uniform advance directive will generate much-
     needed fresh thinking on the strategies that may best 
     encourage advance planning. Sadly, twelve years after the 
     PSDA, the majority of adults still avoid the necessary task 
     of planning for end-of-life decision-making.
       The National Information Hotline will provide a valuable 
     consumer tool for information about advance directives and 
     end-of-life care options. Finally, the mandates for standards 
     development, evaluation and demonstration projects, as well 
     as coverage provisions, will help fill the inexcusable chasm

[[Page 15727]]

     in current knowledge, regulation, and financing of end-of-
     life care under Medicare and Medicaid. Historically, end-of-
     life decision-making and quality of care have been relegated 
     to the shadows of health and long-term care policy. This Act 
     will help the public and policy makers understand the issues 
     and options in the light of day.
       The ABA strongly supports this legislation. We commend your 
     leadership in seeking to enhance patient autonomy and end-of-
     life care, and we stand ready to be a resource in these 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert D. Evans.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague 
from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Advance 
Planning and Compassionate Care Act, which is intended to improve the 
way we care for people at the end of their lives.
  Noted health economist, Uwe Reinhardt, once observed that ``Americans 
are the only people on earth who believe that death is negotiable.'' 
Advancements in medicine, public health, and technology have enabled 
more and more of us to live longer and healthier lives. However, when 
medical treatment can no longer promise a continuation of life, 
patients and their families should not have to fear that the process of 
dying will be marked by preventable pain, avoidable distress, or care 
that is inconsistent with their values or wishes.
  The fact is, dying is a universal experience, and it is time to re-
examine how we approach death and dying and how we care for people at 
the end of their lives. Clearly, there is more that we can do to 
relieve suffering, respect personal choice and dignity, and provide 
opportunities for people to find meaning and comfort at life's 
conclusion.
  Unfortunately, most Medicare patients and their physicians do not 
currently discuss death or routinely make advance plans for end-of-life 
care. As a result, about one-fourth of Medicare funds are now spent on 
care at the end of life that is geared toward expensive, high-
technology interventions and ``rescue'' care. While most Americans say 
they would prefer to die at home, studies show that almost 80 percent 
die in institutions where they may be in pain, and where they are 
subjected to high-tech treatments that merely prolong suffering.
  Moreover, according to a Dartmouth study conducted by Dr. Jack 
Wennberg, where a patient lives has a direct impact on how that patient 
dies. The study found that the amount of medical treatment Americans 
receive in their final months varies tremendously in the different 
parts of the country, and it concluded that the determination of 
whether or not an older patient dies in the hospital probably has more 
to do with the supply of hospital beds than the patient's needs or 
preference.
  The Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act is intended to help 
us improve the way our health care system serves patients at the end of 
their lives. Among other provisions, the bill makes a number of changes 
to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 to facilitate appropriate 
discussions and individual autonomy in making difficult discussions 
about end-of-life care. For instance, the legislation requires that 
every Medicare beneficiary receiving care in a hospital or nursing 
facility be given the opportunity to discuss end-of-life care and the 
preparation of an advanced directive with an appropriately trained 
professional within the institution. The legislation also requires that 
if a patient has an advanced directive, it must be displayed in a 
prominent place in the medical record so that all the doctors and 
nurses can clearly see it.
  In addition, the legislation authorizes the Department of Health and 
Human Services to study end-of-life issues and also to develop 
demonstration projects to develop models for end-of-life care for 
Medicare, Medicaid, and State Child Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, 
patients. The Institute of Medicine recently released a report that 
concluded that we need to improve palliative and end-of-life care for 
children with terminal illnesses. According to the report, far too 
often children with fatal or potentially fatal conditions and their 
families fail to receive competent, compassionate, and consistent care 
that meets their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. Our 
legislation therefore requires that at least one of these 
demonstrations focus particularly on pediatric end-of-life care.
  Finally, the legislation establishes a telephone hotline to provide 
consumer information and advice concerning advance directives, end-of-
life issues, and medical decisionmaking and also establishes an End-of-
Life Care Advisory Board to assist the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services in developing outcome standards and measures to evaluate end-
of-life care programs and projects.
  The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important in 
light of the debate on physician-assisted suicide. The desire for 
assisted suicide is generally driven by concerns about the quality of 
care for the terminally ill; by the fear of prolonged pain, loss of 
dignity and emotional strain on family members. Such worries would 
recede and support for assisted suicide would evaporate if better 
palliative care and more effective pain management were widely 
available.
  Patients and their families should be able to trust that the care 
they receive at the end of their lives is not only of high quality, but 
also that it respects their desires for peace, autonomy, and dignity. 
The Advanced Planning and Compassionate Care Act that Senator 
Rockefeller and I are introducing today will give us some of the tools 
that we need to improve care of the dying in this country, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2858. A bill to modify the project for navigation, Union River, 
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2859. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast 
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two bills for harbors in Maine, 
one to deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project in Northeast Harbor, 
and the second to redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union River 
Federal Navigational Channel as an anchorage. The bills, cosponsored by 
Senator Collins, will help strengthen the economic viability of these 
two popular Maine harbors.
  Because of changing harbor usage over the last 45 years, the Town of 
Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be withdrawn from the 
Federal Navigation Project. This removal will allow the town to adapt 
to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain 
moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity 
for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of 
over sixty people along with commercial operators who have been waiting 
for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.
  The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed-
use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is 
today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for 
recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed 
the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging 
priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The 
town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal 
Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be 
carried out at town expense.
  The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and 
commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast 
Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the 
nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water.
  My second bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize 
the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The 
modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of 
the Union River as

[[Page 15728]]

an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number 
of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will 
further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.
  I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft 
these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps 
Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as 
separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2002, that Congress is currently drafting.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 2860. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
modify the rules for redistribution and extended availability of fiscal 
year 2000 and subsequent fiscal year allotments under the State 
children's health insurance program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on France.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that will improve 
and protect health insurance for our nation's children. The Children's 
Health Improvement and Protection Act of 2002, CHIP Act, brings us back 
to the basics of health care--the fundamental philosophy that no child 
should go without needed health care. I'm pleased to be joined by my 
good friends Senator Chafee and Senator Kennedy to introduce the 
Children's Health Insurance Improvement and Protection Act of 2002.
  Established in 1997 to reduce the number of uninsured children, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program has been an unqualified success. 
Last year, 4.6 million children were enrolled in CHIP and the 
percentage of children without health insurance has declined in recent 
years. In my state of West Virginia, the CHIP program provides health 
coverage to over 20,000 children. Health insurance coverage is key to 
assuring children's access to appropriate and adequate health care, 
including preventive services. Research demonstrates that uninsured 
children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, to go without 
needed care, and to experience worse health outcomes than children with 
coverage. Uninsured children who are injured are 30 percent less likely 
than insured children to receive medical treatment and three times more 
likely not to get a needed prescription.
  However, the continued success of the CHIP program is now in serious 
jeopardy. The Bush Administration projects that 900,000 children will 
lose their health coverage between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, if 
Congress does not take appropriate action. This is because even as 
state enrollment and spending rapidly increases, federal CHIP funding 
dropped by more than $1 billion this year and will be reduced in each 
of the next two years. Known as the ``CHIP Dip,'' this reduction has no 
underlying health policy justification; it was solely the result of the 
budget compromises we had to make when enacting the balanced budget 
deal in 1997.
  As a result, a number of states will have insufficient federal 
funding to sustain their enrollment and they will have no choice but to 
scale back or limit their CHIP programs. As enrollment is cut, the 
number of uninsured children will increase, and as a consequence, sick 
children will get sicker. The biggest problem that will result from 
enrollment cuts in the CHIP program are the future health problems of 
adults who as children could have received benefits under CHIP. Yet, 
even as states face this funding shortfall, under federal rules, nearly 
$3 billion in federal CHIP funding is scheduled to expire and revert 
back to the Treasury over the next two years. If Congress does not act, 
in order to maintain our current enrollment levels, West Virginia will 
run out of CHIP funding in 2005.
  We cannot allow this to happen. We need a comprehensive and 
reasonable approach to shore up CHIP financing in order to avert the 
devastating enrollment decline and make sure that our children are 
protected into the future. This legislation will extend the life of the 
expiring funds and fully restore CHIP funding to the pre- ``dip'' 
levels. This legislation will provide West Virginia with $117 million 
over the 2004-2012 period allowing them to strengthen and protect 
children's access to health care.
  I urge Congress to enact this legislation and ensure the continued 
success of the CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP 
has made in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. Mr. President I 
ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2860

       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 ``Children's Health 
     Improvement and Protection Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. CHANGES TO RULES FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTENDED 
                   AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND SUBSEQUENT 
                   FISCAL YEAR ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(g)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``1998'' and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and 2000 and subsequent fiscal year'' 
     after ``1999'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``or for fiscal year 2000 by the end of 
     fiscal year 2002, or allotments for fiscal year 2001 and 
     subsequent fiscal years by the end of the last fiscal year 
     for which such allotments are available under subsection (e), 
     subject to paragraph (2)(C)'' after ``2001,''; and
       (II) by striking ``1998 or 1999'' and inserting ``1998, 
     1999, 2000, or subsequent fiscal year'';

       (ii) in clause (i)--

       (I) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (II) in subclause (II), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(III) the fiscal year 2000 allotment, the amount by which 
     the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years 
     2000, 2001, and 2002 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal 
     year 2000 under subsection (b);
       ``(IV) the fiscal year 2001 allotment, the amount by which 
     the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years 
     2001, 2002, and 2003 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal 
     year 2001 under subsection (b); or
       ``(V) the allotment for any subsequent fiscal year, the 
     amount by which the State's expenditures under this title in 
     the period such allotment is available under subsection (e) 
     exceeds the State's allotment for that fiscal year under 
     subsection (b).''; and

       (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``1998 or 1999 
     allotment'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, or subsequent 
     fiscal year allotment'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``with 
     respect to fiscal year 1998 or 1999'';
       (ii) in clause (ii)--

       (I) by inserting ``with respect to fiscal year 1998 or 
     1999,'' after ``subsection (e)''; and
       (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;

       (iii) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (iv) by inserting after clause (ii), the following:
       ``(iii) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to 
     fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal year, shall remain 
     available for expenditure by the State through the end of the 
     fiscal year in which the State is allotted a redistribution 
     under this paragraph; and'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1998 and 1999'' 
     and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, and subsequent fiscal 
     year'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Fiscal year 2000 allotment.--Of the amounts 
     allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 
     2000 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal 
     year 2002, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for 
     fiscal year 2000 for such State shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2003.
       ``(iv) Fiscal year 2001 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted 
     to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that 
     were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year 
     2003, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for fiscal 
     year 2001 for such State shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of 2004.
       ``(v) Subsequent fiscal year allotments.--Of the amounts 
     allotted to a State pursuant to this section for any fiscal 
     year after 2001, that were not expended by the State by the 
     end of the last fiscal year such amounts are available under 
     subsection (e), the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for 
     that fiscal year for such State shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State

[[Page 15729]]

     through the end of the fiscal year following the last fiscal 
     year such amounts are available under subsection (e).'';
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subparagraph (C), the'';
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
       ``(C) Floor for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.--For fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001, if the total amounts that would 
     otherwise be redistributed under paragraph (1) exceed 60 
     percent of the total amount available for redistribution 
     under subsection (f) for the fiscal year, the amount 
     remaining available for expenditure by the State under 
     subparagraph (A) for such fiscal years shall be--
       ``(i) the amount equal to--

       ``(I) 40 percent of the total amount available for 
     redistribution under subsection (f) from the allotments for 
     the applicable fiscal year; multiplied by
       ``(II) the ratio of the amount of such State's unexpended 
     allotment for that fiscal year to the total amount available 
     for redistribution under subsection (f) from the allotments 
     for the fiscal year.''; and

       (4) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``For purposes of calculating the amounts described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) relating to the allotment for any 
     fiscal year after 1999, the Secretary shall use the amount 
     reported by the States not later than November 30 of the 
     applicable calendar year on HCFA Form 64 or HCFA Form 21, as 
     approved by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF CASELOAD STABILIZATION POOL AND 
                   ADDITIONAL REDISTRIBUTION OF ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 2104 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Redistribution of Caseload Stabilization Pool 
     Amounts.--
       ``(1) Additional redistribution to stabilize caseloads.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to fiscal year 2003 and any 
     subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary shall redistribute to 
     an eligible State (as defined in subparagraph (B)) the amount 
     available for redistribution to the State (as determined 
     under subparagraph (C)) from the caseload stabilization pool 
     established under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Definition of eligible state.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), an eligible State is a State whose total 
     expenditures under this title through the end of the previous 
     fiscal year exceed the total allotments made available to the 
     State under subsection (b) or subsection (c) (not including 
     amounts made available under subsection (f)) through the 
     previous fiscal year.
       ``(C) Amount of additional redistribution.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the amount available for redistribution to 
     a State under subparagraph (A) is equal to--
       ``(i) the ratio of the State's allotment for the previous 
     fiscal year under subsection (b) or subsection (c) to the 
     total allotments made available under such subsections to 
     eligible States as defined under subparagraph (A) for the 
     previous fiscal year; multiplied by
       ``(ii) the total amounts available in the caseload 
     stabilization pool established under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Period of availability.--Amounts redistributed under 
     this subsection shall remain available for expenditure by the 
     State through the end of the fiscal year in which the State 
     receives any such amounts.
       ``(3) Caseload stabilization pool.--For purposes of making 
     a redistribution under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     establish a caseload stabilization pool that includes the 
     following amounts:
       ``(A) Any amount made available to a State under subsection 
     (g) but not expended within the periods required under 
     subparagraphs (g)(1)(B)(ii), (g)(1)(B)(iii), or (g)(2)(A).
       ``(B) Any amount made available to a State under this 
     subsection but not expended within the period required under 
     paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 4. RESTORATION OF SCHIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 
                   AND 2004.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 2104(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(a)) are amended 
     by striking ``$3,150,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$4,275,000,000''.
       (b) Additional Allotment To Territories.--Section 
     2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(c)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``$25,200,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting 
     ``$25,200,000 for fiscal year 2002, $34,200,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2003 and 2004''.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller 
in introducing the Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of 
2002.
  The Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of 2002 will 
finally provide long-term stability to the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. While SCHIP has been extremely successful at 
enrolling and insuring low-income and uninsured children since its 
inception in 1997, the continued success of this program is in 
question. In fact, it is estimated that almost a million children will 
lose their SCHIP coverage over the next three years if a legislative 
remedy is not signed into law to prevent this from happening.
  When SCHIP was created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, states 
were given their annual SCHIP allotment based on the number of 
uninsured and low-income children in each state. According to the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, these state allotments 
range from $3.5 million for Vermont to $855 million for California. 
While the percentage of children without health insurance has declined 
over the past couple of years due to these allotments, the SCHIP 
allotments for all states are 26 percent lower for Fiscal Years 2002, 
2003, and 2004. Each of these years results in a decline of $1 billion 
for state SCHIP allotments. This phenomenon is known as the ``CHIP-
Dip.'' There was no hidden policy agenda behind this steady decline in 
funding; it was based on a lack of federal funding for SCHIP at the 
time this program was enacted.
  In addition, BBA gave states only three years to roll-over unexpended 
funds before these funds are given back to the federal treasury for 
redistribution to other states that have used up their entire 
allotments. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a 
total of $3.2 billion in federal SCHIP funds is scheduled to expire and 
revert to Treasury over the next two years.
  These funding inadequacies not only create instability in the 
program, but they pose negative consequences for each state over the 
long-haul due to the uncertainty of federal commitment to SCHIP. The 
likely result will be that states will either have to cap enrollment in 
their SCHIP programs, push children out of their programs, or scale 
back benefits to make up for these budget shortfalls. The end result 
will be that children who once had access to health insurance will no 
longer get the care they need.
  Our bill will remedy these funding problems. It will do so by fixing 
the ``CHIP-Dip'' and by extending the life of expiring funds to states 
that need the assistance to take care of funding shortfalls. This 
legislation is crucial to my state of Rhode Island. Without this 
legislative remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of SCHIP funds by FY 
2004. At 4.5 percent, Rhode Island currently has the lowest uninsured 
rate of any state in the nation for children. This bill will enable 
Rhode Island to continue offering health coverage to this vulnerable 
population.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting 
this important legislation. It is a crucial step in ensuring that our 
nation's children will have long-term access to quality health 
insurance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's 
Health Improvement and Protection Act today, along with my good friends 
Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and Senator Lincoln 
Chafee. This bill will provide needed funding to keep children enrolled 
in the Children's Health Insurance Program and to allow the program to 
grow. Without this legislation, hundreds of thousands of children will 
lose their CHIP coverage and rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.
  Monday is the fifth anniversary of the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Senator Hatch and I have worked together on many proposals, 
but none has had more lasting benefit for millions of American children 
than our legislation to create CHIP. We first proposed CHIP after we 
became acutely aware of the health defects facing children and the need 
to assure that every child got a healthy start in life. Before we 
passed CHIP, 500,000 children with asthma never saw a doctor. Another 
600,000 children with earaches and 600,000 with sore throats never 
received medical care.
  A sick child can't learn. A child who can't hear the teacher can't 
learn. A child who can't see the doctor when they're sick can't learn. 
That's why uninsured children are more likely to fall behind or drop 
out of school altogether.
  We also became aware of the ravages of smoking on health, and that 
the key

[[Page 15730]]

to addressing this problem was to discourage children from starting to 
smoke. In my own state of Massachusetts, there had been a very 
successful campaign to raise money to expand children's health coverage 
by raising the cigarette tax. This united anti-tobacco activists and 
child health advocates.
  So Senator Hatch and I decided that the winning, fiscally 
responsible, right health policy approach was to develop a major 
expansion of children's health insurance and finance it with an 
increase in the tobacco tax.
  And what a success CHIP has been. This legislation has touched every 
community in America. Last year, over 4.5 million children received 
health insurance through either Children's Health Insurance Program or 
through Medicaid expansions under the CHIP program. Last year, 105,000 
children in Massachusetts were covered through these programs, and many 
other states have had similar successes.
  Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children 
with a healthier start, funding cuts to the CHIP program of more than 
$1 billion this year and each of the next two years puts the gains we 
have made in insuring children at risk. This ``CHIP dip'' is a result 
of the budget constraints when CHIP was enacted in 1997 as part of the 
Balanced Budget Act. This funding cut comes at the same time enrollment 
in the program is rising and will cause 900,000 children to lose the 
health insurance they have today through CHIP.
  While states are facing a drop in funding that will cause them to 
drop insured children, almost $3 billion in unspent CHIP funds will be 
lost if we do nothing. CHIP funds must be spent within three years of 
allocation. Because of a mismatch between the time unspent funds were 
reallocated to the states and when the states needed the funds, some 
states will not be able to use all of their CHIP funds within the 
allocation period.
  It makes no sense to have funds expire and revert to the Treasury 
when we know states will be facing a funding drop that will cause them 
to cut children from their programs. One of this nation's most 
fundamental guarantees should be that every child has the opportunity 
to succeed in life. But that commitment rings hollow if children are 
doomed to a lifetime of disability and illness because they lack needed 
health care in their early years.
  That is why we are introducing the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. This bill will allow states to maintain and expand their CHIP 
programs. It lets states keep a portion of their unspent funds that 
would otherwise expire. It also establishes a new caseload 
stabilization pool with funds that would otherwise expire. The pool 
will direct unspent funds to states that are expected to use up all 
their CHIP funds. Finally, the bill provides additional CHIP funding 
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 so that CHIP enrollment can be 
maintained and expanded. This legislation will move us one important 
step closer to fulfilling the promise that no child in America will be 
left behind because of inadequate health care coverage.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, 
Kennedy, and I are introducing legislation to make certain that States 
have adequate funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
otherwise known as CHIP.
  I cosponsor this legislation to reflect my concern that, unless the 
Congress addresses this issue, thousands of children may risk losing 
their health insurance coverage. CHIP has proven to be an enormously 
popular program, which has provided much needed health insurance to 
literally millions of low-income children. It helps the poorest of the 
poor families who are not Medicaid-eligible.
  We cannot afford to stand back now and watch those efforts be 
undermined because of funding problems that Congress should correct. 
That is the intent, as I understand it, of the Rockefeller-Chafee bill.
  As most of my colleagues are aware, when CHIP was established in 
1997, Congress committed $20 billion over five years and a total of $40 
billion over 10 years for the program. For each fiscal year 1999 
through 2001, Congress allocated $4.3 billion; yet for the fiscal years 
2002 through 2004, Congress allocated $3 billion per year for CHIP 
programs. This so-called ``CHIP'' dip may reduce funding levels in 
States that are just beginning to ramp up their programs.
  I am concerned that while States will have some unspent CHIP moneys 
available to them, that those funds still might not be enough to 
address the ``CHIP dip'' and the expanding CHIP population. We need to 
deal with this issue and we need to deal with the nearly $3 billion in 
federal CHIP moneys scheduled to revert back to the Treasury in fiscal 
year 2002 and 2003.
  My cosponsorship of this legislation reflects my commitment to 
address these issues, although I recognize that there are a number of 
issues associated with this legislation that will need to be worked 
out. I accept the assurances of my fellow cosponsors that they will 
work with me to address those issues as the bill moves forward in the 
Finance Committee.
  Let me also add that I am aware that many of my colleagues have 
additional policy issues regarding the CHIP program that they feel 
should be addressed. Know I do. I am particularly concerned by recent 
legislation, approved by the Finance Committee, which would extend 
coverage under the CHIP program to pregnant women. Now, I 
wholeheartedly support providing expectant mothers health care 
assistance. But, I believe that before we extend coverage under CHIP to 
any adult, States need to demonstrate that they are covering, to the 
greatest extend possible, all eligible children.
  The CHIP program is one of my proudest accomplishments. I want to 
continue to maintain the integrity of this program. The only purpose of 
CHIP was to extend access to health insurance to poor kids. As one of 
the prime authors of the legislation, I can assure my colleagues that 
it was not our intent that the program be expanded to address the 
entire problem of health care for the uninsured a piece at a time. 
Covering the uninsured is a worthy goal and one which we need to 
address, but that was not the purpose of CHIP. We were dealing with a 
special problem: the up to 10 million children who did not have access 
to health insurance. We ought not lose sight of this. I am confident we 
can come to an agreement on measures to ensure that needy children 
receive the health care they deserve and thus I am pleased to join with 
my colleagues today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2861. A bill to empower States with authority for most taxing and 
spending for highway programs and mass transit programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President; I introduce The Transportation Empowerment 
Act which will allow states to keep a majority of the federal gas tax 
dollars raised in their state. Similar to legislation introduced by our 
former colleague Connie Mack, ``The Transportation Empowerment Act'' 
restores to states and local communities the ability to make their own 
transportation decisions without the interference of Washington.
  This proposal is very straightforward. It streamlines the federal-aid 
highway program into four core areas: Interstate, Federal Lands, Safety 
and Research. The proposed bill provides for continued general fund 
support for transit grants and authorizes states to enter into multi 
state compacts for planning and financing regional transportation 
needs.
  The federal tax is kept in place for a four-year transition period, 
beginning in FY04. After funding the core programs and paying off 
outstanding bills, the balance is returned to the states in a block 
grant. At the end of the transition period, in FY07, the federal tax is 
reduced to two cents per gallon.
  I have long believed that the best decisions are those made at the 
local level. Unfortunately, many of the transportation choices made by 
cities and states are governed by federal

[[Page 15731]]

rules and regulations. This bill returns to states the responsibility 
and resources to make their own transportation decisions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. 
        Biden):
  S. 2862. A bill to provide for the establishment of a scientific 
basis for new firefighting technology standards, improve coordination 
among Federal, State, and local fire officials in training for and 
responding to terrorist attacks and other national emergencies, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Hollings, Cantwell, and Biden in introducing the Firefighting Research 
and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the 
establishment of the scientific basis for new firefighting technology 
standards; improved coordination between Federal, state, and local fire 
officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national 
emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to 
improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the 
tragedy of September 11, 2001.
  The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons 
learned from the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and 
address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the 
New York City fire fighters and emergency service personnel acted with 
great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and 
saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and 
EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their 
country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United 
States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared for 
any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must 
recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response 
to national emergencies will also prepare our firefighters for their 
everyday role in protecting our families and homes.
  Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal 
imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and 
state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or 
hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. 
The Federal government's Firefighter Investment and Response 
Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million this year to 
assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. 
It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used for 
effective new equipment that will protect our local communities.
  Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for this new 
equipment for combating fires. Without such standards, local fire 
companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or 
even purchase faulty equipment. For example, Montgomery County, MD, 
spent $40,000 on ``Level B'' protective suits that they cannot use, 
because these suits have ``booties'' that are not compatible with the 
firefighter's boots. Currently, local fire departments also have 
problems using each other's fire hoses and air bottles for self-
contained breathing apparatuses because of inconsistent equipment 
standards. It is important that new equipment performs properly and is 
compatible with older equipment.
  This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by 
establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It 
would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for 
Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, and other interested 
parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies 
for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies 
will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary 
consensus standards. This bill would allow the Federal government to 
cooperate with the private sector in developing the basic uniform 
performance criteria and technical standards to ensure that 
effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies.
  Many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan 
Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf 
of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted 
problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington 
County fire departments. The report also cited the confusion caused by 
a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced 
by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with 
an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, 
in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being 
overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that 
poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire 
officials and the General Accounting Office have highlighted the 
duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better 
coordination between federal, state, and local officials.
  The bill also seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. 
Fire Administrator to work with state and local fire service officials 
to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to 
national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection 
of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire 
services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel 
effectively during an emergency. This legislation would also establish 
the U.S. Fire Administrator as the primary point of contact within the 
Federal government for state and local firefighting units, in order to 
ensure greater Federal coordination and interface with state and local 
officials in preparing and responding to terrorist attacks, hurricanes, 
earthquakes, or other national emergencies. In addition, the bill would 
direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy 
for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing 
system. Currently, there is a system for credentialing volunteers to 
fight wildfires that has proven effective, and the development of a 
similar system may prevent some of the confusion that occurred at the 
World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11.
  Finally, the bill would improve the training of state and local 
firefighters. The bill would authorize the National Fire Academy to 
offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in 
response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national 
emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated 
management systems operations; deployment of new technology for 
fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other 
courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist 
incidents and other fire services' needs.
  This bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate 
the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney 
General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other Federal 
agencies to prevent the duplication in training programs that has been 
identified by the General Accounting Office.
  I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the 
National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services 
Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire 
Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; and the 
International Fire Service Training Association. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation. I am 
aware that some issues, including funding of this legislation, need to 
be addressed.
  Last year, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a 
result. We must ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped 
and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future 
national emergencies. Every day firefighters rush into burning 
buildings to save the

[[Page 15732]]

lives of their fellow Americans. It is our duty to adequately equip and 
protect them.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support and the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   August 1, 2002.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Senate Commerce Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The tragic events of September 11th 
     certainly underscored the important need for additional 
     training and advanced technologies for our nation's fire and 
     emergency services. They are equal components in our efforts 
     to prepare our nation for future large-scale emergencies that 
     require rapid deployment of local first responders.
       In the area of technology, we have witnessed an emergence 
     of new technologies designed to improve our level of 
     readiness to future terrorist events and other large-scale 
     disasters. Some of this technology has the potential to 
     address the immediate needs of our nation's public safety 
     agencies; while other requires additional scrutiny and 
     testing before the fire and emergency services can be assured 
     of its intended performance.
       We extend our appreciation for your interest in this matter 
     and for introducing the Firefighter Research and Coordination 
     Act. We support this legislation as a crucial step towards 
     developing and deploying advanced technologies our nation's 
     first responders need in this period of heightened risk and 
     security.
       Working as partners, the United States Fire Administration, 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
     Interagency Board and other interested parties, including the 
     National Fire Protection Association, can develop a 
     scientific basis for the private sector development of 
     standards for new fire fighting technology. Your legislation 
     will not undermine or duplicate the standards-making process 
     that has served the fire service for over a hundred years, 
     but rather strengthen it in areas of new technologies 
     necessitated by the events of September 11th.
       We also support the other two sections of your legislation 
     calling for coordination of response to national emergencies 
     and for increased training. Our organizations strongly 
     believe that the United States Fire Administrator should 
     serve as the primary point of contact for state and local 
     firefighting units during national emergencies. We have 
     expressed this message repeatedly, including in the Blue 
     Ribbon Panel report presented to then-FEMA Director James Lee 
     Witt in 1998 and most recently in a white paper, titled 
     ``Protecting Our Nation'' that we presented to Congress last 
     year. To ensure the success of this legislation, it is 
     imperative that Congress appropriate additional dollars to 
     carry-out this new role of the Administrator.
       As the threats to our nation's security intensify, so must 
     the level of training for our nation's first responders. We 
     must expose our firefighters and rescue personnel to advanced 
     levels of training and technologies so they can safely 
     respond to all acts of terrorism and other major disasters. 
     The final section of your legislation will help us attain 
     this goal.
       We look forward to working with you in advancing this 
     legislation through Congress. Again, we thank you for your 
     continued support.
           Sincerely,
         Congressional Fire Services Institute, International 
           Association of Arson Investigators, International 
           Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association 
           of Fire Fighters, International Fire Service Training 
           Association, National Fire Protection Association, 
           National Volunteer Fire Council.
                                  ____

                                  National Volunteer Fire Council,


                                Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.

     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The National Volunteer Fire Council 
     (NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing 
     the more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire, 
     EMS, and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC serves 
     as the voice of America's volunteer fire personnel in over 
     28,000 departments across the country. On behalf of our 
     membership, I would like to express our full support for the 
     Firefighting Research and Coordination Act.
       This legislation would allow the U.S. Fire Administrator to 
     develop measurement techniques and testing methodologies to 
     evaluate the compatibility of new firefighting technology. In 
     addition, it would require new equipment purchased under the 
     FIRE Grant program to meet or exceed these standards.
       The bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to 
     establish a national plan for training and responding to 
     national emergencies and it would designate the Administrator 
     as the contact point for State and local firefighting units 
     in the event of a national emergency. It would also direct 
     the Administrator to work with state and local fire service 
     officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid 
     systems for dealing with national emergencies that include 
     threat assessment, and means of collecting asset and resource 
     information for deployment.
       Finally, the bill authorizes the Superintendent of the 
     National Fire Academy to train fire personnel in building 
     collapse rescue, the use of new technology, tactics and 
     strategies for dealing with terrorist incidents, the use of 
     the national plan for training and responding to emergencies, 
     leadership skills, and new technology tactics for fighting 
     forest fires.
       Once again, the NVFC commends your efforts to train and 
     equip America's volunteer firefighters and we thank you for 
     the leadership role you have taken on this issue. We look 
     forward to working with you in the 107th Congress to pass 
     this important piece of legislation. If you have any 
     questions or comments feel free to contact Craig Sharman, 
     NVFC Government Affairs Representative at (202) 887-5700.
           Sincerely,
                                             Philip C. Sittleburg,
     Chairman.
                                  ____


                                S. 2862

       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 ``Firefighting Research and 
     Coordination Act''.

     SEC. 2. NEW FIREFIGHTING TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 8 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 2207) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Development of New Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to, or as part of, the 
     program conducted under subsection (a), the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment 
     Standardization and Inter-Operability, national voluntary 
     consensus standards development organizations, and other 
     interested parties, shall--
       ``(A) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement 
     techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new 
     firefighting technologies, including--
       ``(i) thermal imaging equipment;
       ``(ii) early warning fire detection devices;
       ``(iii) personal protection equipment for firefighting;
       ``(iv) victim detection equipment; and
       ``(v) devices to locate firefighters and other rescue 
     personnel in buildings;
       ``(B) evaluate the compatibility of new equipment and 
     technology with existing firefighting technology; and
       ``(C) support the development of new voluntary consensus 
     standards through national voluntary consensus standards 
     organizations for new firefighting technologies based on 
     techniques and methodologies described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) New equipment must meet standards.--The Administrator 
     shall, by regulation, require that equipment purchased 
     through the assistance program established by section 33 meet 
     or exceed applicable voluntary consensus standards.''.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF RESPONSE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 10 of the Federal Fire Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2209) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Coordination of Response for National Emergencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     national plan for training and responding to national 
     emergencies under which the Administrator shall be the 
     primary contact point for State and local firefighting units 
     in the event of a national emergency. The Administrator shall 
     ensure that the national plan is consistent with the master 
     plans developed by the several States and political 
     subdivisions thereof.
       ``(2) Mutual aid systems.--The Administrator shall work 
     with State and local fire service officials to establish, as 
     part of the national plan, nationwide and State mutual aid 
     systems for dealing with national emergencies that--
       ``(A) include threat assessment and equipment deployment 
     strategies;
       ``(B) include means of collecting asset and resource 
     information to provide accurate and timely data for regional 
     deployment; and
       ``(C) are consistent with the national plan established 
     under paragraph (1) for Federal response to national 
     emergencies.''.
       (b) Report on Strategic Needs.--Within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     United States Fire Administration shall report to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Science on the need for 
     a strategy concerning deployment of volunteers and emergency 
     response personnel (as

[[Page 15733]]

     defined in section 6 of the Firefighters' Safety Study Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2223e), including a national credentialing system, 
     in the event of a national emergency.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (E);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (N); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) strategies for building collapse rescue;
       ``(G) the use of technology in response to fires, including 
     terrorist incidents and other national emergencies;
       ``(H) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with 
     terrorist-caused national catastrophes;
       ``(I) use of and familiarity with the national plan 
     developed by the Administrator under section 10(b)(1);
       ``(J) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated 
     management systems operations and integrated response;
       ``(K) applying new technology and developing strategies and 
     tactics for fighting forest fires;
       ``(L) integrating terrorism response agencies into the 
     national terrorism incident response system;
       ``(M) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at 
     United States ports, including fires on the water and aboard 
     vessels; and''.
       (b) Coordination with Other Programs To Avoid 
     Duplication.--The Administrator of the United States Fire 
     Administration shall coordinate training provided under 
     section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) with the Attorney General, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the heads of 
     other Federal agencies to ensure that there is no duplication 
     of that training with existing courses available to fire 
     service personnel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCain:
  S. 2863. A bill to provide for deregulation of consumer broadband 
services; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Consumer Broadband 
Deregulation Act of 2002. This legislation takes a comprehensive, 
deregulatory, but measured approach to providing more Americans with 
more broadband choices. By ensuring that the market, not government, 
regulates the deployment of broadband services, the legislation will 
promote investment and innovation in broadband facilities--and 
consumers will benefit.
  The bill would create a new title in the Communications Act of 1934 
that would ensure that residential broadband services exist in a 
minimally regulated environment. The new section of the Act would also 
make certain that providers of broadband services are treated in a 
similar fashion without regard to the particular mode of providing 
service. The bill includes provisions that would take the following 
actions:

       Deregulate the retail provision of residential broadband 
     services; dictate a hands-off approach to the deployment of 
     new facilities by telephone companies while maintaining 
     competitors' access to legacy systems; resist government-
     mandated open access while providing a safety net to ensure 
     consumers enjoy a competitive broadband services market; 
     ensure that local and state barriers to broadband deployment 
     are removed; facilitate deployment of broadband services to 
     rural and unserved communities by creating an information 
     clearing house in the federal government; maximize wireless 
     technology as a platform for broadband services; ensure 
     access to broadband services by people with disabilities; 
     enhance the enforcement tools available to the FCC; and put 
     the federal government in the role of stimulator, rather than 
     regulatory, of broadband services.

  In 1996, Congress passed the first major overhaul of 
telecommunications policy in 62 years. Supporters of the 
Telecommunications Act argued that it would create increased 
competition, provide consumers with a variety of new and innovative 
services at lower prices, and reduce the need for regulation. My 
principal objection to the Act was that it fundamentally regulated, not 
deregulated, the telecommunications industry and would lead inevitably 
to prolonged litigation. It has been six years since the passage of the 
Act, but consumers have yet to benefit. Competition denied by excessive 
regulation is costly to consumers.
  The latest legislative debate in the communications industry has 
focused on the availability of high-speed Internet access services, 
often called ``broadband.'' Indeed, Federal Communications Commission 
Chairman, Michael Powell, has called broadband, ``the central 
communications policy objective in America.''
  There is stark disagreement about the state of affairs of broadband 
services in the United States. Depending on who is speaking, there is a 
supply problem, a demand problem, a combination of the two, or no 
problem at all. All parties agree, however, that Americans and our 
national economy will benefit greatly from the widespread use of 
broadband services. Accelerated broadband deployment reportedly could 
benefit our nation's economy by hundreds of billions of dollars.
  With such tremendous opportunity comes no shortage of ``solutions.'' 
Many want a national industrial policy to drive broadband deployment--
they suggest multi-billion dollar central planning efforts aimed to 
deliver services to consumers regardless of whether those consumers 
want or need such services. Others have focused on narrow issues 
affecting only a subset of all providers of broadband services.
  This legislation takes a different approach. It takes a comprehensive 
look at the proper role of the government with respect to these new 
services. It reduces government interference with market forces that 
lead to consumer welfare, and looks for ways that government can 
facilitate, not dictate or control, the development of broadband 
technologies.
  Mr. President, I am a firm believe in free market principles. In 
1995, I introduced a series of amendments during the floor debate on 
the Telecommunications Act that would have made the bill truly 
deregulatory. As I said at the time, I believe that ``[i]n free 
markets, less government usually means more innovation, more 
entrepreneurial opportunities, more competition, and more benefits to 
consumers.'' Likewise, in 1998, I introduced the Telecommunications 
Competition Act that would have allowed competition to flourish and 
brought true deregulation to the telecommunications market. In 1999, I 
introduced the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act that would have 
eliminated certain regulation of telephone companies' deployment of 
broadband facilities. And in 1999 and 2000, I was a leading advocate in 
the Senate for the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring a moratorium on 
taxation of the Internet.
  I stand by the legislation and amendments I previously introduced and 
believe that they represented the right approach at the right time. In 
fact, if I had it my way, I would throw out the 1996 Act and start from 
scratch. I am mindful, however, that broadband has been an issue that 
has polarized policymakers to the point of legislative paralysis. Now 
is the time for a measured approach that focuses on achieving what can 
be done to improve the deployment of services to all consumers. I 
believe that this legislation is such an approach.
  The bill has multiple components designed to address all aspects of 
broadband deployment and usage, and also provides adequate safety nets 
in the event that there proves to be a market failure that is harmful 
to consumers.
  Broadband services can be provided over multiple platforms including 
telephone, cable, wireless, satellite, and perhaps one day soon, power 
lines, Each of these platforms is regulated differently based on the 
nature of the service the platform was originally designed to provide. 
This legislation would move us closer to a harmonization of regulatory 
ancestry of a particular platform.
  First, the bill makes clear that the retail provision of high-speed 
Internet service remains unregulated. The Internet's tremendous growth 
is a testament to the exercise of regulatory restraint.
  Some have suggested a need for government regulation of consumer 
broadband service quality. They allege that service deficiencies 
inhibit the development of these new offerings. But we must remember 
that these are new services, and new services will have problems. This 
legislation allows for these services to mature. If upon maturity, the 
FCC determines that there is a need to protect consumers from service 
quality shortcomings related to the

[[Page 15734]]

technical provision of service. Then the states can enforce uniform 
requirements. This provides a measured approach to service quality--a 
safety net without a presumption of regulation.
  Next, we must clarify that new services offered by varied providers, 
regardless of mode, will not be subject to the micromanagement of 
government regulation. Recognizing that upgrading networks requires 
substantial investment not free of risk, this bill begins this process 
by relaxing the obligations on telephone companies that invest in 
facilities that will bring better broadband services to more consumers. 
Nothing in this legislation, however, will undermine competitors' 
efforts to provide services using the telephone companies' legacy 
facilities. This approach strikes a balance between the interests of 
those who have invested capital on the promise of government-managed 
competition and those who will invest in the future of broadband 
facilities on the promise of government restraint and market-driven 
competition.
  The bill also grapples with the government-managed wholesale market 
for consumer broadband services--the so-called ``open access'' debate. 
Mr. President, there is perhaps no more difficult issue addressed in 
this bill.
  The Internet has thrived because it is an open platform. The presence 
of numerous ISPs in the narrowband market certainly contributed to the 
vitality of this open network, particularly at the inception of the 
Internet. Those providers have depended on access to customers 
guaranteed by FCC rules. As a result, many have suggested the need for 
government-mandated access to customers served over broadband 
connections. They raise significant concerns about carriers becoming 
screeners of content, and anti-competitive threats to web site 
operators if consumers do not have a choice of ISP or are limited in 
their ability to access particular web sites.
  However tempting it may be to believe that government mandates will 
produce desired policy outcomes, such intervention too often comes at 
the price of market inefficiencies, stifled innovation, and increased 
regulatory costs. Moreover, regulators are often slow to respond to 
dynamic industry changes.
  The bill would rely on market forces to resolve access issues by 
establishing the general rule that the FCC may not impose open access 
requirements on any provider--no matter what platform is used to 
provide the consumer broadband service. Again, the bill takes a 
measured approach by creating a safety net for consumers. Today a 
multitude of ISPs rely on access mandated by the FCC to serve their 
customers. The bill would allow the FCC to continue to enforce these 
obligations during a transition period, but would mandate the sunset of 
such requirements unless the FCC determines their continued enforcement 
is necessary to preserve competition for consumers.
  I firmly believe that market forces will guide the development of a 
wholesale market producing sustainable, not government-managed, 
competition. The bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that consumers 
are protected, whole sending a clear signal to those parties willing to 
make the significant investment necessary to provide broadband services 
that the government will not lie in wait only to reward their risk-
taking with regulation.
  I note again, however, that this issue raises challenging and complex 
policy questions. We should ensure the continued open nature of the 
Internet. To the extent that market forces prove incapable of 
preventing restrictions on consumers' use of the Internet or 
limitations on devices that consumers wish to attach to their Internet 
connection, we may need to consider a different approach. I look 
forward to continue debate on these difficult questions.
  The potential for government interference with market forces is not 
limited to federal regulation. State and local governments are also 
capable of obstructing the deployment of broadband. The bill would 
address this threat by precluding any state or local regulation from 
prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide consumer broadband 
service. It would also prevent localities from transforming their 
legitimate interest in managing their rights of way into an imposition 
of additional, revenue-generating financial burdens on broadband 
deployment.
  Consumer broadband services should be accessible to all people, 
regardless of where they live, what they do, or how much they earn. We 
must be realistic, however, about how quickly this can occur. The bill 
recognizes the important role that government can play as facilitator 
to accelerate universal deployment by using its resources to allow 
communities to share information about successful efforts to attract 
broadband deployment.
  Government can facilitate broadband deployment and use in other ways 
as well. Wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and mesh networks hold 
tremendous promise for the delivery of consumer broadband services. 
Given its role in the management of spectrum, the government can impact 
the use of these technologies. The bill would require the FCC to 
examine the best role for government in fully exploiting wireless 
technologies as a broadband platform for the benefit of consumers.
  Although government should limit its role to those circumstances 
where market failure is demonstrated, Chairman Powell has suggested 
that the Commission must be prepared to better enforce its existing 
rules by increasing the Commission's ability to impose penalties on 
parties that act in a manner that is anticompetitive. This bill would 
given him the tools to do so.
  Some claim that there is a demand ``problem'' with broadband that is 
caused by the dearth of available broadband content. Here, too, 
government can play an important role. Certainly content is one of the 
factors that will drive consumers to subscribe to high-speed Internet 
services. Given the prominent role that the federal government plays in 
the lives of most Americans, it can be a source of substantial 
broadband content. The bill would ensure that the Federal government is 
fully exploiting its ability to provide this content.
  Finally, I recognize that many will look at the bill and ask about 
broadband services used by businesses. Why treat those services 
differently? It is a fair question. I have stated previously that most 
of the advantages of the Telecommunications Act have accrued not to the 
average consumer who has seen only higher prices for existing services, 
but to business customers. It is these business customers that many 
competitors have attempted to serve using the facilities of the 
incumbent telephone companies. Moreover, whereas the cable platform is 
the source of robust, facilities-based competition in the consumer 
market, it has not developed to a similar extent in the market for 
business customers. Given these factors, and a desire to take a 
measured approach, I have generally limited the scope of this bill to 
the consumer broadband services market. This focus does not reflect my 
lack of support for a similarly deregulatory approach to the business 
market. Indeed, I strongly encourage Chairman Powell to be aggressive 
in using the tools at his disposal to remove regulations wherever 
appropriate in the business broadband services market.
  Mr. President, technological progress has too often been constrained 
by government policies that seek to control it and dictate its course. 
Such policies have often had the perverse effect of slowing 
technological advancements. The growth of the Internet demonstrates 
what happens when governments choose to learn from the mistakes of the 
past in order to build a better and richer future for our citizens. The 
choice we have made is to adapt our mechanisms for governance to 
facilitate and encourage technological change--to facilitate rather 
than to control--to monitor rather than dominate. This bill continues 
that course.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this deregulatory 
legislation to help advance broadband in the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 15735]]

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

                                S. 2863

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 
                   1934; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer 
     Broadband Deregulation Act''.
       (b) Amendment of Communications Act of 1934.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et 
     seq.).
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of Communications Act of 1934; table of 
              contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Deregulation of consumer broadband services.
Sec. 4. Unbundled access and collocation requirements.
Sec. 5. National clearinghouse for high-speed Internet access.
Sec. 6. Enforcement.
Sec. 7. Spectrum reform study.
Sec. 8. Study on ways to promote broadband through e-government.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) All consumer broadband service markets should be open 
     to competition.
       (2) Consumer broadband service can be provided over 
     numerous different platforms.
       (3) All providers of consumer broadband services should be 
     able to provide such services and be subject to harmonized 
     regulation when offering such services.
       (4) Consumer broadband services can enhance the quality of 
     life for Americans and promote economic development, job 
     creation, and international competitiveness.
       (5) Advancements in the nation's Internet infrastructure 
     will enhance the public welfare by helping to speed the 
     delivery of services such as telemedicine, distance learning, 
     remote medical services, and distribution of health 
     information.
       (6) Government regulations that affect high-speed Internet 
     access should promote investment and innovation in all 
     technological platforms.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to allow market 
     forces to introduce investment and innovation in consumer 
     broadband services for the benefit of all Americans.

     SEC. 3. DEREGULATION OF CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating title VII as title VIII;
       (2) by redesignating sections 701 through 714 as sections 
     801 through 814, respectively;
       (3) by striking ``section 714'' in section 
     309(j)(8)(C)(iii) and inserting ``section 814'';
       (4) by striking ``section 705'' in section 712(b) and 
     inserting ``section 805''; and
       (5) by inserting after title VI the following:

                ``TITLE VII--CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICES

     ``SEC. 701. RETAIL CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICE.

       ``(a) Freedom From Regulation.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (c), neither the Commission, nor any State, shall 
     have authority to regulate the rates, charges, terms, or 
     conditions for the retail offering of consumer broadband 
     service.
       ``(b) Other Services and Facilities.--Nothing in this 
     section precludes the Commission, or a State or local 
     government, from regulating the provision of any service 
     other than consumer broadband service, even if that service 
     is provided over the same facilities as are used to provide 
     consumer broadband service.
       ``(c) Service Quality.--
       ``(1) Commission determination required.--The Commission 
     shall initiate a study within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act to 
     determine whether State regulation of consumer broadband 
     service quality is appropriate or necessary for the 
     protection of consumers.
       ``(2) Regulations; state enforcement.--If the Commission 
     determines that State regulation of consumer broadband 
     service quality is appropriate or necessary for the 
     protection of consumers, the Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing uniform national guidelines 
     regulating consumer broadband service quality that may be 
     enforced by States. Any regulations promulgated under this 
     paragraph may not take effect before the date that is 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Consumer Broadband 
     Deregulation Act.
       ``(3) Preemption of other state service quality 
     regulation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless the Commission promulgates 
     regulations under paragraph (2), no State may regulate the 
     quality of consumer broadband services provided to its 
     citizens or residents.
       ``(B) Limitation.--If the commission promulgates 
     regulations under paragraph (2), no State may regulate the 
     quality of consumer broadband services provided to its 
     citizens or residents except as provided in those 
     regulations.
       ``(4) No inference.--Nothing in this section shall affect a 
     State's ability to enforce consumer protection laws and 
     regulations unrelated to the technical provision of consumer 
     broadband service.

     ``SEC. 702. WHOLESALE CONSUMER BROADBAND SERVICE.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     neither the Commission nor any State or political subdivision 
     thereof shall have authority to require a consumer broadband 
     service provider to afford an Internet service provider 
     access to its facilities or services for the purpose of 
     offering a consumer broadband service.
       ``(b) Exception.--To the extent that any entity is required 
     by the Commission to afford an Internet service provider 
     access to its facilities or services for the purpose of 
     providing consumer broadband service on the date of enactment 
     of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act, the Commission 
     may require that entity to continue to afford such access.
       ``(c) Report.--The Commission shall report to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     within 2 years after the date of enactment of the Consumer 
     Broadband Deregulation Act on the state of the wholesale 
     market for consumer broadband services and its effect on 
     retail competition for these services.
       ``(d) Sunset Provision.--Subsection (b) shall cease to be 
     effective 5 years after the date of enactment of such Act, 
     unless the Commission finds that the continued exercise of 
     its authority under that subsection is necessary to preserve 
     and protect competition in the provision of consumer 
     broadband services.

     ``SEC. 703. LIMIT ON STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY; PUBLIC 
                   RIGHTS-OF-WAY CHARGES.

       ``(a) Removal of Barriers to Entry.--No State or local 
     statute or regulation, or other State or local legal 
     requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting 
     the ability of any entity to provide any consumer broadband 
     service.
       ``(b) Cost-based Compensation for Rights-of-Way.--A State 
     or local government may not require compensation from 
     consumer broadband service providers for access to, or use 
     of, public rights-of-way that exceeds the direct and actual 
     costs reasonably allocable to the administration of access 
     to, or use of, public rights-of-way.
       ``(c) Public disclosure.--A State or local government shall 
     disclose to the public, on a timely basis and in an easily 
     understood format, any compensation required from consumer 
     broadband service providers for access to, of use of, public 
     rights-of-way.

     ``SEC. 704. ACCESS BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

       ``(a) Manufacturers.--A manufacturer of equipment used for 
     consumer broadband services shall ensure that equipment is 
     designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and 
     usable by persons with disabilities, unless the manufacturer 
     demonstrates that taking such steps would result in an undue 
     burden.
       ``(b) Consumer Broadband Service Providers.--A provider of 
     consumer broadband services shall ensure that its services 
     are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, 
     unless the provider demonstrates that taking such steps would 
     result in an undue burden.
       ``(c) Compatibility.--Whenever the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b) constitute an undue burden, a 
     manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the equipment or 
     service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or 
     specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by 
     persons with disabilities to achieve access, unless the 
     manufacturer or provider demonstrates that taking such steps 
     would result in an undue burden.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act, the 
     Commission shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary 
     to implement this section. The regulations shall ensure 
     consistency across multiple service platforms with respect to 
     access by persons with disabilities. The regulations also 
     shall provide that neither broadband services, broadband 
     access services, nor the equipment used for such services may 
     impair or impede the accessibility of information content 
     when accessibility has been incorporated in that content for 
     transmission through broadband services, access services, or 
     equipment.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' has the meaning 
     given to it by section 3(2)(A) of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)).
       ``(2) Undue burden.--The term `undue burden' means 
     significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the 
     requirements of this paragraph would result in an undue 
     burden, the factors to be considered include--
       ``(A) the nature and cost of the steps required for the 
     manufacturer or provider;

[[Page 15736]]

       ``(B) the impact on the operation of the manufacturer or 
     provider;
       ``(C) the financial resources of the manufacturer or 
     provider; and
       ``(D) the type of operations of the manufacturer or 
     provider.''.

     ``SEC. 705. RELATIONSHIP TO TITLES II, III, AND VI.

       ``If the application of any provision of title II, III, or 
     VI of this Act is inconsistent with any provision of this 
     title, then to the extent the application of both provisions 
     would conflict with or frustrate the application of the 
     provision of this title--
       ``(1) the provision of this title shall apply; and
       ``(2) the inconsistent provision of title II, III, or VI 
     shall not apply.''.
       (b) Consumer Broadband Services Defined.--Section 3 (47 
     U.S.C. 153) is amended by inserting after paragraph (12) the 
     following:
       ``(12A) Consumer broadband services.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `consumer broadband services' 
     means interstate residential high-speed Internet access 
     services.
       ``(B) High-speed.--The Commission shall establish by rule 
     the criterion, in terms of megabits per second, to be used 
     for the purpose of determining whether residential Internet 
     services are high-speed Internet services. In establishing 
     that criterion, the Commission shall consider whether the 
     speed is sufficient to support existing applications and to 
     encourage the development of new applications. The Commission 
     shall revise the criterion as necessary and shall review any 
     criterion established by it no less frequently than each 18 
     months.
       ``(C) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access 
     service' means a service that combines computer processing, 
     information storage, protocol conversion, and routing with 
     telecommunications to enable users to access Internet content 
     and services.''.

     SEC. 4. UNBUNDLED ACCESS AND COLLOCATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Unbundled Access.--Section 251(c)(3) (47 U.S.C. 
     251(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Unbundled access.--
       ``(A) In general.--The duty to provide, to any requesting 
     telecommunications carrier for the provision of a 
     telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to 
     network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically 
     feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, 
     reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of 
     this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange 
     carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a 
     manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such 
     elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.
       ``(B) Exception.--The duty to provide access under 
     subparagraph (A) does not require an incumbent local exchange 
     carrier to provide access to a fiber local loop or fiber 
     feeder subloop to a requesting carrier to enable the 
     requesting carrier to provide a telecommunications service 
     that is an input to a consumer broadband service unless the 
     incumbent local exchange carrier has removed or rendered 
     useless a previously existing cooper loop necessary to 
     provide such services.''.
       (b) Collocation.--Section 251(c)(6) (47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Collocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The duty to provide, on rates, terms, 
     and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
     nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment 
     necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
     elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier, 
     except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation 
     if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State 
     commission that physical collocation is not practical for 
     technical reasons or because of space limitations.
       ``(B) Exception.--The duty to provide for collocation under 
     subparagraph (A) does not require an incumbent local exchange 
     carrier to provide for collocation in a remote terminal.''.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET 
                   ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall establish 
     a national clearinghouse within the Department of Commerce 
     that allows communities throughout the United States, 
     particularly rural communities, to find data and information 
     relating to the deployment of facilities capable of 
     supporting high-speed Internet services.
       (b) Exchange Function.--The Secretary shall solicit and 
     accept data, information, and advice from communities that 
     have succeeded in attracting the deployment of broadband 
     services and infrastructure in order to make that data, 
     information, and advice available to other communities that 
     are seeking to deploy high-speed Internet services.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Cease and Desist Authority.--Section 501 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting ``(a) Fines 
     and Imprisonment.--Any person'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Cease and Desist Orders.-- If, after a hearing, the 
     Commission determines that any common carrier or consumer 
     broadband service provider is engaged in an act, matter, or 
     thing prohibited by this Act, or is failing to perform any 
     act, matter, or thing required by this Act, the Commission 
     may order such common carrier or provider to cease or desist 
     from such action or inaction.''.
       (b) Forfeiture Penalties.--Section 503(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``exceed $100,000'' and inserting ``exceed 
     $1,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``of $1,000,000'' and inserting ``of 
     $10,000,000'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``subparagraph (A) or 
     (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)'';
       (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph 
     (2) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
       (4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) If a common carrier or consumer broadband service 
     provider has violated a cease and desist order or has 
     previously been assessed a forfeiture penalty for a violation 
     of a provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation, or 
     order issued by the Commission, and if the Commission or an 
     administrative law judge determines that such common carrier 
     has willfully violated the same provision, rule, regulation, 
     that this repeated violation has caused harm to competition, 
     and that such common carrier or consumer broadband service 
     provider has been assessed a forfeiture penalty under this 
     subsection for such previous violation, the Commission may 
     assess a forfeiture penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for each 
     violation or each day of continuing violation; except that 
     the amount of such forfeiture penalty shall not exceed 
     $20,000,000.''; and
       (5) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years''.

     SEC. 7. WIRELESS BROADBAND STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall conduct a study--
       (1) on wireless technology to determine the appropriate 
     role of the Federal government in facilitating greater 
     consumer access to consumer broadband services using evolving 
     advanced technology; and
       (2) what, if any, action by the Federal government is 
     needed to increase the deployment of new wireless technology 
     to facilitate high-speed Internet access.
       (b) Focus.--In conducting the study, the Commission shall 
     focus on consumer broadband services utilizing wireless 
     technology.
       (c) Consideration of Wireless Industry Views.--In 
     conducting the study, the Commission shall consider the views 
     of, among other interested parties, representatives of the 
     telecommunications industry (as defined in section 714(k)(3) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 614(k)(3)) 
     involved in wireless communications.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall transmit a report, 
     containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
     from the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Report to be available to public.--The Commission shall 
     make its report available to the public.

     SEC. 8. STUDY ON WAYS TO PROMOTE BROADBAND THROUGH E-
                   GOVERNMENT.

       The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall 
     transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce within 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act on how the Federal government 
     can promote the use of broadband services through e-
     government, including--
       (1) online delivery of government services;
       (2) video-streaming of government press events and open 
     public events, such as announcements and administrative 
     proceedings;
       (3) e-health and online education initiatives;
       (4) access to government documents; and
       (5) the ramifications of enhanced government online 
     services on user privacy and the security of the Federal 
     government's electronic infrastructure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2865. A bill to establish Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National 
Historical Park in the State of South Carolina, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I introduced a bill establishing the 
Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park. These sites are 
presently managed by the National Park Service as the Fort Sumter 
National Monument. The bill clarifies the boundaries of the park and 
will more

[[Page 15737]]

accurately reflect the resources that are recognized, protected, and 
interpreted at these sites.
  Both of these forts were pivotal sites in the history of South 
Carolina and the Nation. Fort Moultrie was the centerpiece of the 
Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776, just six days prior to 
the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The valiant defense of 
the fort by South Carolina militia units resulted in the first decisive 
victory over British forces in the Revolutionary War. The fort is named 
after the commander of those units, Colonel William Moultrie.
  Colonel Moultrie's forces constructed the first fort out of Palmetto 
trees and sand. The Palmettos were used because of the lack of proper 
building materials. Though initially thought to be inadequate for 
protection, the Palmettos repelled salvo after salvo from the British 
naval forces. Such excellent fortifications allowed Colonel Moultrie's 
militia to return fire with devastating results.
  Fort Moultrie also played a part in the events leading up to the 
Civil War. It was the site of the batteries that bombarded Fort Sumter. 
After the war, the fort was to remain an integral part of America's 
coastal defenses until World War II, when it was used to guard the port 
of Charleston against German U-boats. Indeed, it is the only site in 
the National Park System that preserves the history of the Nation's 
coastal defense system from 1776 to 1947. Although its days of conflict 
are over, the fort stands as a reminder that the cost of freedom is 
constant vigilance and stalwart resolve, even in the face of 
overwhelming odds.
  Fort Sumter is also an important part of American history. The 
bombardment of the fort on April 12, 1861 was the opening engagement of 
the Civil War. The evacuation of the fort by its commanding officer, 
Major Robert Anderson, left the fort in Confederate hands until the 
fall of Charleston in February of 1865. Fort Sumter was also an 
integral part of the Nation's coastal defense system until the end of 
World War II. Fort Sumter is a fine example of the historical 
significance of National Park Service work.
  The passage of this bill will allow for the more efficient 
administration of the two forts. The present arrangement does not 
adequately reflect the boundaries or management authority for the site. 
For example, Fort Moultrie was acquired by the Secretary of the 
Interior from the State of South Carolina in 1960, but no boundaries 
were established for the property, nor were any directives given to the 
National Park Service for administering the site. This bill will 
establish the boundaries of the site and provide long-overdue 
management authority for the National Park Service.
  Hopefully, this bill will facilitate more efficient management of the 
forts and allow many more Americans to learn from these living 
monuments to America's history. The Department of Interior supports 
this bill and has urged its enactment. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2865

       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 ``Fort Sumter and Fort 
     Moultrie National Historical Park Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Fort Sumter National Monument was established by the 
     Joint Resolution entitled ``Joint Resolution to establish the 
     Fort Sumter National Monument in the State of South 
     Carolina'', approved April 28, 1948 (62 Stat. 204, chapter 
     239; 16 U.S.C. 450ee), to commemorate historic events in the 
     vicinity of Fort Sumter, the site of the first engagement of 
     the Civil War on April 12, 1861;
       (2) Fort Moultrie--
       (A) was the site of the first defeat of the British in the 
     Revolutionary War on June 28, 1776; and
       (B) was acquired by the Federal Government from the State 
     of South Carolina in 1960 under the authority of the Act of 
     August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666, chapter 593);
       (3) since 1960, Fort Moultrie has been administered by the 
     National Park Service as part of the Fort Sumter National 
     Monument without a clear management mandate or established 
     boundary;
       (4) Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie played important roles in 
     the protection of Charleston Harbor and in the coastal 
     defense system of the United States;
       (5) Fort Moultrie is the only site in the National Park 
     System that preserves the history of the United States 
     coastal defense system during the period from 1776 through 
     1947; and
       (6) Sullivan's Island Life Saving Station, located adjacent 
     to the Charleston Light--
       (A) was constructed in 1896; and
       (B) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Charleston light.--The term ``Charleston Light'' means 
     the Charleston Light and any associated land and improvements 
     to the land that are located between Sullivan's Island Life 
     Saving Station and the mean low water mark.
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Boundary Map, Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National 
     Historical Park'', numbered 392/80088, and dated November 30, 
     2000.
       (3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Fort Sumter and Fort 
     Moultrie National Historical Park established by section 
     4(a).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South 
     Carolina.

     SEC. 4. FORT SUMTER AND FORT MOULTRIE NATIONAL HISTORICAL 
                   PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Fort Sumter 
     and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park in the State as a 
     unit of the National Park System to preserve, maintain, and 
     interpret the nationally significant historical values and 
     cultural resources associated with Fort Sumter and Fort 
     Moultrie.
       (b) Boundary.--
       (1) In general.--The boundary of the Park shall be 
     comprised of the land, water, and submerged land depicted on 
     the map.
       (2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (c) Acquisitions.--
       (1) Land.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     may acquire any land or interest in land (including 
     improvements) located within the boundaries of the Park by--
       (i) donation;
       (ii) purchase with appropriated or donated funds;
       (iii) exchange; or
       (iv) transfer from another Federal agency.
       (B) Limitation.--Any land or interest in land (including 
     improvements) located within the boundaries of the Park that 
     is owned by the State (including political subdivisions of 
     the State) shall be acquired by donation only.
       (2) Personal property.--The Secretary may acquire by 
     donation, purchase with appropriated or donated funds, 
     exchange, or transfer from another Federal agency, personal 
     property associated with, and appropriate for, interpretation 
     of the Park.
       (d) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the National Park Service, shall administer the Park in 
     accordance with this Act and the laws generally applicable to 
     units of the National Park System, including--
       (A) the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
       (B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (2) Interpretation of historical events.--The Secretary 
     shall provide for the interpretation of historical events and 
     activities that occurred in the vicinity of Fort Sumter and 
     Fort Moultrie, including--
       (A) the Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776;
       (B)(i) the bombardment of Fort Sumter by Confederate forces 
     on April 12, 1861; and
       (ii) any other events of the Civil War that are associated 
     with Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie;
       (C) the development of the coastal defense system of the 
     United States during the period from the Revolutionary War to 
     World War II; and
       (D) the lives of--
       (i) the free and enslaved workers who built and maintained 
     Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie;
       (ii) the soldiers who defended the forts;
       (iii) the prisoners held at the forts; and
       (iv) captive Africans bound for slavery who, after first 
     landing in the United States, were brought to quarantine 
     houses in the vicinity of Fort Moultrie in the 18th Century, 
     if the Secretary determines that the quarantine houses and 
     associated historical values are nationally significant.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with public and private entities and 
     individuals to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 5. CHARLESTON LIGHT.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall transfer to the Secretary, for no 
     consideration,

[[Page 15738]]

     administrative jurisdiction over, and management of the 
     Charleston Light for inclusion in the Park.
       (b) Condition.--Before transferring the Charleston Light 
     under subsection (a) the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     repair, paint, remove hazardous substances from, and improve 
     the condition of the Charleston Light in any other manner 
     that the Secretary may require.
       (c) Improvements.--The Secretary shall make improvements to 
     the Charleston Light only to the extent necessary to--
       (1) provide utility service; and
       (2) maintain the existing structures and historic 
     landscape.

     SEC. 6. REPEAL OF EXISTING LAW.

       Section 2 of the Joint Resolution entitled ``Joint 
     Resolution to establish the Fort Sumter National Monument in 
     the State of South Carolina'', approved April 28, 1948 (62 
     Stat. 204, chapter 239; 16 U.S.C. 450ee-1), is repealed.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Brownback):
  S. 2866. A bill to provide scholarships for District of Columbia 
elementary and secondary students, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues in the House and 
the Senate, I applaud the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Zelman v. 
Simmons-Harris. The Court found that a publically funded private school 
choice program was Constitutional and does not violate the 
establishment clause of the Constitution. The Court's decision finally 
puts to rest the constitutionality arguments which have long been 
raised by those who oppose providing choice to low-income families.
  Within hours of the Court decision, Congressman Armey introduced H.R. 
5033, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 
2002. I join my House colleague in introducing the companion bill, here 
in the Senate. Specifically, these bills provide scholarships to some 
of the District's poorest students to enable them to select the public 
or private school of their choice from participating schools in the 
District and the surrounding areas. This program, like the Cleveland 
program upheld by the Supreme Court, would allow families to choose 
from a wide variety of providers, including religious schools.
  Both bills are nearly identical to the 1997 D.C. Student Scholarship 
Act. Although that bill had passed both houses of the Congress and more 
than a thousand D.C. families had expressed interest in the scholarship 
program, President Clinton vetoed the bill.
  Why should we extend the option of private schools to poor families? 
Because, as is true in many urban areas, thousands of students in the 
District of Columbia are in need of high quality educational options. 
Seventy-two percent of D.C. fourth graders tested below basic 
proficiency in reading and seventy-six percent tested below basic 
proficiency in mathematics. This means that three quarters of 4th 
graders do not possess elementary reading skills and can not complete 
simple arithmetic problem. Unfortunately, these statistics do not 
improve dramatically as children grow older. Even in the older grades, 
the majority of students are found to be struggling with math and 
reading.
  Tragically, lagging academic performance isn't the only problem 
plaguing many of the public schools in D.C., there is also the issue of 
safe, secure classrooms. In 1999, nearly one in five D.C high school 
students reported, that at some point in the preceding month, they felt 
too unsafe to go to school, while nearly one in every seven students 
admitted to bringing a weapon to school.
  Although the creation of charter schools in the District has led to 
some choice for families lucky enough to get a spot for their child, 
there are simply not enough charter schools to accommodate the growing 
clamor of D.C. parents to obtain a better education for their children. 
Interestingly enough, the lack of space in charter schools is 
compounded by the City's refusal to free a handful of the 30 surplus 
public school buildings--buildings, which in some cases, are just 
sitting there abandoned and unused.
  D.C. parents have witnessed superintendents come and go, and have 
been given the promise of education reform and improvements that never 
materialized. Yet, all the while their children remain trapped in 
failing schools. This is unacceptable to them and should be wholly 
unacceptable to my colleagues. The thousands of families clamoring for 
better educational opportunities for their children in our nation's 
capital need an immediate solution.
  As Frederick Douglass, quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the 
recent Zelman decision, said, ``Education . . . means emancipation. It 
means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of the man 
into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be 
made free.''
  Unfortunately, for many families, that freedom remains unobtainable 
within D.C.'s current educational system. I encourage my colleagues to 
seriously consider this important bill. We have allowed too many 
students to languish in failing schools. Let's provide a way for real 
education, and doing so, help make the freedom Douglass refers to a 
reality for some of the district's neediest children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2867. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase 
livestock from producers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as everyone knows, I pushed the packer 
ban because I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't 
think packers should be in the same business as independent livestock 
producers, it's not the fact that the packers own the livestock that 
bothers me as much as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for 
shackle space and adversely impacts the price independent producers 
receive.
  My support of the packer ban is based in the belief that independent 
producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their 
livestock. The last few years have led to widespread consolidation and 
concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical 
integration among packers and there is no question why independent 
producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock 
during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.
  The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own 
livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own 
livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy 
livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being 
limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live 
market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.
  My new legislative concept would guarantee that independent producers 
have a share in the marketplace while assisting the mandatory price 
reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a 
packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 
percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting 
system which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems 
would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot 
market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In 
addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a 
competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 
percent spot/cash market requirement.
  This isn't the packer ban. The intent of this piece is to improve 
price transparency and hopefully the accuracy of the daily mandatory 
price reporting data. I feel strongly that packers should NOT be able 
to own or feed livestock, but this approach is not intended to address 
my concern with packer ownership.
  The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to 
report under the mandatory price reporting system. Those are packs that 
kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 
lambs annually, over a 5 year average.

[[Page 15739]]

  Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer 
contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority 
of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating mandatory 
price reporting data. If the mandatory price reporting data is not 
accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on 
the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to 
manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give 
confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy 
and viability of the mandatory price reporting system and secure fair 
prices for contracts based on that data.
  It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs 
being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the mandatory price 
reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of 
livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that 
information is wrong the contract producers suffer. That's why the Iowa 
Pork Producers, Iowa Cattlemen, Iowa Farm Bureau, R-CALF, the 
Organization for Competitive Markets, and the Center for Rural Affairs 
have all endorsed this proposal.
  Mr. President, this legislation will guarantee independent livestock 
producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these 
goals by making it more difficult for the mandatory price reporting 
system to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the 
packs.
  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. 2867

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

     SECTION 1. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS

       Chapter 5 of subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
     of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 260. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Cooperative association of producers.--The term 
     `cooperative association of producers' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1a).
       ``(2) Covered packer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `covered packer' means a packer 
     that is required under this subtitle to report to the 
     Secretary each reporting day information on the price and 
     quantity of livestock purchased by the packer.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered packer' does not 
     include a packer that owns only 1 livestock processing plant.
       ``(3) Nonaffiliated producer.--The term `nonaffiliated 
     producer' means a producer of livestock--
       ``(A) that sells livestock to a packer;
       ``(B) that has less than 1 percent equity interest in the 
     packer and the packer has less than 1 percent equity interest 
     in the producer;
       ``(C) that has no officers, directors, employees or owners 
     that are officers, directors, employees or owners of the 
     packer;
       ``(D) that has no fiduciary responsibility to the packer; 
     and
       ``(E) in which the packer has no equity interest.
       ``(4) Spot market sale.--The term `spot market sale' means 
     an agreement for the purchase and sale of livestock by a 
     packer from a producer in which--
       ``(A) the agreement specifies a firm base price that may be 
     equated with a fixed dollar amount on the day the agreement 
     is entered into;
       ``(B) the livestock are slaughtered not more than 7 days 
     after the date of the agreement;
       ``(C) a reasonable competitive bidding opportunity existed 
     on the date the agreement was entered into;
       ``(5) Reasonable competitive bidding opportunity.--The term 
     `reasonable competitive bidding opportunity' means that
       ``(A) no written or oral agreement precludes the producer 
     from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers; and
       ``(B) no circumstances, custom or practice exist that 
     establishes the existence of an implied contract, as defined 
     by the Uniform Commercial Code, and precludes the producer 
     from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers.
       ``(b) General Rule.--Of the quantity of livestock that is 
     slaughtered by a covered packer during each reporting day in 
     each plant, the covered packer shall slaughter not less than 
     the applicable percentage specified in subsection (c) of the 
     quantity through spot market sales from nonaffiliated 
     producers.
       ``(c) Applicable Percentages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     applicable percentage shall be:
       ``(A) 25 percent for covered packers that are not 
     cooperative associations of producers; and
       ``(B) 12.5 percent for covered packers that are cooperative 
     associations of producers.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) In the case of covered packers that reported more 
     than 75 percent captive supply cattle in their 2001 annual 
     report to Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
     Administration of the United States Department of 
     Agriculture, the applicable percentage shall be the greater 
     of:
       ``(i) the difference between the percentage of captive 
     supply so reported and 100; and
       ``(ii) the following numbers (applicable percentages):
       ``(a) during each of the calendar years of 2004 and 2005, 5 
     percent;
       ``(b) during each of the calendar years of 2006 and 2007, 
     15 percent; and
       ``(c) during the calendar year 2008 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 25 percent.
       ``(B) In the case of covered packers that are cooperative 
     associations of producers and that reported more than 87.5 
     percent captive supply cattle in their 2001 annual report to 
     Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration of 
     the United States Department of Agriculture, the applicable 
     percentage shall be the greater of:
       ``(iii) the difference between the percentage of captive 
     supply so reported and 100; and
       ``(iv) the following numbers (applicable percentages):
       ``(a) during each of the calendar years of 2004 and 2005, 5 
     percent;
       ``(b) during each of the calendar years of 2006 and 2007, 
     7.5 percent; and
       ``(c) during the calendar year 2008 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 12.5 percent.
       ``(d) Nonpreemption.--Notwithstanding section 259, this 
     section does not preempt any requirement of a State or 
     political subdivision of a State that requires a covered 
     packer to purchase on the spot market a greater percentage of 
     the livestock purchased by the covered packer than is 
     required under this section.''
       ``(e) Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     interpretation of any other provision of this Act, including 
     but not limited to section 202 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 192).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2868. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 
research and demonstration program concerning control of salt cedar and 
other nonnative phreatophytes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of 
legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico. 
Specifically, this bill will address the mounting pressures brought on 
by the growing demands, on all fronts, of a diminishing water supply.
  As you may know the water situation in the west can be described at 
this time, as difficult at best. Annual snow packs were abnormally low 
this year causing many areas in the west to be plagued by severe 
drought conditions.
  The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more 
acute every single day. The chance of this drought effecting every New 
Mexican in some way is substantial. Wells are running dry, farmers are 
being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various 
stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by 
catastrophic wildfires.
  The drought conditions also have other consequences. For example, the 
lack of stream flow makes it very difficult for New Mexico to meet its 
compact delivery obligations to the state of Texas.
  The bill that I am introducing today deals more specifically with the 
issue of in stream water flows. To compound the drought situation, New 
Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water-
thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of 
water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies--the Pecos and 
the Rio Grande rivers.
  Estimates show that one mature salt cedar tree can consume as much as 
200 gallons of water per day. In addition to the excessive water 
consumption, salt cedars increase fire and flood frequency, increase 
river channelization, decrease water flow and increase water and soil 
salinity along the river. Studies indicate that eradication of the salt

[[Page 15740]]

cedars could increase river flows. Increasing river flows could help 
alleviate mounting pressure to meet compact delivery obligations--
especially on the Pecos.
  This bill that I am introducing today would authorize the Army Corps 
of Engineers to establish a research and demonstration program to help 
with the eradication of this non-native species. In addition to 
projects along the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other 
states with similar problems, including Texas, Colorado, Utah and 
Arizona to develop and participate in similar projects as well.
  The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and 
Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis. Solving 
such water problems has become one of my top priorities for the state.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and my statement be 
printed in the record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2868

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

     SECTION 1. SALT CEDAR CONTROL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) States are having increasing difficulty meeting their 
     obligations under interstate compacts to deliver water;
       (2) it is in the best interest of States to minimize the 
     impact of and eradicate invasive species that extort water in 
     the Rio Grande watershed, the Pecos River, and other bodies 
     of water in the Southwest, such as the salt cedar, a noxious 
     and nonnative plant that can use 200 gallons of water a day; 
     and
       (3) as drought conditions and legal requirements relating 
     to water supply accelerate water shortages, innovative 
     approaches are needed to address the increasing demand for a 
     diminishing water supply.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Control method.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``control method'' means a method 
     of controlling salt cedar (Tamarix) or any other nonnative 
     phreatophyte.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``control method'' includes the 
     use of herbicides, mechanical means, and biocontrols such as 
     goats and insects.
       (2) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means a demonstration project carried out under 
     this section.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
       (c) Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) complete a program of research, including a review of 
     past and ongoing research, concerning a control method for 
     use in--
       (i) the Rio Grande watershed in the State of New Mexico;
       (ii) the Pecos River in the State of New Mexico; and
       (iii) other bodies of water in the States of Arizona, 
     Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah that are affected by 
     salt cedar or other nonnative phreatophytes; and
       (B) commence a demonstration program of the most effective 
     control methods.
       (2) Available expertise.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out the programs under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use the expertise of 
     institutions of higher education and nonprofit 
     organizations--
       (i) that are located in the States referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(iii); and
       (ii) that have been actively conducting research or 
     carrying out other activities relating to the control of salt 
     cedar.
       (B) Inclusions.--Institutions of higher education and 
     nonprofit organizations under subparagraph (A) include--
       (i) Colorado State University;
       (ii) Dine College in the State of New Mexico;
       (iii) Mesa State College in the State of Colorado;
       (iv) New Mexico State University;
       (v) Northern Arizona University;
       (vi) Texas A&M University;
       (vii) University of Arizona;
       (viii) Utah State University; and
       (ix) WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education and 
     Technology Development.
       (d) Federal Expense.--The research and demonstration 
     program under subsection (c) shall be carried out at full 
     Federal expense.
       (e) Consultation.--The activities under this section shall 
     be carried out in consultation with--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (3) the Governors of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New 
     Mexico, Texas, and Utah;
       (4) tribal governments; and
       (5) the heads of other Federal, State, and local agencies, 
     as appropriate.
       (f) Research.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     research shall focus on--
       (1) supplementing and integrating information from past and 
     ongoing research concerning control of salt cedar and other 
     nonnative phreatophytes;
       (2) gathering experience from past eradication and control 
     projects;
       (3) arranging relevant data from available sources into 
     formats so that the information is accessible and can be 
     effectively brought to bear by land managers in the 
     restoration of the Rio Grande watershed;
       (4) using control methods to produce water savings; and
       (5) identifying long-term management and funding approaches 
     for control of salt cedar and watershed restoration.
       (g) Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out not fewer 
     than 10 demonstration projects, of which not fewer than 2 
     shall be carried out in each of the States referred to in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A)(iii).
       (2) Cost.--Each demonstration project shall be carried out 
     at a cost of not more than $7,000,000, including costs of 
     planning, design, and implementation.
       (3) Relationship to other control projects.--Each 
     demonstration project shall be coordinated with control 
     projects being carried out as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act by other Federal, State, tribal, or local entities.
       (4) Period of project implementation.--Each demonstration 
     project shall be carried out--
       (A) during a period of not less than 2 but not more than 5 
     years, depending on the control method selected; and
       (B) in a manner designed to determine the time period 
     required for optimum use of the control method.
       (5) Design.--
       (A) Control methods.--Of the demonstration projects--
       (i) at least 1 demonstration project shall use primarily 1 
     or more herbicides;
       (ii) at least 1 demonstration project shall use primarily 
     mechanical means;
       (iii) at least 1 demonstration project shall use a 
     biocontrol such as goats or insects; and
       (iv) each other demonstration project may use any 1 or more 
     control methods.
       (B) Measurement of costs and benefits.--Each demonstration 
     project shall be designed to measure all costs and benefits 
     associated with each control method used by the demonstration 
     project, including measurement of water savings.
       (6) Monitoring and maintenance.--After completion, each 
     demonstration project shall be monitored and maintained for a 
     period of not more than 5 years, at a cost of not more than 
     $100,000 per demonstration project per year.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2007.
                                  ____

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 2869. A bill to facilitate the ability of certain spectrum auction 
winners to pursue alternative measures required in the public interest 
to meet the needs of wireless telecommunications consumers; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which I hope 
will create an equitable solution to the dilemma facing many wireless 
companies in America. Unfortunately, due to the uncertain legal status 
of licenses related to that FCC Auction No. 35, several companies have 
contingent liabilities in the millions or billions of dollars. These 
contingent liabilities are damaging the companies' ability to acquire 
additional spectrum to meet the urgent needs of wireless consumers and 
to roll out new and innovative services to consumers. The affected 
providers are the successful bidders for wireless spectrum that the 
Federal Communications Commission auctioned in Auction No. 35. Some of 
the spectrum had previously been licensed to companies, including 
NextWave Personal Communications Inc., whose bankruptcy filings and 
subsequent failure to pay amounts due to the FCC for their licenses led 
to the cancellation of those licenses.
  The status of NextWave's licenses has been the subject of extended 
litigation in the Bankruptcy Court, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United 
States. In June 2001, after

[[Page 15741]]

the FCC had conducted Auction No. 35, the D.C. Circuit held that ``the 
Commission violated the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits 
governmental entities from revoking debtors' licenses solely for 
failure to pay debts dischargeable in bankruptcy,'' effectively 
nullifying the FCC ability to deliver the licenses to winning bidder. 
In August 2001, after the issuance of that court's mandate, the FCC 
restored the NextWave licenses to active status. More recently, the 
Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition for a writ of certiorari to 
review the D.C. Circuit's judgment. The Supreme Court will not hear 
arguments in the case until the fall of 2002 and is unlikely to 
announce a decision until the spring of 2003. If the Court reverses the 
D.C. Circuit's decision, there will be further litigation on remand in 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve issues that the court did not reach in its 
first decision. The result is that there is not likely to be a final 
resolution of the status of the NextWave licenses and the FCC therefore 
will not be in a position to deliver licenses to the winners of Auction 
No. 35--until three or more years from the time the auction was 
concluded. Although the FCC recently returned most of the down payment 
funds previously deposited by successful bidders, it continues to hold 
without interest substantial sums equal to three percent of the total 
amount of the winning bids. It apparently intends to hold those sums 
indefinitely. Despite the lengthy delay in delivering the licenses, 
moreover, the FCC takes the position that the successful bidders remain 
obligated, on a mere 10 days' notice, to pay the full amount of their 
successful bids if and when the FCC at some unknown future date 
establishes its right to deliver those licenses.
  The situation is grossly unfair to those who bid on these licenses in 
good faith. Companies calibrate their bids on the understanding, 
implicit in any commercial arrangement, that delivery of the licenses 
will occur in a reasonable time following the auction. That expectation 
is especially crucial in the context of spectrum licenses, given the 
recent volatility we have seen in market prices for spectrum. It is 
particularly burdensome to such companies for the FCC to hold even a 
portion of their enormous down payments without paying interest for 
such extended periods. Even more troubling, the companies' contingent 
obligation to pay on very short notice the remaining $16 billion they 
bid for the licenses at issue adversely affects their capacity to serve 
the needs of their customers. Such large contingent liabilities impede 
the companies' ability to take interim steps, such as building out its 
network further or leasing spectrum from others, that may be urgently 
needed to improve service for its customers. The FCC's failure to 
respond appropriately to alleviate these serious burdens disserves the 
public interest.
  This bill addresses these problems in two ways. It requires the FCC 
promptly to refund to the winning bidders the full remaining amount of 
their deposits and down payments. In addition, it gives each winning 
bidder an opportunity to elect, within 15 days after enactment, to 
relinquish its rights and to be relieved of all further obligations 
under Auction No. 35. Those who choose to retain their rights and 
obligations under Auction No. 35 will nonetheless be entitled to the 
return of their deposits and down payments in the interim. If and when 
the FCC is in a position to deliver the licenses at issue to those who 
remain obligated, they will be required to pay the full amount of their 
bid in accordance with the FCC's existing regulations. Those who elect 
to terminate their rights and obligations under Auction No. 35 will be 
free to pursue other opportunities to acquire spectrum and serve 
consumers.
  I want to make this next point especially clear, nothing in the 
bill's provisions would affect the FCC's legal position in the Supreme 
Court with respect to the validity of its original cancellation of the 
NextWave licenses. If the FCC prevails in the Supreme Court, it will 
reestablish its right to allocate the spectrum at issue. It may then 
grant licenses to Auction No. 35 winning bidders who have declined to 
relinquish their rights under the bill. It will also be free to conduct 
a re-auction of any spectrum won by Auction No. 35 bidders who have in 
the meantime elected to relinquish their auction rights.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2870. A bill to amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to 
provide for the use of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
bring greater honor and prestige to our most valiant veterans. This 
legislation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Act, will require the use 
of 90 percent gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor.
  You may be surprised to learn that while foreign dignitaries, famous 
singers, and other civilians receive an approximately $30,000 medal--
the Congressional Gold Medal, our most valued veterans receive a $30 
medal. The cost difference lies in that the Medal of Honor consists 
primarily of brass plated slightly with gold. These American heroes 
deserve better and it's certainly the least we can do to honor their 
service.
  The cost of the proposal would be minimal. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the total cost of the bill would be $2 
million for a five-year period during which the new medals would be 
designed, produced and stockpiled. Our legislation would allow the 
approximately less than 1,000 living recipients awarded the Medal, or 
their next of kin, to receive a replacement Medal.
  Amelia Earhart once said that ``Courage is the price that life exacts 
for granting peace.'' In helping us win our peace, we should truly 
honor our bravest heroes by giving them the Medals they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD:
  S. 2872. A bill to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement 
of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reinstate a 
license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that 
authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle, 
Illinois. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric 
power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the 
deadline for beginning construction of the plant.
  Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern 
Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the 
Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed 
in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of 
a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3\1/2\ miles 
wide--the largest man-made lake in Illinois.
  When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to 
build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available 
from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in 
Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable 
energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the 
environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be 
minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam, 
would not produce harmful emissions.
  In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from 
the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000, 
Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because 
they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The 
City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power 
plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's 
license.
  The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of 
the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate 
Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there 
is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce 
a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the 
bill includes a provision

[[Page 15742]]

that allows FERC to extend the applicable deadline.
  This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to 
meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in 
supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source 
for this part of the Midwest.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record 
following the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2872

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 
                   COMMISSION PROJECT.

       Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise 
     apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
     numbered 11214, the Commission may, at the request of the 
     licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in 
     accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public 
     interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
     procedures under that section--
       (1) reinstate the license for the construction of the 
     project as of the effective date of the surrender of the 
     license; and
       (2) extend the time period during which the licensee is 
     required to commence the construction of the project for 3 
     consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years 
     after the date of issuance of the license.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dayton, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 2875. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to increase the maximum levels of guaranteed single-employer 
plan benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduced an extremely important 
bill, the Pension Guarantee Improvement Act of 2002. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in pressing for its swift consideration and 
passage.
  For over a quarter of a century, the federal government has run an 
insurance system for private ``defined benefit'' pension plans. The 
agency that administers this system, the Pension Benefit Guarantee 
Corporation, PBGC, has worked hard to live up to its statutory 
obligations to protect benefits in the event that the plan sponsor goes 
bankrupt and is forced to terminate the plan.
  In my home state of Minnesota, I have worked closely with former LTV 
workers whose plans have been taken over to facilitate a dialogue with 
the PBGC. I am very grateful to Joe Grant, Steven Kandarian, Michael 
Rae and all the other PBGC staff who have provided invaluable 
assistance to my office and my constituents over the past few moths. I 
have been greatly impressed with their responsiveness, dedication and 
hard work.
  Yet the experiences of the LTV workers in Minnesota--and other 
manufacturing workers around the country I suspect--have exposed some 
serious though limited gaps in the guarantees that PBGC is permitted to 
provide.
  These guarantees are predicated on a certain set of assumptions 
regarding retirement that unfortunately do not hold true for all 
workers. For example, the vast majority of all workers that retire at 
age 65 having earned a defined benefit pension are guaranteed their 
full earned pension, regardless of whether or not the sponsoring 
company is still in business. In most white-collar jobs this 
arrangement works well; the nature of the employment permits most 
employees to continue in their jobs through age 65 and the terms of 
their private pension plans are generally set up for retirement at that 
age.
  In labor-intensive industries such as steel and other manufacturing 
sectors, however,workers have never been expected to endure as many 
years of active employment as their white-collar counterparts. Again, 
the expectations of workers as they enter these industries are well-
known. Employees are generally promised a secure retirement in exchange 
for their 25-30 years of service and they work for decades under the 
assumption that that promise will be kept.
  What has happened to many of the former LTV employees in Minnesota is 
their hard-earned benefits have been unexpectedly--and in a few cases, 
dramatically--reduced as a result of their company being forced into 
bankruptcy. This is because their plan was taken over by the PBGC which 
is not allowed to provide as comprehensive a guarantee to these workers 
as they can offer to their white-collar counterparts.
  The shorter working lives of steelworkers and others who labor in our 
rapidly-shrinking manufacturing sector effectively means that they will 
often not receive the full measure of their earned benefit if their 
company happens to go bankrupt before they reach age 65. The reductions 
in benefits that many of these workers suffer occur regardless of how 
hard they worked, how productive an employee they were--anything that 
they have any control over.
  These losses are inflicted on these workers because they labored in 
the manufacturing sector and because they happened to be employed by a 
company that was forced into bankruptcy. There is no other reason. 
Given that we insure defined benefit plans, I see no reason why we 
should have one standard of coverage for white-collar workers and 
another, lesser guarantee for manufacturing workers. If a worker has 
fully earned the pension that they were originally promised I see no 
reason why we should pull the rug out from under them just because 
their company happens to go under.
  Mr. President, we must strengthen the guarantees that the PBGC is 
required to provide in order to protect this small subset of all 
workers from unfair and unreasonable cuts in their earned benefits--
cuts that all too often come at a tremendously difficult time in their 
lives when health or geographic location may prevent them from finding 
alternative employment. In my state of Minnesota, I saw first-hand how 
LTV workers in their 50s, who had qualified for a full retirement 
benefit under the terms of their original plan, had to struggle to 
survive the loss of their health insurance, and some substantial 
reduction in their earned benefits as a result of PBGC takeover of 
their plan.
  This legislation is designed to provide some relief to those workers 
who often suffer unexpected benefit reductions as a result of a PBGC 
takeover. Let me be quite clear that the affected workers represent 
only a very small fraction of all those covered by PBGC. The CBO has 
issued a preliminary score for this proposal that puts its cost at $110 
million over the next ten years. Colleagues, this very modest proposal 
would allow PBGC to provide guarantees to these workers that more 
closely reflect what they earned under the terms of the plan that they 
had signed onto. It would help bring the level of guarantees provided 
to manufacturing-sector workers closer to that provided to their white-
collar counterparts.
  This bill involves three changes to the rules that determine how much 
of an earned benefit is guaranteed by the PBGC.
  First, it would increase the maximum benefit guarantee level for 
single employer plans by adjusting an indexed formula that would boost 
the monthly maximum payable for retired workers of all ages by some 13 
percent. This would translate into an increase of approximately $150-
$200/month for retirees over the age of 50 whose benefits are often 
reduced by the current maximum payable limitation.
  Second, this bill directs the PBGC to cover supplemental benefits 
such as Social Security ``bridge'' payments as basic pension benefits. 
Again, this benefit is often earned by workers in steel and other 
labor-intensive industries and is specially provided to tide them over 
until they become eligible for Social Security.
  Finally, this proposal would index the $20/year option on the 5-yr 
phase-in rule for recent benefit increases--which would put it at $95 
using the same 4.773 Social Security index multiplier as is used to 
calculate the maximum payable. The current $20/year figure was part of 
the original 1975 ERISA statute

[[Page 15743]]

and was intended to represent normal benefit increase. It has become 
essentially meaningless because it has never been increased. This would 
allow workers who received a ``normal'' benefit increase within the 
last 5 years to receive the entire raise instead of a percentage of it.
  Mr. President, defined benefits plans and the manufacturing sector 
have both suffered serious declines in recent years. At the very least 
we owe it to these hard-working men and women to improve their access 
to meaningful pension guarantees should their company be forced out of 
business. This bill would make a huge difference to people who need it 
the most--and do so without in any way threatening the solvency of the 
PBGC. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest yet 
meaningful relief for these workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2876. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to promote secure and healthy families under the temporary 
assistance to needy families program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President since the 1996 welfare reform, our nation 
has experienced one of the longest economic booms in history, but 
families are still struggling to make ends meet, and children are still 
living in poverty.
  Now, with the recession, working families are facing even more 
barriers on the path toward self-sufficiency, and states are struggling 
to maintain their existing programs. In my own state of Washington, 
we've seen the results of the recession: good jobs are more difficult 
to find, welfare rolls are up, and state budget cuts have taken a chunk 
out of childcare and other critical supports for our most disadvantaged 
families. It is with this in mind that I introduce Senate bill S. 2876, 
the Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2002.
  The Secure and Healthy Families Act will help build on the successes 
of welfare reform. This bill gives us an important opportunity to 
reaffirm that we value America's families and that we will protect our 
children. This bill takes what we know from our own experiences as 
parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and what research has proven 
to be effective to help us move toward the goal of building healthy 
families. It does not impose inflexible top-down strategies. Instead, 
it allows states to support work and engage families on assistance. It 
will help build secure and healthy families in a number of ways.
  First, this legislation will create the Promoting Healthy Families 
Fund that enables the Secretary of HHS to fund state activities to 
promote and support secure families. For example, the fund would 
support state and local efforts to provide family counseling, income 
enhancement programs for working poor families--like the successful 
Minnesota Family Investment Program, or teen pregnancy prevention 
programs that help young people avoid the poverty that often comes with 
these unplanned pregnancies.
  Second, this act will ensure states recognize that secure and healthy 
families come in all shapes and sizes. The federal government has long 
led the way in opposing discrimination, and this bill will continue 
that critical role.
  Next, this bill puts in place several provisions to help the parents 
build a better future for themselves and their children. The bill 
encourages teen parents to remain in school by not counting the time 
that they are in school against their five-year lifetime limit. Under 
this legislation, a teen mother would also be given the chance to get 
on her feet, get settled in school, and find a safe place for her and 
her baby to live without losing assistance.
  Mr. President, in families where children are chronically ill or 
disabled, parents are confronted with special challenges. Most cannot 
find appropriate affordable care, and cannot leave sick and vulnerable 
children alone. They run from the doctor's office and emergency rooms--
trying to keep their jobs while dealing with the sudden and frequent 
life-threatening health problems that these children face. This bill 
would offer support for these families by recognizing that full time 
care of a chronically sick or disabled child is hard work, and by 
giving parents the opportunity to meet their children's special needs.
  The bill also strengthens support for those families who are victims 
of domestic or sexual violence. We know that as many as 70 percent of 
welfare recipients are or have been victims of domestic violence. This 
bills sends a clear message to states that they must protect their 
vulnerable families in several ways including: having comprehensive 
standards and procedures to address domestic and sexual violence, 
training caseworkers so that they are sensitive to the unique needs of 
victims of domestic violence, and informing survivors of domestic and 
family violence of the existing protections to ensure their privacy and 
safety.
  Most states are approaching domestic violence prevention and 
assistance in interesting and innovative ways. The bill will provide 
funding for a national study of best practices on the ways states are 
addressing domestic violence. In addition, states will be able to 
continue to provide services to domestic and family violence survivors 
without worrying about federal exemption caps. The bill will allow 
these survivors to receive the services they need when they are making 
the transition out of dangerous situations to safe and successful 
lives.
  Finally, the bill would support relatives who take in underprivileged 
children. A growing number of children, 2.16 million in 2000, are being 
cared for solely by grandparents and other relatives. Although some of 
these children are involved with the child welfare system, many more of 
these children are able to remain outside of the system because their 
relatives are able to care for them.
  Last week a young man named Eustaquito Beltran came to my office to 
talk to me about the importance of supporting foster children. He told 
me that he had lived in more than one hundred homes since he was a 
toddler. The results for children like him are heartbreaking. Fewer 
than half graduate from high school, and many become homeless after 
they turn 18.
  Prior to being abandoned by or taken away from their parents, most of 
these children live in poverty with families devastated by substance 
abuse, mental health disorders, poor education, unemployment, violence, 
lack of parenting skills, and involvement with the criminal justice 
system. A 1990 study found that the incidence of emotional, behavioral, 
and developmental problems among children in foster care was three to 
six times greater than the incidence of these problems among children 
not in care.
  If care by a relative can help children like Eustaquito avoid the 
foster care system, then we should be grateful for the assistance that 
relative is offering. Instead, relatives who care for children with 
support form TANF are often trapped in a Catch-22. If a grandmother 
takes in her grandchild, but needs support herself and receives TANF 
assistance, federal time limits and work requirements apply. It doesn't 
make sense to require this grandmother, who may have worked for years 
and finally reached retirement, to return to work in order to help her 
grandchild stay out of the foster care system.
  My bill would exempt kinship care families from federal time limits 
and work requirements to help ensure ongoing support for these 
children. This will allow relative caregivers to provide the additional 
supervision and care that children who have been abused and neglected 
often need.
  Mr. President, the strength of our nation lies in how we care for our 
most vulnerable. Coming together to support victims of domestic 
violence, children abandoned by their parents, and teen mothers can 
make it clear that welfare reform is about helping all Americans 
succeed, not about punishing the needy.
  The Senate must focus our crucial federal welfare dollars on programs 
and practices that create a bridge to self-sufficiency and productivity 
while keeping families secure and healthy. I

[[Page 15744]]

am committed to strengthening the safety net our families depend on so 
that parents have the skills they need to find work and succeed once 
they are in the workplace. This bill will ensure that children grow up 
in secure and healthy families. It is a critical step in our work to 
leave no child behind.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2877. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
that stock options of public companies are granted to rank and file 
employees as well as officers and directors, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of stock 
option reforms, and propose legislation that will make stock options, a 
powerful tool in the democratization of capitalism, even more effective 
as an incentive to spur innovation and create wealth.
  The waves of corporate abuse that our economy has suffered over the 
past ten months have been devastating to so many employees, 
shareholders, and families across America. The investments that people 
have counted upon to safeguard their retirement, send their children to 
college, buy a home, start a business-trillions of dollars have gone up 
in smoke, turned to ash while, for a few executives, those misfortunes 
turned to cash.
  That's maddening, as a result, the most productive economy in the 
world-in the history of the world-has been scarred. The American 
corporation, a great institution of democratic capitalism in which the 
public owns the company, has been stained. Potentially empowering 
innovations that enable individual investment, like the 401-k account, 
have been skewered.
  Today, I want to talk about another fundamentally decent idea that 
has been dragged into the quicksand of corporate corruption: stock 
options. We've discovered over the last ten months that too many 
companies and executives have been misusing and abusing them. In far 
too many cases, options have been turned into mere feed in the 
corporate trough by the greed of corporate executives.
  Stock options are a hammer. They can be used well or used poorly. 
We've seen corporate executives use this hammer to weaken the 
foundations of their companies, build rickety and top-heavy structures 
ready to collapse, and build themselves nice, secure shelters from the 
damage. That's unconscionable.
  The bill I propose today will correct this abuse by ensuring that the 
tool of stock options is put in the hands of more and more employees so 
it can be used as it was initially intended-to construct wealth, to 
build fortunes, to strengthen companies, and to incentivize the long-
term soundness and stability of a company.
  The way to fix this problem is not, as some have suggested, to 
require stock option expensing at the time an option is granted. That 
would, in fact, make the problem worse. It would disincentive the 
dissemination of options in the first place-and in the end, those at 
the top of the corporate food chain will still take care of themselves. 
No, the way to fix this problem is to ensure that stock options are 
more broadly shared by more and more employees of American 
corporations-that they truly are the democratizing tool that they can 
be.
  Our challenge is to fix the flaws that have been exposed without 
hurting stock options themselves. In the name of addressing this 
serious crisis in corporate accountability, let's not make the mistake 
of pushing through unwise reforms that threaten to further confuse 
investors and endanger the engines of entrepreneurship that make 
America's economy, for all its faults and flaws, the envy of history 
and of the world. It would be a terrible shame if we threw out the 
stock options baby with the corporate corruption bathwater.
  That's the spirit of my legislation: to mend, not end, stock option 
distribution.
  My legislation focuses on three critical reform issues regarding 
stock options, distribution, shareholder approval, and disposition by 
senior executives. I believe that my proposed reforms will ensure that 
stock options serve their highest purpose: that we give shareholders 
more control to ensure that stock options are issued consistent with 
their interests, while we do away with the perverse incentive for 
senior executives to cash in and bail out of their companies.
  The bill does not address the elephant in the room-the issue of 
whether or not companies should be required to account for stock 
options. That is because I remain firmly convinced that would fail to 
address the fundamental problems we face-and would, in fact, create new 
problems with which we will have to grapple.
  If the Congress were to require expensing of stock options, we can be 
sure that the fat cats would still get their milk. Top corporate 
executives would still take care of themselves. But the middle-income 
employees, who represent the vast majority of Americans who benefit 
from stock options, would have no option but to accept no options.
  Requiring the expensing of options will not give shareholders a 
greater say in approving stock option plans or ensuring that they are 
focused on effective incentives for growth. The reforms I propose today 
will. And requiring the expensing of options will not address the 
incentives that executives may have to manipulate earnings immediately 
prior to selling shares acquired through a stock option plan. The 
reforms I propose today will.
  The reform issues addressed in my bill are ones that are well suited 
for Congress because they are policy matters, not accounting rules.
  I have little doubt that FASB will again take up the stock option 
accounting issue. When it does, I think it will find, again, that 
expensing options at the time they are granted is not possible. This is 
the unsung issue with stock option accounting.
  There is no doubt that stock options are a form of compensation, but 
this happens when they are exercised, not when they are granted. 
Options that go ``underwater'', when the stock price drops, never 
become compensation and the options are worthless. We only know if 
options are compensation when they are exercised and only then do we 
know how much compensation has been received.
  This is the issue I have raised about expensing, not whether they are 
compensation, but when they become compensation and when the amount of 
the compensation can be measured. I said in 1994 and I say it again 
today, I do not believe at the time an option is granted that we know 
if or how much it is worth as compensation.
  I doubt if the champions of expensing can point to a single case 
where a company's disclosure of stock option costs at grant, now 
included in footnotes to the company's P&L statement, proved to be 
accurate. The Enron footnotes estimated stock option costs that proved 
to wildly inflated and inaccurate because they did not anticipate the 
decline in Enron's stock price. In this bear market, I would think that 
every company's footnote estimates have proven to be wildly inflated 
and inaccurate.
  I doubt if the champions of expensing can cite a single stock broker 
or analyst who uses the Black-Scholes estimating method to pick stocks.
  I do not believe that these champions would be willing to put their 
own money behind a stock based on the Black-Scholes estimates. Anyone 
who finds a reliable way to estimate the price of a stock three to ten 
years in the future is bound to be rich, and will certainly win the 
Nobel Prize for Economics.
  These are issues that FASB will review and it is not an appropriate 
subject for this or any other legislation. This legislation focuses on 
reforms that address abuses. Expensing of stock options, whatever its 
merits as an accounting standard, do not address any of the key reform 
issues addressed in this legislation. Expensing is quite irrelevant to 
these reforms; it's a sideshow and a diversion. It's a false surrogate 
for reform.
  I have long championed broad-based stock option plans and I believe 
they

[[Page 15745]]

are a great spur to productivity and competitiveness. A study by two 
Rutgers University professors found that over a three-year post-plan 
period, companies that grant options to most or all employees show a 17 
percent improvement in productivity over what would have been expected 
had they not set up such a plan. The return on assets of these 
companies went up 2.3 percent per year over what would have been 
expected, while their stock performance is either better or about the 
same than comparable companies, depending on how performance is 
measured. These were companies that granted options broadly, which 
unfortunately is still not the norm.
  On June 29, 1993, I introduced the ``Equity Expansion Act,'' S. 1175, 
to provide a tax incentive in favor broad-based stock option plans, 
options I referred to as ``performance'' stock options. The incentives 
were available only for options where ``immediately after the grant of 
the option, employees who are not highly compensated employees hold * * 
* share options which permit the acquisition of at least 50 percent of 
all shares which may be acquired * * *:
  In my statement about this bill I stated that the bill could ``spur 
the competitiveness and profitability of American companies by 
expanding the number of employees in all industries who will have the 
opportunity to receive part of their remuneration in the form of stock 
options.'' I argued that that bill was appealing because it ``America's 
best companies learned long ago that the key to success in the world's 
toughest markets is a dedicated work force that shares the common goals 
for their company.'' The bill required shareholders to approve the 
plans and the employees were required to hold the shares for at least 
two years. I noted that ``much of the criticism of stock options 
revolves around horror stories about a small number of extravagantly 
compensated executives.''
  My 1993 bill provided incentives for broad-based plans. It proposed a 
special capital gains incentive for the stock option shares. At the 
time, there was no capital gains preference; it had been repealed in 
1986. Since then, of course, the capital gains preference has been 
restored. At that time, and at all times since then, companies can 
deduct the ``spread'' on an option at the time the option is exercised. 
The ``spread'' is the difference between the grant price and the market 
price, the discount.
  There is a trend in favor of broad-based stock option plans. The 
National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that 7-10 million 
employees now hold stock options. The number of people who hold options 
has grown dramatically since 1992, when only about one million people 
held options. Stock options are a way to provide productivity 
incentives to many middle-class employees.
  Despite the trend in favor of broad-based stock option plans, I am 
not satisfied with the status quo. In companies with broad-based plans, 
NCOE finds that 34 percent of the options go to senior management, the 
average grant value for senior executives was more than $500,000 
compared to only about $8,000 for hourly employees and $35,000 for 
technical employees. In non-broad-based plans, of course, the 
distribution is even more skewed to senior management. The NCOE 
estimates that ``While the growth of broad-based options has been an 
important economic trend, our data nonetheless indicate that even in 
plans that do share options widely, executives still get an average of 
65 percent to 70 percent of the total options granted.''
  Similarly, estimates by the National Association Stock Plan 
Professionals finds in a 2000 survey that 26 percent of the plans only 
grant options to senior and middle management, and 43 percent to all 
employees. For high tech companies, the percentage of these top-heavy 
plans is only 4 percent, and 73 percent of the plans provide options to 
all of the employees. For non-high tech companies, the percentage of 
these top-heavy plans is 36 percent, and 29 percent of the plans 
provide options to all of the employees. So the prevalence of top-heavy 
plans seems to be concentrated in the non-high tech companies.
  If options are justified as incentives for company performance and as 
a way of giving employees a stake in the company performance, which I 
believe they are, then this is not fair and not appropriate. This is 
why we need to go beyond enacting an incentive in favor of broad-based 
plans. As the NCOE has stated, ``Options for ordinary employees can 
work out to a new car, college tuition, a down payment on a house, a 
great vacation, and maybe even a more secure retirement. Options for 
executives can amount to enough money to fund a small nation. The 
option packages some executives have received would amount to tens of 
thousands of dollars per employee in their company.'' This imbalance is 
not good public policy.
  In addition, if it turns out that companies are forced to expense 
their options at the time of grant, many of us fear that the first 
options that would be cut are those for middle-income and rank and file 
employees. We fear that the senior executives and their allies on the 
Board would take care of themselves, and drop or not enact broad-based 
plans. The legislation I propose here would help to ensure that this 
will not happen.
  The bill I introduce today takes a direct and forceful approach and 
provides that this tax deduction is limited to the spread on options 
that are granted on a broad-basis to the employees of the firm. The 
intent and thrust of the bill is the same as the one I introduced in 
1993, and the definitions are the same. The approach is more direct and 
forceful.
  The bill, called the ``Rank and File Stock Option Act'', states that 
the ordinary and necessary business expense deduction attributed to the 
spread on the exercise of stock options (deducting the ``spread'' 
between the strike and exercise price) is limited on a pro rata basis 
to the extent stock option grants for the taxpayer are not broad-based. 
So, when the three-year average of the stock option grants is broad-
based, as defined in the bill, there is no limitation on the deduction. 
In terms of a pro-rata reduction, the deduction would be limited by the 
same percentage to which the percentage of highly compensated employees 
options exceeded the broad-based standard.
  This test goes to the number of options granted, not the exercise 
price or any other weighting or valuation. No deduction is allowed if 
the options granted to senior management are different in form and 
superior to those granted to rank and file employees, which will help 
ensure that there are no efforts to evade the purpose of this 
legislation.
  The stock option grants are deemed to be broad-based when, 
immediately after the grant of the options, employees who are not 
highly compensated employees hold share options that permit the 
acquisition of at least 50 percent of all shares that may be acquired 
pursuant to all stock options outstanding (whether or not exercisable) 
as of such time. The bill does not require that stock option grants be 
made to literally every employee, but as a practical matter such grants 
to every employee may be necessary to meet the test. Requiring that all 
employees receive some options involves complex issues about part-time 
employees and new employees. The 50 percent test is tough enough to 
ensure that the options are broad-based.
  The definition of a ``highly compensated employee'' includes all 
employees who earn $90,000 or more and are among the firm's top 20 
percent highest paid employees. This is similar to the current test 
applied to prevent ``discrimination'' in 401(k) plans.
  In addition, under the legislation no deduction is allowed if more 
than 5 percent of the total number of options is granted to any one 
individual. And no deduction is allowed if more than 15 percent of the 
stock option grants go to the top 10 officers and directors of the 
firm.
  The legislation applies only to public companies. The Treasury 
Department shall issue regulations to implement this provision. The 
effective date is for stock grants after December 31 of this year. 
During the remainder of the year,

[[Page 15746]]

corporations granting stock options must disclose grants in filings to 
the SEC within 3 days.
  To be clear, the legislation does not prevent a company from adopting 
a stock option plan that does not meet the terms of this legislation. 
It simply denies them a tax deduction on the spread when they do so. 
This should ensure that broad-based stock option plans become the norm 
and that senior executives do not hoard the options for themselves to 
the detriment of their companies and shareholders.
  There is ample precedent for the limitation on deductions. Deductions 
are only permitted for ``ordinary and necessary'' business expenses and 
Congress has frequently intervened to define what this means. There is 
no right for corporations, or any other taxpayer, to avoid taxes on any 
and all expenses that they choose to incur.
  There is also ample precedent for limiting the deduction for non-
broad based stock option plans. We have similar limitations in the law 
defining contributions for 401(k) plans, the compensation in closely 
held corporations is regulated to prevent abuse, and we have limits on 
excessive compensation paid to executives of non-profit entitles.
  To make sure that an employer's 401(k) plan does not unfairly favor 
its higher-paid workers, there are also rules governing highly-
compensated employees or HCEs. The term highly-compensated employees 
may include a person who was a 5 percent owner at any time during the 
current or prior year or an employee who earned more than $90,000. An 
employee whose salary ranked in the top 20 percent of payroll for the 
prior year might also be considered an HCE. Generally, to make sure a 
401(k) plan is compliant, each year the plan must pass a non-
discrimination test.
  These tests generally compare the amounts contributed by and on 
behalf of highly compensated employees to those contributed by and on 
behalf of the non-highly compensated employees. As long as the 
difference between the percentages of these two groups is within the 
Internal Revenue Code's guidelines, the plan retains its tax-qualified 
status. If the plan does not pass the tests, the plan must take 
corrective action or lose its tax-favored status.
  With regard to closely held corporations, the deduction for ordinary 
and necessary expenses is limited to ``reasonable'' compensation for 
services performed by the shareholders/employees. A corporation paying 
excessive compensation to a shareholder-employee is required to 
reclassify the excess as a dividend (provided there are adequate 
corporate earnings and profits). This has unfavorable tax consequences, 
since dividends are not deductible. In addition to an employee's 
salary, employer-provided benefits should be considered in determining 
whether an employee's compensation is reasonable. This includes pension 
and welfare benefits, as well as fringe benefits such as the use of a 
company car.
  Finally, the 1993 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights enacted Section 4958 
which imposes an excise tax on transactions that provide excessive 
economic benefits to top executives of non-profit charitable groups. 
The Internal Revenue Service finalized regulations implementing this 
law on January 10, 2001. The regulations define what constitutes 
excessive compensation and benefits.
  The limitation on the deduction proposed in my legislation serves a 
constructive public policy purpose. The only purpose of the limitation 
on deduction we find in S. 1940, the lead bill on expensing of stock 
options, is to coerce companies into expensing their options at grant. 
If the companies do not expense options at grant, as S. 1940 prefers 
that they do despite FASB's current rule that this is not necessary, 
then they lose their tax deduction. If this legislation is effective, 
and companies are forced to expense their options at grant, the likely 
result is that fewer options will be granted, especially to rank and 
file employees, although not for top executives. My legislation is 
directed at protecting the stock options of rank and file employees.
  In addition to ensuring that stock options are broad-based and 
performance oriented and not just allocated to the top executives, we 
need to make sure that shareholders are involved in the decision to 
implement these stock option plans.
  The legislation provides that not later than one year after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall finalize rules pursuant 
to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that shareholder 
approval is required for stock option plans and grants, stock purchase 
plans, and other arrangements by public companies by which any person 
may acquire an equity interest in the company in exchange for 
consideration that is less than the fair market value of the equity 
interest at the time of the exchange.
  This approval would apply to any stock option plan, not just a stock 
option plan that meets the terms for a broad-based plan.
  In securing this approval, prior to submission of such plans to 
shareholders for approval, the company must give its shareholders 
detailed information about the stock option plans and grants, including 
(a) the economic rationale and interest of shareholders in the plan or 
grant; (b) a detailed description of the anticipated distribution of 
the plan or grant among directors, officers, and employees and the 
rationale of such distribution; (c) the total number of options 
reserved or intended for grants to each director and officer, and to 
different classes of employees; (d) the maximum potential future 
earnings per share dilution of investors' shareholdings assuming the 
exercise of all in-the-money options with no adjustment for the use of 
the Treasury stock method, as stock price varies; (e) the terms under 
which stock option grants may be cancelled or reissued; and (f) the 
number, weighted average exercise prices, and vesting schedule of all 
options previously approved or outstanding.
  The Commission shall ensure that all disclosures required by this 
Section shall increase the reliability and accuracy of information 
provided to shareholders and investors.
  Such shareholder approval requirement may exempt stock option grants 
to individual employees under terms and conditions specified by the 
Commission. Such exemptions shall be available only where the grant is 
(1) made to an individual who is not a director or officer of the 
company at the time the grant is approved; (2) necessary, based on 
business judgment; (3) represents a de minimis potential dilution of 
future earnings per share of investors' shareholdings; and (4) made on 
terms disclosed to shareholders of the grant that is made in the next 
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Such approval requirement may exempt stock option plans and grants of 
any registrant that qualifies as a small business issuer under 
applicable securities laws and regulations or to such additional small 
issuers as the Commission determines would be unduly burdened by such 
requirements as compared to the benefit to shareholders. The Commission 
is authorized to phase in the applicability of this rule both as to the 
applicability and to its effective date so that it can determine the 
size of issuer to which this rule will apply and the extent to which 
the rule should apply to plans that exclude officers and directors.
  The bill also focuses on the issue of the incentives stock options 
give to executives as they manage a company. Questions have been raised 
about whether the options are partly responsible for the deception and 
fraud that has occurred at Enron and other companies. The charge is 
that the options gave these executives an irresistible rationale to 
deceive shareholders and investors to pump up the stock price and 
increase the value of the options. Charges have been made that these 
manipulations were timed to occur immediately before options were 
exercised and shares were sold.
  While there is intuitive appeal to this argument, it is difficult to 
establish the role of stock options in these acts of deceptions, fraud 
and manipulation. The concerns are sufficient, however,

[[Page 15747]]

that we need to turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
evaluate them and determine what restrictions might be imposed on the 
sale of stock acquired through stock options. The bill directs the SEC 
to conduct an analysis and make regulatory and legislative 
recommendations on the need for new stock holding period requirements 
for senior executives. The Commission is directed to make 
recommendations regarding minimum holding periods after exercise of 
options to purchase stock and maximum percentage of stock purchased 
through options that may be sold. These recommendations would include 
transactions involving sales to company, sales on public markets, and 
derivative sales.
  We need the expertise of the Commission on this complicated issue. It 
would probably not be reasonable to bar executives from selling any 
shares during their employment with the firm. Executives may need the 
proceeds of these sales to finance the college education of their 
children and many other completely legitimate reasons. The Commission 
is in a better position to evaluate the incentives, the opportunities 
for fraud, and other key factual and policy questions.
  Stock options have been under attack. We need to focus on how to 
prevent abuse of stock options, not just abandon these incentives. They 
are a uniquely American idea, they provide a way to increase 
productivity and broaden the winner's circle. As with any economic 
incentive, they can be abused and we need to focus on these abuses. By 
reforming stock options, we can ensure that these incentives will be 
even more effective.
  I believe that the reforms I have proposed will address the abuses we 
have seen. It is unfortunate that the accounting for stock options has 
become a surrogate for any and all issues regarding stock options. I 
continue to believe that accounting for stock options as an expense at 
the time they are granted is not appropriate or possible. But 
irrespective of the outcome of this debate, the reforms I have proposed 
here address the real issues, the real abuses, and the real 
opportunities to ensure that stock options continue to provide a 
powerful incentive in favor of economic growth and democratic 
capitalism.
  I ask unanimous consent than the following outline of the legislation 
and the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Rank and File Stock Option Act

       Legislation focuses on three critical reform issues 
     regarding stock options--distribution, shareholder approval, 
     and disposition by senior executives.
       Requiring expensing of stock options at the time they are 
     granted is likely to discourage the use of stock options, but 
     it will not prevent senior executives from hoarding options--
     it will probably encourage it. It will not give shareholders 
     a greater say in approving stock option plans and ensuring 
     that they are focused on effective incentives for growth. And 
     expensing will not address the incentives that executives may 
     have to manipulate earnings immediately prior to selling 
     shares acquired through a stock option plan.
       A. Broad-based Options. This provision of the bill is based 
     on the structure and elements of a bill introduced by Senator 
     Lieberman on June 29, 1993, the ``Equity Expansion Act,'' S. 
     1175.
       This bill limits the ordinary and necessary business 
     expense deduction attributed to the spread on the exercise of 
     stock options to the extent stock option grants for the 
     taxpayer are not broad-based.
       The stock option grants are deemed to be broad-based when, 
     immediately after the grant of the options, employees who are 
     not highly compensated employees hold share options that 
     permit the acquisition of at least 50 percent of all shares 
     that may be acquired pursuant to all stock options 
     outstanding (whether or not exercisable) as of such time. The 
     bill does not require that stock option grants be made to 
     literally every employee, but as a practical matter such 
     grants to every employee may be necessary to meet the test. 
     Requiring that all employees receive some options involves 
     complex issues about part-time employees and new employees. 
     The 50% test is tough enough to ensure that the options are 
     broad-based.
       The definition of a highly compensated employee includes 
     all employees who earn $90,000 or more and are among the 
     firm's top 20 percent highest paid employees. This is similar 
     to the current test applied to prevent ``discrimination'' in 
     401K plans.
       B. Shareholder Approval. The bill provides that not later 
     than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall finalize rules pursuant to the Securities 
     and Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that shareholder approval 
     is required for stock option plans and grants, stock purchase 
     plans, and other arrangements by public companies by which 
     any person may acquire an equity interest in the company in 
     exchange for consideration that is less than the fair market 
     value of the equity interest at the time of the exchange.
       C. Holding Period For Executives. Finally, the bill 
     requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct an 
     analysis and make regulatory and legislative recommendations 
     on the need for new stock holding period requirements for 
     senior executives to reduce incentives for earnings 
     manipulations.

                                S. 2877

       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 ``Rank and File Stock Option 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR STOCK OPTION PLANS 
                   DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to deduction for trade and business 
     expenses) is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as 
     subsection (q) and by inserting after subsection (o) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(p) Deductibility of Stock Options Not Widely Available 
     to All Employees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) an applicable taxpayer grants stock options during 
     any taxable year, and
       ``(B) the taxpayer fails to meet the overall concentration 
     test of paragraph (2) or the individual concentration tests 
     of paragraph (3) for such taxable year with respect to the 
     granting of such options,
     then the deduction allowable to such taxpayer for any taxable 
     year in which any such option is exercised shall be limited 
     as provided in this subsection.
       ``(2) Overall concentration test.--If the total number of 
     shares which may be acquired pursuant to options granted to 
     applicable highly compensated employees by an applicable 
     taxpayer during a taxable year exceeds 50 percent of the 
     aggregate share amount, then the deduction allowable under 
     this chapter with respect to the exercise of any option 
     granted by the applicable taxpayer during such taxable year 
     to any employee shall be reduced by the product of--
       ``(A) the amount of such deduction computed without regard 
     to this subsection, and
       ``(B) a percentage equal to the number of percentage points 
     (including any fraction thereof) by which such total number 
     exceeds 50 percent.
       ``(3) Individual concentration tests.--
       ``(A) Options granted to single employee.--If the total 
     number of shares which may be acquired pursuant to options 
     granted to any applicable highly compensated employee by an 
     applicable taxpayer during a taxable year exceeds 5 percent 
     of the aggregate share amount, then no deduction shall be 
     allowable under this chapter with respect to the exercise of 
     any options granted by the applicable taxpayer to such 
     employee during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Options granted to top employees.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the total number of shares which may 
     be acquired pursuant to options granted to employees who are 
     members of the top group by an applicable taxpayer during a 
     taxable year exceeds 15 percent of the aggregate share 
     amount, then no deduction shall be allowable under this 
     chapter with respect to the exercise of any options granted 
     by the applicable taxpayer to such employees during such 
     taxable year.
       ``(ii) Top group.--For purposes of this subparagraph, an 
     employee shall be treated as a member of the top group if the 
     employee is a covered employee (within the meaning of section 
     162(m)(3)).
       ``(C) Exception.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply 
     to any taxable year if the applicable taxpayer granted an 
     equal number of identical options to each employee without 
     regard to whether the employee was highly compensated or not.
       ``(4) Rules relating to tests.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Aggregate share amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--The aggregate share amount for any 
     taxable year is the total number of shares which may be 
     acquired pursuant to options granted to all employees by an 
     applicable taxpayer during the taxable year.
       ``(ii) Certain options disregarded.--Except as provided in 
     regulations, if the terms of any option granted to an 
     employee other than a highly compensated employee during any 
     taxable year are not substantially the same as, or more 
     favorable than, the terms of any option granted to any highly 
     compensated employee, then such option shall not be taken 
     into account in determining the aggregate share amount.

[[Page 15748]]

       ``(B) Options granted on different classes of stock.--
     Except as provided in regulations, this subsection shall be 
     applied separately with respect to each class of stock for 
     which options are granted.
       ``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Applicable taxpayer.--The term `applicable taxpayer' 
     means any taxpayer which is an issuer (as defined in section 
     3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 15 U.S.C. 78c)--
       ``(i) the securities of which are registered under section 
     12 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78l), or
       ``(ii) which--

       ``(I) is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) 
     of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or
       ``(II) will be required to file such reports at the end of 
     a fiscal year of the issuer in which a registration statement 
     filed by such issuer has become effective pursuant to the 
     Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), unless its 
     securities are registered under section 12 of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c) on or before the end of 
     such fiscal year.

       ``(B) Applicable highly compensated employee.--The term 
     `applicable highly compensated employee' means--
       ``(i) any highly compensated employee who is described in 
     subparagraph (B) of section 414(q)(1), and
       ``(ii) any director of the applicable taxpayer.
       ``(C) Incentive stock options not taken into account.--An 
     incentive stock option (as defined in section 422(b)) shall 
     not be taken into account for purposes of applying this 
     section.
       ``(D) Aggregation.--All corporations which are members of 
     an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated 
     return shall be treated as 1 taxpayer.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this subsection, including regulations to prevent the 
     avoidance of this subsection through the use of phantom 
     stock, restricted stock, or similar instruments.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.

     SEC. 3. SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL.

       (a) Rules Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission shall finalize rules pursuant to the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 to ensure that--
       (1) shareholder approval is required for stock option plans 
     and grants, stock purchase plans, and other arrangements by 
     public companies by which any person may acquire an equity 
     interest in the company in exchange for consideration that is 
     less than the fair market value of the equity interest at the 
     time of the exchange; and
       (2) prior to submission of such plans to shareholders for 
     approval, such shareholders are given detailed information 
     about the stock option plans and grants, including--
       (A) the economic rationale and interest of shareholders in 
     the plan or grant;
       (B) a detailed description of the anticipated distribution 
     of the plan or grant among directors, officers, and employees 
     and the rationale of such distribution;
       (C) the total number of options reserved or intended for 
     grants to each director and officer, and to different classes 
     of employees;
       (D) the maximum potential future earnings per share 
     dilution of investors' shareholdings, assuming the exercise 
     of all in-the-money options with no adjustment for the use of 
     the Treasury stock method, as stock price varies;
       (E) the terms under which stock option grants may be 
     canceled or reissued; and
       (F) the number, weighted average exercise prices, and 
     vesting schedule of all options previously approved or 
     outstanding.
       (b) Reliability and Accuracy.--The Commission shall ensure 
     that all disclosures required by this section shall increase 
     the reliability and accuracy of information provided to 
     shareholders and investors.
       (c) Exemption Authority.--Shareholder approval rules issued 
     in accordance with this section--
       (1) may exempt stock option grants to individual employees 
     under terms and conditions specified by the Commission, 
     except that such exemptions shall be available only in cases 
     in which the grant--
       (A) is made to an individual who is not a director or 
     officer of the company at the time the grant is approved;
       (B) is necessary, based on business judgment;
       (C) represents a de minimus potential dilution of future 
     earnings per share of investors' shareholdings; and
       (D) is made on terms disclosed to shareholders in the next 
     filing with the Commission; and
       (2) may exempt stock option plans and grants of any 
     registrant that qualifies as a small business issuer under 
     applicable securities laws and regulations, or to such 
     additional small issuers as the Commission determines would 
     be unduly burdened by such requirements as compared to the 
     benefit to shareholders, except that such exemption may be 
     phased in, both as to applicability and to its effective 
     date, so that the Commission may determine the size of issuer 
     to which such exemptions will apply and the extent to which 
     the rule should apply to plans that exclude officers and 
     directors.

     SEC. 4. HOLDING PERIOD FOR EXECUTIVES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall conduct an 
     analysis of, and make regulatory and legislative 
     recommendations on, the need for new stock holding period 
     requirements for senior executives, including--
       (1) recommendations to set minimum holding periods after 
     the exercise of options to purchase stock and to set a 
     maximum percentage of stock purchased through options that 
     may be sold; and
       (2) an analysis of sales to company, sales on public 
     markets, and derivative sales.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2878. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to ensure fair treatment and due process protections under the 
temporary assistance to needy families program, to facilitate enhanced 
data collection and reporting requirements under that program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2878

       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; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair 
     Treatment and Due Process Protection Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; references.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Provision of interpretation and translation services.
Sec. 102. Assisting families with limited English proficiency.

            TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS

Sec. 201. Sanctions and due process protections.

         TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 301. Data collection and reporting requirements.
Sec. 302. Enhancement of understanding of the reasons individuals leave 
              State TANF programs.
Sec. 303. Longitudinal studies of TANF applicants and recipients.
Sec. 304. Protection of individual privacy.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Effective date.
       (c) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the amendment or repeal shall be considered to be 
     made to a section or other provision of the Social Security 
     Act.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO TRANSLATION SERVICES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. PROVISION OF INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Provision of interpretation and translation 
     services.--A State to which a grant is made under section 
     403(a) for a fiscal year shall, with respect to the State 
     program funded under this part and all programs funded with 
     qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)), provide appropriate interpretation and 
     translation services to individuals who lack English 
     proficiency if the number or percentage of persons lacking 
     English proficiency meets the standards established under 
     section 272.4(b) of title 7 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph).''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and 
     translation services.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

[[Page 15749]]



     SEC. 102. ASSISTING FAMILIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISH 
                   PROFICIENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(E) Individuals with limited english proficiency.--In the 
     case of an adult recipient who lacks English language 
     proficiency, as defined by the State, the State shall--
       ``(i) advise the adult recipient of available programs or 
     activities in the community to address the recipient's 
     education needs;
       ``(ii) if the adult recipient elects to participate in such 
     a program or activity, allow the recipient to participate in 
     such a program or activity; and
       ``(iii) consider an adult recipient who participates in 
     such a program or activity on a satisfactory basis as being 
     engaged in work for purposes of determining monthly 
     participation rates under this section, except that the 
     State--

       ``(I) may elect to require additional hours of 
     participation or activity if necessary to ensure that the 
     recipient is participating in work-related activities for a 
     sufficient number of hours to count as being engaged in work 
     under this section; and
       ``(II) shall attempt to ensure that any additional hours of 
     participation or activity do not unreasonably interfere with 
     the education activity of the recipient.''.

       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by section 101(b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(16) Penalty for failure to provide interpretation and 
     translation services.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 407(c)(2)(E) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

            TITLE II--SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 201. SANCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as 
     amended by section 101(a), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(13) Sanction procedures.--
       ``(A) Pre-sanction review process.--Prior to the imposition 
     of a sanction against an individual or family receiving 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part or 
     under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for failure to comply 
     with program requirements, the State shall take the following 
     steps:
       ``(i) Provide or send notice to the individual or family, 
     and, if the recipient's native language is not English, 
     through a culturally competent translation, of the following 
     information:

       ``(I) The specific reason for the proposed sanction.
       ``(II) The amount of the proposed sanction.
       ``(III) The length of time during which the proposed 
     sanction would be in effect.
       ``(IV) The steps required to come into compliance or to 
     show good cause for noncompliance.
       ``(V) That the agency will provide assistance to the 
     individual in determining if good cause for noncompliance 
     exists, or in coming into compliance with program 
     requirements.
       ``(VI) That the individual may appeal the determination to 
     impose a sanction, and the steps that the individual must 
     take to pursue an appeal.

       ``(ii)(I) Ensure that, subject to clause (iii)--

       ``(aa) an individual other than the individual who 
     determined that a sanction be imposed shall review the 
     determination and have the authority to take the actions 
     described in subclause (II); and
       ``(bb) the individual or family against whom the sanction 
     is to be imposed shall be afforded the opportunity to meet 
     with the individual who, as provided for in item (aa), is 
     reviewing the determination with respect to the sanction.

       ``(II) An individual to which this subclause applies may--

       ``(aa) modify the determination to impose a sanction;
       ``(bb) determine that there was good cause for the 
     individual or family's failure to comply;
       ``(cc) recommend modifications to the individual's 
     individual responsibility or employment plan; and
       ``(dd) make such other determinations and take such other 
     actions as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

       ``(iii) The review required under clause (ii) shall include 
     consideration of the following:

       ``(I) To the extent applicable, whether barriers to 
     compliance exist, such as a physical or mental impairment, 
     including mental illness, substance abuse, mental 
     retardation, a learning disability, domestic or sexual 
     violence, limited proficiency in English, limited literacy, 
     homelessness, or the need to care for a child with a 
     disability or health condition, that contributed to the 
     noncompliance of the person.
       ``(II) Whether the individual or family's failure to comply 
     resulted from failure to receive or have access to services 
     previously identified as necessary in an individual 
     responsibility or employment plan.
       ``(III) Whether changes to the individual responsibility or 
     employment plan should be made in order for the individual to 
     comply with program requirements.
       ``(IV) Whether the individual or family has good cause for 
     any noncompliance.
       ``(V) Whether the State's sanction policies have been 
     applied properly.

       ``(B) Sanction follow-up requirements.--If a State imposes 
     a sanction on a family or individual for failing to comply 
     with program requirements, the State shall--
       ``(i) provide or send notice to the individual or family, 
     in language calculated to be understood by the individual or 
     family, and, if the individual's or family's native language 
     is not English, through a culturally competent translation, 
     of the reason for the sanction and the steps the individual 
     or family must take to end the sanction;
       ``(ii) resume the individual's or family's full assistance, 
     services, or benefits provided under this program (provided 
     that the individual or family is otherwise eligible for such 
     assistance, services, or benefits) once the individual who 
     failed to meet program requirements that led to the sanction 
     complies with program requirements for a reasonable period of 
     time, as determined by the State and subject to State 
     discretion to reduce such period;
       ``(iii) if assistance, services, or benefits have not 
     resumed, as of the period that begins on the date that is 60 
     days after the date on which the sanction was imposed, and 
     end on the date that is 120 days after such date, provide 
     notice to the individual or family, in language calculated to 
     be understood by the individual or family, of the steps the 
     individual or family must take to end the sanction, and of 
     the availability of assistance to come into compliance or 
     demonstrate good cause for noncompliance with program 
     requirements.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by section 102(b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(17) Penalty for failure to follow sanction procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to up to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.
       (c) State Plan Requirement To Describe How States Will 
     Notify Applicants and Recipients of Their Rights under the 
     Program and of Potential Benefits and Services Available 
     under the Program.--Section 402(a)(1)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by inserting ``, and will 
     notify applicants and recipients of assistance under the 
     program of the rights of individuals under all laws 
     applicable to program activities and of all potential 
     benefits and services available under the program'' before 
     the period.
       (d) Requirement To Provide Notice to Applicants and 
     Recipients of Rights and of Potential Program Benefits and 
     Services, and To Train Program Personnel To Respect Such 
     Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as 
     amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(14) Requirement to provide notice to applicants and 
     recipients of rights and of potential program benefits and 
     services, and to train program personnel to respect such 
     rights.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall--
       ``(A) notify each applicant for, and each recipient of, 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part or 
     under a program funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) of the rights of 
     applicants and recipients under all laws applicable to the 
     activities of such program (including the right to claim good 
     cause exceptions to program requirements), and shall provide 
     the notice--
       ``(i) to a recipient when the recipient first receives 
     assistance, benefits, or services under the program;
       ``(ii) to all such recipients on a semiannual basis; and
       ``(iii) orally and in writing, in the native language of 
     the recipient and at not higher than a 6th grade level, and, 
     if the recipient's native language is not English, through a 
     culturally competent translation; and
       ``(B) train all program personnel on a regular basis 
     regarding how to carry out the program consistent with such 
     rights.''.
       (2) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)), as amended 
     by subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(18) Penalty for failure to provide notice to applicants 
     and recipients of rights and of potential program benefits 
     and services, and to train program personnel to respect such 
     rights.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made

[[Page 15750]]

     under section 403 in a fiscal year has violated section 
     408(a)(14) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce 
     the grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for 
     the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 
     up to 5 percent of the State family assistance grant.
       ``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary 
     shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

         TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 301. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``(except for information relating to activities carried out 
     under section 403(a)(5))'' and inserting ``, and, in 
     complying with this requirement, shall ensure that such 
     information is reported in a manner that permits analysis of 
     the information by race, ethnicity or national origin, 
     primary language, gender, and educational level, including 
     analysis using a combination of these factors, and that all 
     data, including Federal, State, and local data (whether 
     collected by public or private local agencies or entities 
     that administer or operate the State program funded under 
     this part) is made public and easily accessible'';
       (B) by striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
       ``(v) The employment status, occupation (as defined by the 
     most current Federal Standard Occupational Classification 
     system, as of the date of the collection of the data), and 
     earnings of each employed adult in the family.'';
       (C) in clause (vii), by striking ``and educational level'' 
     and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language'';
       (D) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational level'' 
     and inserting ``, educational level, and primary language''; 
     and
       (E) in clause (xi), in the matter preceding subclause (I), 
     by inserting ``, including, to the extent such information is 
     available, information on the specific type of job, or 
     education or training program'' before the semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following:
       ``(B) Information regarding applicants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each eligible State shall collect on a 
     monthly basis, and report to the Secretary on a quarterly 
     basis, disaggregated case record information on the number of 
     individuals who apply for but do not receive assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part, the reason such 
     assistance were not provided, and the overall percentage of 
     applications for assistance that are approved compared to 
     those that are disapproved with respect to such month.
       ``(ii) Requirement.--In complying with clause (i), each 
     eligible State shall ensure that the information required 
     under that clause is reported in a manner that permits 
     analysis of such information by race, ethnicity or national 
     origin, primary language, gender, and educational level, 
     including analysis using a combination of these factors.''.

     SEC. 302. ENHANCEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS 
                   INDIVIDUALS LEAVE STATE TANF PROGRAMS.

       (a) Case Closure Reasons.--Section 411(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)), as amended by section 301, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by 
     such section 301) as subparagraph (D); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) (as added by such 
     section 301) the following:
       ``(C) Development of comprehensive list of case closure 
     reasons.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, in 
     consultation with States and individuals or organizations 
     with expertise related to the provision of assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part, a comprehensive 
     list of reasons why individuals leave State programs funded 
     under this part. In developing such list, the Secretary shall 
     consider the full range of reasons for case closures, 
     including the following:

       ``(I) Lack of access to specific programs or services, such 
     as child care, transportation, or English as a second 
     language classes for individuals with limited English 
     proficiency.
       ``(II) The medical or health problems of a recipient.
       ``(III) The family responsibilities of a recipient, such as 
     caring for a family member with a disability.
       ``(IV) Changes in eligibility status.
       ``(V) Other administrative reasons.

       ``(ii) Other requirements.--The list required under clause 
     (i) shall be developed with the goal of substantially 
     reducing the number of case closures under the State programs 
     funded under this part for which a reason is not known.
       ``(iii) Public comment.--The Secretary shall promulgate for 
     public comment regulations that--

       ``(I) list the case closure reasons developed under clause 
     (i);
       ``(II) require States, not later than October 1, 2004, to 
     use such reasons in accordance with subparagraph (A)(xvi); 
     and
       ``(III) require States to report on efforts to improve 
     State tracking of reasons for case closures, including the 
     identification of additional reasons for case closures not 
     included on the list developed under clause (i).

       ``(iv) Review and modification.--The Secretary, through 
     consultation and analysis of quarterly State reports 
     submitted under this paragraph, shall review on an annual 
     basis whether the list of case closure reasons developed 
     under clause (i) requires modification and, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that modification of the list is 
     necessary, shall publish proposed modifications for notice 
     and comment, prior to the modifications taking effect.''.
       (b) Inclusion in Quarterly State Reports.--Section 411 
     (a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (xvi)--
       (A) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subclause (V), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(VI) a reason specified in the list developed under 
     subparagraph (C), including any modifications of such 
     list.'';

       (2) by redesignating clause (xvii) as clause (xviii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (xvi), the following:
       ``(xvii) The efforts the State is undertaking, and the 
     progress with respect to such efforts, to improve the 
     tracking of reasons for case closures.''.

     SEC. 303. LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF TANF APPLICANTS AND 
                   RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Longitudinal Studies of Applicants and Recipients To 
     Determine the Factors that Contribute to Positive Employment 
     and Family Outcomes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or interagency agreements, shall conduct 
     longitudinal studies in at least 5, and not more than 10, 
     States (or sub-State areas, except that no such area shall be 
     located in a State in which a Statewide study is being 
     conducted under this paragraph) of a representative sample of 
     families that receive, and applicants for, assistance under a 
     State program funded under this part or under a program 
     funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).
       ``(2) Requirements.--The studies conducted under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) follow families that cease to receive assistance, 
     families that receive assistance throughout the study period, 
     and families diverted from assistance programs; and
       ``(B) collect information on--
       ``(i) family and adult demographics (including race, 
     ethnicity or national origin, primary language, gender, 
     barriers to employment, educational status of adults, prior 
     work history, prior history of welfare receipt);
       ``(ii) family income (including earnings, unemployment 
     compensation, and child support);
       ``(iii) receipt of assistance, benefits, or services under 
     other needs-based assistance programs (including the food 
     stamp program, the medicaid program under title XIX, earned 
     income tax credits, housing assistance, and the type and 
     amount of any child care);
       ``(iv) the reasons for leaving or returning to needs-based 
     assistance programs;
       ``(v) work participation status and activities (including 
     the scope and duration of work activities and the types of 
     industries and occupations for which training is provided);
       ``(vi) sanction status (including reasons for sanction);
       ``(vii) time limit for receipt of assistance status 
     (including months remaining with respect to such time limit);
       ``(viii) recipient views regarding program participation; 
     and
       ``(ix) measures of income change, poverty, extreme poverty, 
     food security and use of food pantries and soup kitchens, 
     homelessness and the use of shelters, and other measures of 
     family well-being and hardship over a 5-year period.
       ``(3) Comparability of results.--The Secretary shall, to 
     the extent possible, ensure that the studies conducted under 
     this subsection produce comparable results and information.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) Interim reports.--Not later than October 1, 2005, the 
     Secretary shall publish interim findings from at least 12 
     months of longitudinal data collected under the studies 
     conducted under this subsection.
       ``(B) Subsequent reports.--Not later than October 1, 2007, 
     the Secretary shall publish findings from at least 36 months 
     of longitudinal data collected under the studies conducted 
     under this subsection.''.
       (b) Annual Report To Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Section 411(b) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--

[[Page 15751]]

       (i) by inserting ``(including types of sanctions or other 
     grant reductions)'' after ``financial characteristics''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, disaggregated by race, ethnicity or 
     national origin, primary language, gender, education level, 
     and, with respect to closed cases, the reason the case was 
     closed'' before the semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the economic well-being of children and families 
     receiving assistance under the State programs funded under 
     this part and of children and families that have ceased to 
     receive such assistance, using longitudinal matched data 
     gathered from federally supported programs, and including 
     State-by-State data that details the distribution of earnings 
     and stability of employment of such families and (to the 
     extent feasible) describes, with respect to such families, 
     the distribution of income from known sources (including 
     employer-reported wages, assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part, and benefits under the food stamp 
     program), the ratio of such families' income to the poverty 
     line, and the extent to which such families receive or 
     received noncash benefits and child care assistance, 
     disaggregated by race, ethnicity or national origin, primary 
     language, gender, education level, whether the case remains 
     open, and, with respect to closed cases, the reason the case 
     was closed.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
       ``(7) Report on economic well-being of current and former 
     recipients.--The report required by paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal quarter shall include for that quarter such 
     information as the Secretary may specify in order for the 
     Secretary to include in the annual reports to Congress 
     required under subsection (b) the information described in 
     paragraph (5) of that subsection.''.

     SEC. 304. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY.

       Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Protection of Individual Privacy.--With respect to 
     any information concerning individuals or families receiving 
     assistance, or applying for assistance, under the State 
     programs funded under this part that is publicly disclosed by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary shall ensure that such 
     disclosure is made in a manner that protects the privacy of 
     such individuals and families.''.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2880. A bill to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the 
State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to designate 
Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a national historic landmark. I am excited 
to offer this bill because I believe that the history of the fort 
deserves Federal recognition. Fort Bayard is significant not only for 
the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in 
the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis 
sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment 
in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 
1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal 
government's role in Southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently 
been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition 
of the historical significance of the site.
  From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its 
soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected 
settlers working in nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were 
a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought 
heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at 
Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area 
following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men 
and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of 
what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were 
recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was 
dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually 
became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no 
longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western 
frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard 
was scheduled for closure in 1899.
  Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to 
depart the discontinued post, new Federal occupants were arriving at 
Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the 
surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military 
sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the 
treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering form 
pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the 
fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the 
``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years 
of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, 
nearly self-sufficient community.
  In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United 
States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second 
phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was 
created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating 
hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans 
requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the 
United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the 
Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital 
No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, 
however, remained the same.
  By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility 
located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' 
Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in 
part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended 
upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for 
the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since 
then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol 
rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive 
cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the 
State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of 
the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' 
Administration.
  For these and many other reasons, believe it is clear that Fort 
Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a national 
historic landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story 
that is important to the entire nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2883. A bill to allow States to design a program to increase 
parental choice in special education, to fully fund the Federal share 
of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to help 
States reduce paperwork requirements under part B of such Act, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce The Choice IDEA Act, which 
would reform the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The 
federal government began dealing with special education in the 1970's, 
and on the whole what has come to be known as IDEA had proven to be a 
remarkable success. Before federal legislation, many times a child with 
a disability received little or no education. And if the child did 
receive an education, it was often sub-standard. IDEA has undoubtedly 
been a success, and you will find no stronger champion of educating the 
disabled than I. However, the success of IDEA should not blind us to 
the problems it, in its current form, causes.
  These problems come up every time I meet with educators and education 
administrators from my state. When we sit down and discuss what we in 
the federal government can do for them, the discussion invariably turns 
to IDEA. These educators and school personnel want two things: full 
funding of the federal government's share of

[[Page 15752]]

IDEA, like we promised back in the 1970's, and a reduction in 
paperwork. I have also talked to numerous parents about their 
experiences with IDEA. While many are happy with the current system, 
there are also many who are dissatisfied and who want more control and 
more choice over how their children are educated.
  Some of the stories I hear are truly incredible and illustrate the 
serious need for IDEA reform. For example, there is a school district 
in North Idaho--in a county which has had very high unemployment and 
below average per-capita income since the early 1990's--which has well 
above the national average of children in special education. This 
district is doing a great job educating those children, but the high 
costs associated with doing so, and the time it takes to complete the 
reams of paperwork that must be filled out for every child, are severe 
drains on that district. I've also heard from a school superintendent 
in Idaho who is going through a particularly sticky due process hearing 
and who laments that the paperwork required by this hearing is costly, 
unnecessary, and takes away teachers' time from the classroom. Parents 
have also contacted me with their stories of how school districts have 
mistreated them and how they can only find the proper program for their 
special child at a private school. The Choice IDEA Act would help out 
these parents, teachers, and school administrators by fully funding 
IDEA by Fiscal Year 2010, giving parents significantly more control 
over how their children are educated, and by reducing the onerous 
burden of paperwork that hampers the special education process.
  The centerpiece of the bill is a proposal to allow States to set up a 
special education system based on parental choice. States that want to 
reform would draw up a list of disability categories and how much it 
costs to educate and accommodate a child who has that disability. The 
States would also draw up a menu outlining the educational services 
each pubic school in the state offers to children with those 
disabilities, and how much those services cost. These services must 
equal the quality of the services they offer today, and the States' 
programs would be approved by the Department of Education. If the 
Department of Education approves a State's plan, parents of special 
education children in that State would get a voucher for each child to 
choose from schools' menus to meet the needs of their children. Or, if 
parents did not find satisfactory services from the public schools, 
they could take their vouchers to any private school that could meet 
their children's needs.
  As you can see, parents would have the ultimate control over how 
their child is educated. Since parents would have the option of taking 
their voucher and leaving a school if their child was not being 
educated properly, the due process requirements under IDEA would not be 
necessary and the school personnel would have their paperwork burden 
dramatically reduced. Parents and school personnel could work together 
to find a proper diagnosis for a student who had a disability and to 
find the right ways to educate this child, instead of being forced into 
an adversarial relationship as they are today.
  It is important to point out, though, that this bill has no mandate 
on States that they must design the system outlined above. My bill 
would strengthen States' rights by allowing states one more option in 
dealing with special education. If States want to design such a special 
education system, they should have the freedom to do so. As welfare 
reform has shown us, States are often more innovative than the Federal 
government in solving problems. This bill would give them one more tool 
to deal with the problems that are associated with IDEA.
  Another important provision of this bill is that it would set up a 
grant program (up to $1 million) within the Department of Education to 
help school districts which have 15 percent or more of their students 
in special education hire para-professionals to help deal with the 
paperwork.
  The Choice IDEA Act is not intended to be the final say on IDEA 
reform. I agree with many of the Presidential Commission's suggestions 
for IDEA reauthorization and hope to see them enacted into law; 
however, this reauthorization should include a provision giving states 
the option of pursuing their own reforms within the structure outlined 
above. When the Senate begins debating IDEA reauthorization, it is my 
hope that my bill will be considered and the Senate will reform IDEA so 
that the concept of ``no child is left behind'' truly includes every 
child.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thomas, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2884. A bill to improve transit service to rural areas, including 
for elderly and disabled; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I introduce a bill to help rural America. 
Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every 
state. Today I introduce the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Maximum Economic 
Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled 
Transit.
  Quite simply, there are transit needs not being met nationwide. This 
bill addresses those needs.
  This is the second bill in a series that I am introducing to 
highlight my proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century.
  Last month I introduced the MEGA TRUST Act--Maximum Growth for 
America Through the Highway Trust Fund. Today its MEGA RED TRANS.
  The Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, 
Elderly and Disabled Transit Act or MEGA RED TRANS Act would ensure, 
that as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is 
provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and 
small urban areas.
  There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have 
substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit 
reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of 
rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also 
require additional attention and funding.
  The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not 
impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the 
bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and 
disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce 
funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State.
  To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program 
as a whole by providing that the mass Transit Account of the Highway 
Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key 
provision in the MEGA TRUST Act and is also included here in the MEGA 
RED TRANS Act.
  Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual 
apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, 
the rural transit program, and for urbanized areas with a population of 
less than 200,000.
  It would ensure that each State gets a minimum of $11 million for 
these three programs.
  For my State of Montana that is double what we get for those programs 
currently. For some other States it is more than four times what they 
receive.
  The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus 
service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of 
the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and 
airports and passenger rail stations.
  I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of 
rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the 
word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas 
transit translates to buses and vanpools. Take Elaine Miller for 
example.
  Elaine is 73 years old and lives in Missoula, MT. She depends upon 
the

[[Page 15753]]

city's Mountain Line public transit system for virtually all of her 
transportation needs. ``It's my car!'' she says.
  Twelve years ago, Elaine suffered a stroke and decided that it was 
simply too dangerous to drive anymore. Today she takes transit to the 
doctor and to shop. She gets her prescriptions and meets family and 
friends, all using public transit.
  As a regular rider, however, Elaine also understands the current 
limitations of transit in Missoula. ``Our bus service here needs to 
offer more service, particularly on the weekends and the evenings. I'd 
like to be able to take the bus to church,'' she says.
  The frequency of bus service in Missoula, too, can often be an issue 
for Elaine. Last week, for example, she was left waiting more than two 
hours at a local store for the next bus to take her home.
  ``We seniors know how important the bus is to our quality of life. We 
really need more bus service. Without the bus, I know that myself and 
others would just have to stay home,'' says Elaine.
  For Elaine, increased Federal investment in public transit in Montana 
would mean increased bus service in Missoula. Weekend service and 
increased frequency on current routes, she believes, are a great need.
  I'd like to discuss another example of how rural transit and transit 
for the elderly and disabled is crucial to Montana. And I am sure we 
could easily find similar examples in every State.
  Let's talk about Kathy Collins of Helena, MT.
  Kathy moved to Helena in 1982 from Butte, MT, an area with no 
accessible transportation. In Helena, she discovered the Dial-A-Ride 
system, where lift-equipped vehicles could easily transport her in her 
wheelchair.
  ``It was terrific. I could get to work on time. And I could even get 
home on time!'' lauds Collins.
  While she owns a minivan that she can drive to the middle school 
where she teaches, she is thankful to have a transportation option in 
inclement weather.
  ``Transit gets me to and from work in the winter time. I couldn't do 
it without them,'' she says, ``And for people who don't work, it's a 
godsend. They can't afford a taxi.''
  While the Dial-A-Ride system provides Collins with dependable 
employment transportation on weekdays, she would like to see operations 
expanded to evenings and weekends.
  ``The service is essential. You need to give people access. You need 
to give people control over their lives. You need to give people the 
mobility that the rest of the country enjoys. Just because we live in 
the boondocks doesn't mean we don't need to go anywhere.'' she says.
  I couldn't agree with her more. The MEGA RED TRANS Act will help 
these people and millions of others around the country. Considering the 
enormous impact the MEGA RED TRANS Act will have on the country, it is 
actually a very modest proposal.
  The bill would not set funding levels for the transit program as a 
whole, or for large transit systems.
  Moreover, the call for increases in the elderly and disabled, rural, 
and small urban area programs are not made in a static setting, but in 
the context of reauthorization.
  In reauthorization the overall transit program undoubtedly will grow 
by more than the modest increases required by the provisions of this 
bill. So, nothing in the bill would preclude growth in other aspects of 
the transit program.
  In sum, the bill stands for the proposition that, as the transit 
program is likely to continue to grow, no less than the funding 
increases proposed in this bill should be provided in order to better 
meet the needs of rural and small urban area transit systems and the 
transit needs of the elderly and disabled.
  I would like to thank Senators Crapo, Thomas, Johnson, Enzi, Conrad, 
Bingaman and Craig for joining me on this important piece of 
legislation.
  I'd also like to thank both the members and staff of the American Bus 
Association, The Community Transportation Association and the 
Amalgamated Transit Union, for their assistance with this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to work to include it 
in the highway and transit reauthorization, next year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2885. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to require 
additional disclosures relating to exchange rates in transfers 
involving international transactions; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague 
from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, I am introducing The Wire Transfer Fairness 
and Disclosure Act, legislation that will protect consumers who send 
cash remittances through international money wire transfer companies by 
providing greater disclosure of the fees, including hidden costs, 
charged for those services.
  Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives 
$40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of 
these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by 
immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom 
are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases 
their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their 
families and their loved ones.
  Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being 
preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who 
not only charge consumers an upfront charge for the transfer service, 
but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these 
charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are 
converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out 
to the friend of the family member.
  This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and 
Caribbean countries. In fact, as many as 10 million Hispanic immigrants 
in the U.S. send remittances to their family and friends back home. 
Cumulatively, these individuals send $23 billion annually to some of 
our hemisphere's poorest economies. This money is used to pay for such 
basic needs such as food, medicine, and schooling.
  In most Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances far 
exceed U.S. development assistance. In the case of Nicaragua, Haiti, 
Jamaica, Ecuador and El Salvador, cash remittances account for more 
than 10 percent of national GDP.
  These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for 
greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring 
money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of 
dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees.'' In fact, 
many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often 
advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international 
transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the 
fees charged when the currency is exchanged.
  While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign 
currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion 
fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to 
Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the 
benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering 
profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the 
stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.
  While this practice may not be illegal, it is wrong, and it must be 
stopped. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act requires 
financial institutions or money-transmitting businesses that initiate 
international money transfers to disclose all fees charged in an 
international wire transfer.
  The legislation also requires these companies to provide consumers 
with important disclosures regarding the exchange rate used in 
connection with the transaction; the exchange rate prevailing at a 
major financial center in

[[Page 15754]]

the foreign country whose currency is involved in the transaction; or 
the official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central bank 
of that foreign country.
  The bill would additionally require disclosure to the consumer who 
initiates the transaction of any fees or commissions charged by 
transfer service providers in connection with any transaction and the 
exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the 
foreign country, which shall be disclosed to the consumer before the 
transaction is consummated and printed on the receipt given to 
customer.
  This legislation does more than merely provide better information to 
consumers--it should also help them financially. Consumers will see 
increased competition among wire transfer companies because they are 
better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in 
lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater 
portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families 
that they were originally intended for.
  In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do 
their part to help America's economy move forward.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I cosponsor the Wire Transfer Fairness and 
Disclosure Act of 2002, introduced by my colleague, Senator Corzine. I 
thank Senator Corzine and Representative Luis Gutierrez for their 
leadership on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the 
Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for conducting a 
hearing on the issue of remittances.
  Immigrants nationwide often send a portion of their hard-earned wages 
to relatives and their communities abroad. Remittances can be used to 
improve the standard of living of recipients by increasing access to 
health care and education.
  Unfortunately, people who send remittances are often unaware of the 
fees and exchange rates used in the transaction that reduce the amount 
of money received by their family members. In many cases, fees for 
sending remittances can be ten to twenty percent of the value of the 
transaction. In addition to the fees, the exchange rate used in the 
transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate. The 
exchange rate used in the transaction is typically not disclosed to 
customers.
  Consumers cannot afford to be uneducated regarding financial service 
options and fees placed on their transactions. This legislation is 
needed to provide the necessary information to consumers so that they 
may make informed decisions about sending money. The Wire Transfer 
Fairness and Disclosure Act would ensure that each customer is fully 
informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in the 
transaction.
  If consumers are provided additional information about the 
transaction costs involved with sending money, they may be more likely 
to utilize banks and credit unions which often can provide lower cost 
remittances. If unbanked immigrants use the remittance services offered 
by banks and credit unions, they may be more likely to open up an 
account. Many immigrants are unbanked and lack a relationship with a 
mainstream financial services provider. The unbanked are more likely to 
use check-cashing services which charge an average fee of over nine 
percent. They are also more likely to utilize the services provided by 
pay-day and predatory lenders. The unbanked miss the opportunities for 
saving and borrowing at mainstream financial institutions.
  This legislation is particularly important to my home State of 
Hawaii. Hawaii is home to significant numbers of recent immigrants from 
many nations, including the Philippines. The Philippines is one of the 
largest destinations for remittances from the United States. The gross 
value of remittances to the Philippines is $3.7 billion and a large 
portion of that amount comes from people in Hawaii.
  Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this much 
needed legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill 
be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2885

       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 ``Wire Transfer Fairness and 
     Disclosure Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 918 through 921 as sections 
     919 through 922, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 918. DISCLOSURE OF EXCHANGE RATES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) International money transfer.--The term 
     `international money transfer' means any money transmitting 
     service involving an international transaction which is 
     provided by a financial institution or a money transmitting 
     business.
       ``(2) Money transmitting service.--The term `money 
     transmitting service' has the same meaning as in section 
     5330(d)(2) of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(3) Money transmitting business.--The term `money 
     transmitting business' means any business which--
       ``(A) provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money 
     transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems 
     money orders, travelers' checks, or other similar 
     instruments; and
       ``(B) is not a depository institution (as defined in 
     section 5313(g) of title 31, United States Code).
       ``(b) Exchange Rate and Fees Disclosures Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any financial institution or money 
     transmitting business which initiates an international money 
     transfer on behalf of a consumer (whether or not the consumer 
     maintains an account at such institution or business) shall 
     disclosure, in the manner required under this section--
       ``(A) the exchange rate used by the financial institution 
     or money transmitting business in connection with such 
     transactions;
       ``(B) the exchange rate prevailing at a major financial 
     center of the foreign country whose currency is involved in 
     the transaction, as of the close of business on the business 
     day immediately preceding the date of the transaction (or the 
     official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central 
     bank of such foreign country);
       ``(C) all commissions and fees charged by the financial 
     institution or money transmitting business in connection with 
     such transaction; and
       ``(D) the exact amount of foreign currency to be received 
     by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be 
     disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is 
     consummated and printed on the receipt referred to in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Prominent disclosure inside and outside the place of 
     business where an international money transfer is 
     initiated.--The information required to be disclosed under 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) shall be 
     prominently displayed on the premises of the financial 
     institution or money transmitting business both at the 
     interior location to which the public is admitted for 
     purposes of initiating an international money transfer, and 
     on the exterior of any such premises.
       ``(3) Prominent disclosure in all receipts and forms used 
     in the place of business where an international money 
     transfer is initiated.--All information required to be 
     disclosed under paragraph (1) shall be prominently displayed 
     on all forms and receipts used by the financial institution 
     or money transmitting business when initiating an 
     international money transfer in such premises.
       ``(c) Advertisements in Print, Broadcast, and Electronic 
     Media and Outdoor Advertising.--The information required to 
     be disclosed under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(1) shall be included--
       ``(1) in any advertisement, announcement, or solicitation 
     which is mailed by the financial institution or money 
     transmitting business and pertains to international money 
     transfers; or
       ``(2) in any print, broadcast, or electronic medium or 
     outdoor advertising display not on the premises of the 
     financial institution or money transmitting business and 
     pertaining to international money transfers.
       ``(d) Disclosures in Languages Other Than English.--The 
     disclosures required under this section shall be in English 
     and in the same language as that principally used by the 
     financial institution or money transmitting business, or any 
     of its agents, to advertise, solicit, or negotiate, either 
     orally or in writing, at that office, if other than 
     English''.

[[Page 15755]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 3 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        Hutchinson):
  S. 2886. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and 
other houses of worship to engage in an insubstantial amount of 
political activities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, along with my colleagues 
Senators Tim Hutchinson and Jesse Helms, to introduce the Houses of 
Worship Political Speech Protection Act.
  This bill, introduced by my friend Congressman Walter B. Jones of 
North Carolina, H.R. 2357, enjoys broad support on the House side with 
128 bipartisan cosponsors.
  This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit a church to 
participate or intervene in a political campaign and maintain its tax-
exempt status as long as such participation is not a substantial parts 
of its activities.
  The bill replaces the absolute ban on political intervention with the 
``no substantial part of the activities'' test currently used in the 
lobbying context. This bill would give clergy the freedom to speak out 
on moral and political issues of our day and to fully educate their 
congregation on where the candidates stand on the issues without the 
threat of losing their tax exempt status.
  Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the ban on political speech in 1954 
as a floor amendment in order to hamstring certain anticommunist 
organizations that were opposing him in the Democratic Party. No 
hearings took place nor was any congressional record developed in order 
to explain the reasons for the ban. There is no indication that Senator 
Johnson intended to target churches.
  Before 1954, pastors and members of many churches spoke freely about 
candidates and political issues. The slavery abolitionist organizations 
and the civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired 
political success.
  Had the current law been enforced earlier in American history, 
William Lloyd Garrison could not have spoken out against slavery, nor 
could Martin Luther King, Jr. have spoken out against segregation.
  Currently, the ban on political speech has a dramatic chilling effect 
on the ability of houses of worship to speak out on moral and political 
issues, since under Section 501(C)(3), houses of worship may not engage 
in even a single activity that might be regarded as participating in, 
or intervening in a campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a 
candidate for public office.
  Thus ultimately restricts the clergy's freedom of speech by 
threatening to revoke the church's tax-exempt status if they dare to 
speak out on moral and political questions of our day.
  Additionally, the bill seeks to shift the burden of proof from houses 
of worship to the IRS. Rather than require the house of worship to 
prove that its activities are not political at all, this bill will 
force the IRS to prove that its activities are in fact substantially 
political.
  Nothing in this bill ``makes'' a church speak on political issues; it 
merely gives them the freedom to do so if they choose to.
  Since so many of the issues that are debated in the halls of Congress 
have a moral or religious aspect to them, those who ask for help from a 
higher power should not be absent from the political process.
  America is a religious nation. Religion affects every aspect of our 
culture, and yes, even our government. The views of our church-going 
members and their clergy are vital to a well-rounded debate on the 
important issues of our day.
  This substantial portion of the American people who consider 
themselves religious and practice that religion should not be shut out 
of the process.
  I hope more of my colleagues will join us and cosponsor this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2887. A bill to provide for the sharing of homeland security 
information by Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies with 
State and local entities; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Homeland Security 
Information Sharing Act, a bill to increase state and local access to 
security information that could save American lives. The House has 
already passed similar legislation bill sponsored by Representatives 
Harman and Chambliss, and it is my understanding that the 
Administration supports this legislation as well.
  The bill I introduce today will not solve our intelligence problems--
we have a long road ahead of us before we can accomplish that. But this 
legislation will send a clear signal to our federal agencies that 
information gathered at the federal level must be shared with states 
and localities if we are to triumph in the battle against terrorism.
  State and local law enforcement are first-line defenders of our 
homeland security. Too often, though, state and local officials do not 
receive information necessary for them to protect us. If, for instance, 
there were a terrorist threat against the Golden Gate Bridge in San 
Francisco, we would want a cooperative effort between the Federal 
government and local officials.
  This bill would:
  Direct the President to establish procedures for federal agencies to 
share homeland security information with state and local officials, and 
for all government officials to be able to communicate with each other. 
Local officials should quickly have access to relevant intelligence 
necessary to prevent or respond to attacks in their communities.
  Direct the President to address concerns about too much dissemination 
of classified or sensitive information, by setting procedures to 
protect this material. This could include requiring background checks 
of local officials who seek access to classified information, or 
perhaps even non disclosure agreements so that secret information stays 
secret.
  Direct the President to ensure that our current information sharing 
systems and computers are capable of sharing relevant homeland security 
information with each other and with state and local systems.
  Mr. President, we can improve information sharing without re-
inventing the wheel. The legislation applies technology already used to 
share information with our NATO allies and with Interpol. The 
information can be shared through existing networks, such as the 
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional 
Information Sharing Systems, and the Terrorist Threat Warning System. 
These systems already reach law enforcement offices throughout America.
  Better information sharing will result in better homeland security. 
As a Congress, we are already working on making intelligence gathering 
and dissemination work better within the federal government. We must 
not forget to improve communications with state and local law 
enforcement as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we 
can pass it quickly in September. It is non-controversial, and would 
help send a clear signal that information gathering and dissemination 
may be our best defense against terror.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2888. A bill to direct the Administrator of General Services to 
convey to Fresno County, California, the existing Federal courthouse in 
that country; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduced a bill that will convey the 
B.F. Sisk Federal Building in Fresno, California to the County of 
Fresno, when the new federal courthouse is completed and occupied.
  Fresno County is a rapidly growing county in the heart of 
California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior 
Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the 
years ahead. The Sisk Building

[[Page 15756]]

contains courtrooms and related space that will help the people of 
Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk's building existing security 
measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system.
  This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow 
appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the 
ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet 
another opportunity for the federal government to improve the lives of 
Fresno County's people.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 2889. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
individuals a refundable credit against income tax for the purchase of 
private health insurance; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there are 39 million uninsured people 
in America, and that number is predicted to grow to 50 million by 2010. 
Surprisingly, 80 percent of the uninsured are members of working 
families, who work hard everyday but simply cannot afford the rising 
cost of health care.
  According to a recent survey by Hewitt Associates, the average 
insurance premium will increase more than 20 percent in 2003. This is a 
sharp increase from earlier forecasts. Such an increase is in addition 
to the double digit increase in premiums anticipated this year.
  I am pleased today to introduce the Securing Access Value and 
Equality in Health Care Act, or SAVE Act. This bill will provide every 
American with a pre-payable, fully refundable tax credit toward the 
purchase of health insurance.
  The tax credit will be $1,000 for individuals, $2,000 for married 
couples, and $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family. An additional 
50 percent will be added for any additional premiums to assist those 
with higher costs. By being pre-payable, the credit will be available 
to individuals at the time of purchase, instead of when they receive 
their annual tax return.
  A study by Professor Mark Pauly at the Wharton School at the 
University of Pennsylvania showed that a credit like that contained in 
the SAVE Act would remove 20 million Americans from the ranks of the 
uninsured.
  The SAVE Act will provide direct assistance to millions of Americans, 
and over 498,000 uninsured Arkansans, in affording health insurance. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2890. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn 
screening and coordinated followup care once newborn screening has been 
conducted, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Mike 
DeWine, to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members 
of our society: newborn infants. About 2 months ago, many families 
across the country celebrated Father's Day. As a first-time dad of a 
10-month-old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience 
that holiday and every other pleasure that comes along with being a 
father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant 
sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well, 
and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and 
well-being of our children.
  Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now 
possible to test newborns for at least 30 genetic and metabolic 
disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe 
disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and 
treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense, 
newborn screening saves lives.
  Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can 
come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical 
history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of 
a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that 
are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn 
will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct 
impact on the lives of every family.
  Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every state. 
Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel 
to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term 
health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of 
these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save 
approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can 
possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather 
than absolute heartbreak.
  That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. 
More than 2,000 babies born are estimated to be born every year in the 
United States with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected 
because they are not screened. These infants and their families face 
the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me 
repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The 
survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it 
is born. Only two states, including my home state of Connecticut thanks 
to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. The vast 
majority test for eight or fewer.
  I recently chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a 
story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of 
newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a 
three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the state 
only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, 
although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. 
One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found 
Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was 
not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed 
to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later 
diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from 
turning fat into energy.
  Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely 
fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a 
special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely 
could have been avoided had he been tested and treated for L-CHAD at 
birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 states 
still not test for L-CHAD?
  The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of 
consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and 
how a screening program should be developed. Twenty of the thirty 
disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called 
a tandem mass spectrometer. Currently, only nine states have this 
resource. Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility 
of screening for disorders beyond what their state requires. Parents, 
and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace 
was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was 
extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However, 
at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as 
it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my 
daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of 
parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they 
familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. For that 
reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to 
protect our children is to educate parents and health care 
professionals.
  In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an 
advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health 
and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop 
national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the 
disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health 
Act also included a provision to provide funding

[[Page 15757]]

to states to expand their technological resources for newborn 
screening. Unfortunately, funds were not appropriated for either of 
these provisions. We are told that $25 million in appropriations is 
needed for this crucial initiative and we need to fight for these 
dollars as we develop the FY03 budget.
  The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening 
Saves Lives Act of 2002, seeks to address the shocking lack of 
information available to health care professionals and parents about 
newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to 
protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only 
compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was 
preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2003 and 
such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2007 to HRSA for grants 
to provide education and training to health care professionals, state 
laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.
  Our legislation will also provide states with the resources to 
develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a 
disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are 
the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the 
prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. 
We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that 
reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and such 
sums as are necessary through FY 2007 to HRSA for grants to develop a 
coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families 
after screening and diagnosis.
  Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for 
education, training, and follow-up care in the states, ensure 
coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary 
to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after 
the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact 
and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and look 
forward to working together to accomplish its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Harkin and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2891. A bill to create a 4-year pilot program that makes small, 
non-profit child care businesses eligible for SBA 504 loans; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have a shortage of childcare in this 
country, and it is a problem for our families, a problem for our 
businesses, and a problem for our economy. The Census Bureau estimates 
that there are approximately 24 million school age children with 
parents who are in the workforce or pursuing education, and the numbers 
are growing. There has been a 43 percent increase in dual-earner 
families and single parent families over the last half a century. As 
parents leave the home for work and education, the need for quality 
childcare in America continues to increase.
  As Chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I think we 
can foster the establishment and expansion of existing child care 
businesses through the Small Business Administration. Today with 
Senators Harkin and Landrieu, I am introducing, the Child Care Lending 
Pilot Act, a bill to create a four-year pilot that allows small, non-
profit child care businesses to access financing through SBA's 504 
loans.
  Non-profit child care small businesses already have access to 
financing through the SBA's microloan program, which many of us made 
possible through legislation in 1997. Microloans help with working 
capital and the purchase of some equipment, but there is also a need to 
help finance the purchase of buildings, expand existing facilities to 
meet child care demand, or improve facilities. It is appropriate to 
provide financing through the 504 program because it was created to 
spur economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is 
critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could 
spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the 
program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20 
percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable.
  As anyone with children knows, quality childcare comes at a very high 
cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income 
families. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that childcare for a 4-
year-old in a childcare center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year in 
cities and states around the nation. In all but one state, the average 
annual cost of childcare in urban area childcare centers is more than 
the average annual cost of public college tuition.
  These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for 
low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide 
grants and loans to assist childcare businesses, more must be done to 
increase the supply of childcare and improve the quality of programs 
for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and 
federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in 
low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under 
federal law receives it.
  For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it 
is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task 
force in my home State of Massachusetts to study the state of child 
care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than 
60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is 
a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand 
their existing space. Child care in general is not a high earning 
industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking 
centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make 
childcare more affordable for families and does not serve the children 
well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper 
supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower 
their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety 
and quality of the childcare provided would be in jeopardy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so non-profit 
childcare providers can access funds to start new centers or expand and 
improve upon existing centers.
  Allowing non-profit childcare centers to receive SBA loans will be 
the first step toward improving the availability of childcare in the 
United States. Non-profit childcare centers provide the same quality of 
care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers often serve our 
nation's most needy communities. I hope that my colleagues will 
recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development 
of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that in this great 
nation, childcare should be available to all families in all income 
brackets.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters 
of support be printed in the Record. These letters demonstrate that 
this is a good investment that is good for our country.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2891

       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 ``Child Care Lending Pilot 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD CARE BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) Loans Authorized.--Section 502 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``The Administration'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Authorization.--The Administration'';
       (B) by striking ``and such loans'' and inserting ``. Such 
     loans''; and
       (C) by striking ``: Provided, however, That the foregoing 
     powers shall be subject to the following restrictions and 
     limitations:'' and inserting a period; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Restrictions and Limitations.--The authority under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the following restrictions 
     and limitations:''; and

[[Page 15758]]

       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting after ``Use of proceeds.--'' the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Loans to small, non-profit child care businesses.--
     The proceeds of any loan described in subsection (a) may be 
     used by the borrower to assist, in addition to other eligible 
     small business concerns, small, non-profit child care 
     businesses, provided that--
       ``(i) the loan will be used for a sound business purpose 
     that has been approved by the Administration; and
       ``(ii) each such business receiving financial assistance 
     meets all of the same eligibility requirements applicable to 
     for-profit businesses under this title, except for status as 
     a for-profit business.''.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Small business administration.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter until 
     September 30, 2006, the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration shall submit a report on the implementation of 
     the program under subsection (a) to--
       (i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of 
     the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     contain--
       (i) the date on which the program is implemented;
       (ii) the date on which the rules are issued pursuant to 
     subsection (c); and
       (iii) the number and dollar amount of loans under the 
     program applied for, approved, and disbursed during the 
     previous 6 months.
       (2) General accounting office.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than March 31, 2006, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a 
     report on the child care small business loans authorized by 
     section 502(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of 
     1958, as added by this Act, to--
       (i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of 
     the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     contain information gathered during the first 2 years of the 
     loan program, including--
       (i) an evaluation of the timeliness of the implementation 
     of the loan program;
       (ii) a description of the effectiveness and ease with which 
     Certified Development Companies, lenders, and small 
     businesses have participated in the loan program;
       (iii) a description and assessment of how the loan program 
     was marketed;
       (iv) the number of child care small businesses, categorized 
     by status as a for-profit or non-profit business and a new 
     business or an expanded business, that--

       (I) applied for loans under the program;
       (II) were approved for loans under the program; and
       (III) received loan disbursements under the program.

       (v) of the businesses under clause (iv)(III)--

       (I) the number of such businesses in each State;
       (II) the total amount loaned to such businesses under the 
     program; and
       (III) the average loan amount and term.

       (c) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Small Business Administration shall issue final rules to 
     carry out the loan program authorized by section 502(b)(1)(B) 
     of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by 
     this Act.
       (d) Sunset Provision.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall remain in effect until September 30, 2006, and shall 
     apply to all loans authorized by section 502(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by this Act, 
     that are made during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2006.


                                               OMNIBANK, N.A.,

                                       Houston, TX, July 30, 2002.
     Re: Proposed Senate Bill

     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: Please accept this letter as my full 
     support of the bill, soon to be introduced, proposing a Pilot 
     Program, operating through the Small Business 
     Administration's 504 Loan Program, that would allow Day Care 
     facilities designated as non-profits to be eligible for the 
     program.
       I believe the demand for such a product is strong, and is 
     fiscally sound. My reasons are as follows:
       1. Day Care Centers must carry a non-profit designation in 
     order to accept children to the center from low-income 
     families.
       2. These business benefit low-income neighborhoods and 
     enterprise zones by purchasing property, improving the 
     physical appearance of the community and providing safe 
     facilities for the children. The ability to utilize the SBA-
     504 program would enable these businesses to decrease lease/
     payment expense and hence, help more children.
       3. These families are in the most need for quality day care 
     facilities in their community, since many use mass transit to 
     get to work.
       4. Small businesses have provided most of the job growth in 
     this country in the last ten years. By enabling these Day 
     Care Centers to operate efficiently and provide quality 
     facilities, we will be helping small business gain and 
     maintain employees.
       5. Designation as a non-profit business does not equate to 
     an inability to pay loans, or other business expenses.
       OMNIBANK, a 50-year-old community bank in Houston, Texas, 
     has experienced a consistent demand for loans to Day Care 
     Centers. Most loan requests from these entities are for the 
     purpose of acquiring or expanding property (real-estate) or 
     acquiring transportation equipment. An example of a specific, 
     recent request follows:
       The Executive Director and Owner of Teeter Totter Day Care 
     Center approached OMNIBANK about a loan to purchase the 
     building used to house the Center. The owner an African-
     American woman, was experienced in this business. Cash flow 
     to service the debt was sufficient and appropriate under 
     prudent lending guidelines. The only deterrent from making a 
     conventional loan was the amount available for down payment. 
     Twenty percent or more is usually required.
       Under the SBA-504 Program, a ten percent down payment is 
     allowed and standard procedure for multi-use buildings. 
     Additionally, it offers a fixed rate on the SBA portion of 
     the loan. Most small businesses do not have access to fixed 
     rate mortgages, due to the size of the loan requests, which 
     enhances to attractives of the SBA 504 Program even further.
       As we were preparing the request package, we realized that 
     a non-profit did not qualify. The owner would personally 
     guarantee the loan, and even agreed to form a for profit 
     corporation to hold the property, because the underlying 
     tenant was non-profit it would not work. The owner could not 
     change Teeter Totter into a for profit corporation without 
     jeopardizing its subsidies for low-income children.
       OMNIBANK and the day care center are located in Houston's 
     fifth ward, most of which is classified as low to moderate 
     income. Its population is primarily low-income African 
     Americans and Hispanics. The project was viewed by the Bank 
     as a good loan from a business perspective, with many 
     additional benefits to the community at large.
       Ultimately, after appealing to SBA for a exception, and 
     spending a great deal of time on the project, the loan was 
     not completed. This delayed a good project from improving 
     many aspects of an already underscored community, due to a 
     simple tax classification.
       As stated earlier, OMNIBANK receives consistent requests 
     from day care centers, most of which are non-profit. I 
     believe that a Pilot Program as proposed, will prove that 
     these are viable and valuable businesses. I would recommend 
     that all other standard criteria, proven track record, cash 
     flow, management expertise, etc. remain.
       I look forward to any questions you may have, or any 
     further examples I can provide.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Julie A. Cripe,
     President and Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                               Neighborhood Business Builders,

                                        Boston, MA, July 10, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Senator Kerry, I am writing on behalf of 
     Neighborhood Business Builders and the Jewish Vocational 
     Service of Boston in support of legislation to expand 
     availability of SBA 504 loans to non-profit child care 
     centers.
       I am currently the Director of Loan Funds at Neighborhood 
     Business Builders, which is an economic development program 
     and US SBA Intermediary Microlender. I have been lending and 
     consulting to small businesses for the past year after 
     fifteen years in the private sector as founder of three 
     different companies in Boston and Los Angeles. I have an MPA 
     from the Kennedy School at Harvard University.
       I am on Senator Kerry's Child Care and Small Business 
     Advisory Committee, and am Co-chair of the Sub Committee on 
     Family Child Care.
       I support legislative change to the 504 loan program 
     because our committee has uncovered a need for government 
     support of non-profit child care centers. The basic reason 
     for this is that, while we recognize a demand for child care 
     in every part of the country, we do not consider that the 
     market fails to profitably supply child care in every part of 
     the country.
       For-profit entities are able to access the capital they 
     need by (1) Demonstrating demand for the service provided and 
     (2) Demonstrating ability to serve market rate debt with 
     acceptable risk. Non-profit centers emerge when (1) 
     Demonstrated demand for the service is evident but (2) The 
     market will not support the true cost of the service 
     provided. These non-profit centers are unable to access 
     traditional forms of capital because they cannot demonstrate 
     an ability to service debt at an acceptable risk.
       The SBA 504 loan program would help mitigate the risk to 
     lenders who will then be able to provide the necessary 
     capital for the service that we know is in demand. The tax 
     status of a child care center should be irrelevant, since the 
     501(C)3 status is only granted

[[Page 15759]]

     when there is evidence of a public good being provided.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Eric Korsh,
     Director of Loan Funds, Neighborhood Business Builders.
                                  ____

                                             Western Massachusetts


                                         Enterprise Fund Inc.,

                                    Greenfield, MA, July 12, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing in strong support of the 
     legislation to expand the use of the SBA 504 program to 
     include the financing of non-profit children centers.
       As a member of Senator Kerry's Childcare Advisory Committee 
     and the Executive Director of the Western Massachusetts 
     Enterprise Fund (which makes loans to non-profits), I have 
     seen a clear need for both more flexible and lower cost 
     financing.
       The SBA 504 program meets both those needs. By providing up 
     to 40 percent financing, the SBA 504 program can help 
     children centers more easily leverage bank financing. 
     Additionally, the program offers highly competitive interest 
     rates.
       Finally, allowing the SBA to make loans to non-profit 
     childcare centers is not new to the agency. The SBA is 
     already making working capital loans to non-profit childcare 
     centers through its Microenterprise Loan Fund Program.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                Christopher Sikes,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,


                Executive Office of Health and Human Services,

                                        Boston, MA, July 11, 2002.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kerry:
       The Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services (OCCS) 
     fully supports expansion of the SBA 504 loan program to 
     include non-profit child care programs. OCCS is the state's 
     licensing agency responsible for setting and enforcing strong 
     health, safety and education standards for child care 
     programs throughout the Commonwealth. OCCS is also the lead 
     state agency responsible for the administration and purchase 
     of all human services child care subsidies across the state. 
     As a result, this agency is greatly invested in the viability 
     of these child care programs and in increasing the capacity 
     of child care services to benefit more families in the 
     Commonwealth.
       Currently there are approximately 17,000 licensed child 
     care facilities in the Commonwealth which can provide 
     services to over 200,000 children. Many of these facilities 
     are non-profit programs\1\ that serve low-income families 
     that are receiving child care subsidies to help them become 
     or remain employed, and families that are or were receiving 
     TANF. The availability and accessibility of child care is one 
     of the main reasons that families can continue to 
     successfully transition from welfare to work. There are 
     currently approximately 18,000 children on the waiting list 
     for a child care subsidy. The reauthorization of TANF may 
     further increase the number of families seeking subsidized 
     child care and Massachusetts must be ready to provide quality 
     care. Accordingly, current and future non-profit programs 
     will greatly benefit from the expansion of the SBA 504 loan 
     program, as will the families that they serve.
       OCCS is a member of the Advisory Committee on Child Care 
     and Small Business and fully supports the Committee's mission 
     of uniting the small business and child care communities to 
     help providers maximize their income while providing quality 
     child care. Expansion of the SBA 504 loan program will 
     undoubtedly help expand the availability and accessibility of 
     quality child care. Thank you for your support of this 
     important legislation. If I can be of further assistance 
     please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ardith Wieworka,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                            South Eastern Economic


                                      Development Corporation,

                                       Taunton, MA, July 10, 2002.
     Re: Non Profit Child Care Center Eligibility Under the SBA 
         504 Program

     Chairman John Kerry,
     Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
         Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: As a member of the Advisory Committee 
     on Child Care and Small Business as well as Vice President at 
     South Eastern Economic Development (SEED) Corporation, I am 
     writing in support of the idea of expanding the SBA 504 
     program to allow for non profit child care centers to be 
     eligible for financing under the program. SEED Corporation is 
     a Certified Development Company certified and accredited to 
     administer the SBA 504 program throughout southeastern 
     Massachusetts. Over the past 2 years, SEED has been the 
     number one SBA 504 lender in the State. SEED is also an 
     approved SBA Microenterprise Intermediary and we have enjoyed 
     and made use of the ability to provide micro loans to non-
     profit child care businesses since the microenterprise 
     intermediary legislation made the special provision for non 
     profit child care providers to be eligible for SBA micro loan 
     funds. My primary responsibilities at SEED include 
     origination, underwriting and closing SBA 504 loans as well 
     as the oversight and development of SEED's micro loan and 
     business assistance activities.
       Over the past five years, SEED has assisted over 10 FOR-
     PROFIT child care businesses to obtain SBA 504 financing for 
     their start-up or expansion projects. However, we have also 
     had to turn away an equal number of non-profit child care 
     centers that were seeking similar assistance due to the fact 
     that non profit entities are not eligible under the SBA 504 
     program.
       As we have learned from discussions and analysis within the 
     Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small Business, access 
     to long term, fixed market or below-market rate financing is 
     essential to any child care center. The slim margins that 
     characterize this industry limit any child care center's 
     ability to grow. The SBA 504 program offers the type of fixed 
     rate financing that not only assists the business to keep its 
     occupancy costs under control but also serves to stabilize 
     its operations over the long term. The program also provides 
     an incentive to a bank to provide fixed asset financing to a 
     business that might not otherwise be able to afford a 
     conventional commercial mortgage. The non-profit child care 
     centers provide the same quality of care as the for-profit 
     centers. Preventing non-profit child care center from making 
     use of the SBA 504 program when their for profit competitiors 
     are able to do results in discrimination against the children 
     they serve, and, in general, the majority of child care 
     centers operating in our state's neediest areas are non-
     profit.
       For these reasons, I would like to support your efforts to 
     expand the SBA 504 program enabling non-profit child care 
     centers to be eligible for fixed asset financing under the 
     504 program. Thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Heather Danton,
     Vice President.
                                  ____



                                                   ACCION USA,

                                         Boston, MA, June 8, 2002.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry:
       My name is Erika Eurkus, and as a member of your Advisory 
     Committee on Child Care and Small Business, I writing to 
     voice my support of expanding the SBA 504 loan program to 
     include nonprofit child care centers.
       I am the greater Boston program director for ACCION USA, a 
     nonprofit ``micro'' lender whose mission is to make access to 
     credit a permanent resource to low- and moderate-income small 
     business owners in the United States--helping to narrow the 
     income gap and provide economic opportunity to small business 
     owners throughout the country. Many of the struggling 
     entrepreneurs we serve are the owners of small, family-based 
     day care centers.
       At ACCION, I regularly come into contact with women and men 
     whose dream is to operate a successful child care center--to 
     provide a service to the community while making a better life 
     from something they love to do. Often, what keeps these 
     hardworking entrepreneurs from fully realizing that dream is 
     a lack of working capital to begin and grow their businesses. 
     Microlenders like ACCION are the only place they can turn for 
     the crucial capital they need for their businesses. Mauro 
     Leija, an ACCION client in San Antonio, Texas, has tried--and 
     failed--to secure capital from commercial banks. ``The loan 
     officer at the bank said, `Be realistic--you'll never get a 
     loan. You have no college diploma, no capital, no history 
     with any bank,''' Mauro remembers. This lack of economic 
     opportunity is too often the reality for countless child care 
     providers--most of whom earn an average of $3 per hour for 
     their services.
       With increased access to capital through the expansion of 
     the SBA 504 loan program, small, nonprofit day care centers 
     can continue to provide their valuable services to the 
     community--and build a better life for their own families at 
     the same time. Suzanne Morris of Springfield, Massachusetts, 
     a longtime ACCION USA borrower, already illustrates the 
     potential successes that an expanded SBA 504--and an 
     opportunity for capital--will bring to day care owners across 
     the country. After years of hard work and several small loans 
     from ACCION, Suzanne has moved her day care out of the home 
     and has expanded her staff to include seven members of the 
     community. The business supports her family of four. She also 
     gives back by training other local home-based day care 
     providers in federal nutrition guidelines.
       It is my hope that we can all witness more successes like 
     those of Suzanne by opening

[[Page 15760]]

     the door to funding for small day care providers. Please 
     include nonprofit child care centers in the scope of SBA 504.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Erika Eurkus,
     Greater Boston Program Director.
                                  ____

                                               Guild of St. Agnes,


                                          Child Care Programs,

                                      Worcester, MA, July 3, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry, It has come to my attention that your 
     committee is working on legislation that would expand the SBA 
     504 loan program to non-profit child care centers.
       As the Executive Director of the Guild of St. Agnes Child 
     Care Agency and a member of The Advisory Committee on Child 
     Care and Small Business, I wholeheartedly support this 
     legislation. The Guild of St. Agnes is a non-profit child 
     care agency providing child care in Worcester, MA and its 
     surrounding towns. Presently we care for 1200 children aged 
     four weeks to twelve years in child care centers, family care 
     provider's home and public schools. Of our seven centers, we 
     currently own one.
       Four of our centers are in old, worn-down buildings, 
     causing us difficulty in recruiting new clients. As we look 
     towards the future, the Guild of St. Agnes has set a goal of 
     replacing these centers with new buildings. In order to 
     accomplish this goal, we need to look for creative funding 
     sources to support our capital campaign. The SBA 504 loan 
     program would allow us to invest 10% of our own funds for 
     capital expenses, borrow 50% from the government and secure a 
     bank loan for 40%. Not only is this loan program attractive 
     to banking institutions, it allows child care agencies like 
     the Guild of St. Agnes to continue to grow during these 
     economically challenging times.
       I urge you to support the SBA 504 loan program legislation. 
     The future of non-profit child care agencies such as the 
     Guild of St. Agnes depends on it!
           Sincerely,
                                                 Edward P. Madaus,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2892. A bill to provide economic security for America's workers; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the U.S. is in the midst of another 
``jobless recovery,'' similar to the early 1990s, with the unemployment 
rate showing few signs of falling in the coming months. Over the past 
three months, the jobless rate has hovered around 6 percent and long-
term unemployment levels now exceed those reached in any recent 
recession. Last month, nearly one in five unemployed workers remained 
out of work for six months or more. Some 150,000 jobs have been lost 
since the beginning of this year and 8.4 million people are currently 
unemployed.
  The recent spate of corporate scandals has only made it worse. Sadly, 
Enron and WorldCom were not isolated events of corporate greed that 
hurt America's workers. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs because 
of the disgrace and mistrust company leaders created, or because of 
company mismanagement. At Lucent, 77,000 workers were laid off. At 
Kmart, 22,000 workers were laid off. At Xerox, over 13,000 workers were 
laid off. At Tyco, almost 10,000 workers were laid off. At Global 
Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. At Polaroid, over 4,000 
workers were laid off.
  As new corporate scandals lead to additional mass lay-offs and 
Americans remain unemployed longer, workers are losing their 
unemployment benefits with no hope for a new job in sight. Too many 
low-wage and part-time workers remain without unemployment benefits. 
And benefit levels remain too low to keep families out of poverty in 
many states. Today, I along with Senators Clinton and Rockefeller, am 
introducing the Economic Security Act 2002 to protect those unemployed 
workers and reinvigorate the economy.
  Last year, Senate Democrats responded to the recession with an 
immediate plan to stimulate the economy and help laid-off workers get 
back on their feet. In March, House Republicans finally relented and we 
extended unemployment benefits for millions of workers. It was a 
significant step forward, but it did not go far enough.
  This week, economists confirmed that recovery is slow at best. 
Economic growth fell from 5.0 percent in the first quarter of 2002 to 
1.1 percent in the second quarter. Business investment still has not 
recovered and continues to decline, while the trade deficit soared to 
record highs. Job growth, the last area of the economy to recover after 
a recession, continues to lag. As hundreds of thousands of workers 
exhaust their extended benefits, it's time to close the gaps in the 
extended benefit program. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will 
provide additional extended benefits for millions of workers who remain 
unemployed.
  The bill will also help those workers currently left out of the 
unemployment insurance system, part-time and low-wage workers. Part-
time work is a significant part of our modern economy and women and 
low-wage workers disproportionately comprise the part-time workforce. 
Yet, the majority of states do not provide benefits to unemployed 
workers seeking part-time work. The twenty States that already provide 
benefits to unemployed part-time workers have not found their inclusion 
overly costly.
  In addition, according to the GAO, low-wage workers are half as 
likely to receive unemployment benefits than other unemployed workers, 
even though low-wage workers as twice as likely to be unemployed. In 
all but 12 States, most unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible 
for benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. 
Failing to count a worker's most recent earnings not only denies 
unemployed workers benefits, but also cuts down on the duration and 
amount of benefits that some unemployed workers receive.
  These part-time and low-wage workers pay into the unemployment 
system, but fail to receive benefits. In January, Democratic Senators 
were joined by ten of our Republican colleagues in a vote to provide 
temporary benefits to part-time and low-wage workers, as well as 
increasing benefit levels and extending benefits. The Economic Security 
Act of 2002 incorporates these important provisions.
  Too often, those who receive unemployment find that unemployment 
checks are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In some states, the 
maximum weekly benefit amount is less than the poverty level for a one-
parent, two-child family. Raising benefit levels helps families stay 
out of poverty and invests more in the economy. After all, unemployed 
workers immediately spend unemployment insurance benefits in their 
communities, providing immediate economic stimulus. This bill would 
give a boost to workers and the economy by raising temporary extended 
benefit levels by the greater of 15 percent or $25 a week.
  As Americans exhaust their benefits in greater numbers, we must 
ensure that all workers can put food on their families' tables and keep 
a roof over their heads when jobs are scarce. And we must ensure that 
unemployment insurance serves the purpose for which it was created, to 
serve as a safety net for all workers during tough economic times and 
stimulate economic growth. The Economic Security Act of 2002 will be a 
giant leap forward for America's workers.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, despite some signs of an improving 
economy, for hard-working Americans, it is, unfortunately, a ``jobless 
recovery.'' While we see some positive economic indicators, the 
unemployment rate continues to rise and shows few signs of falling. For 
working Americans, that is bad news. Too many people are finding 
themselves without a job, and without a source of income.
  The Labor Department reports that over the past few months, the 
unemployment rate has hovered around 6 percent, with 8.4 million people 
officially counted as unemployed. My home State of West Virginia 
reported an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in June, which is only 
somewhat higher than the national average, but some of our counties are 
struggling with unemployment rates in the double digits.
  Not only are more people being laid off, they are also remaining 
unemployed for longer. From January to May 2002, the proportion of 
unemployed workers who were still looking for work after 27 weeks 
increased by 41

[[Page 15761]]

percent, and unemployment levels now exceed those reached in any recent 
recession. Workers are suffering unemployment for longer periods, and 
are losing benefits before they can find new jobs. In January 2002, a 
total of 373,000 workers exhausted their benefits, a sizeable 11 
percent increase from the same time last year.
  We faced similar troubles in the early 1990s, when, amidst a 
recession, Congress enacted an emergency Federal extended benefits 
program designed to help unemployed workers and their families. Some 
analysts suggest that without that program, approximately 70 percent of 
unemployed families would have ended up with incomes below the federal 
poverty line. When our Nation faces such an economic downturn, action 
is essential to help hard-working Americans get back on their feet 
after a devastating layoff. Now, in the midst of another economic 
downturn, we must also act to provide American families with the 
assistance they need.
  I rise today in support of a bill to be introduced by my colleague, 
Senator Kennedy, that would remedy several flaws in the current 
unemployment benefits program. This is an enormously important piece of 
legislation, one that should be enacted immediately for the sake of 
working families who have been put out of jobs through no fault of 
their own.
  The measure would give States administrative funding so they can 
distribute benefit checks punctually and accurately. It would ensure 
that all unemployed workers receive a full 13 weeks of benefits. And it 
would repeal the 20-weeks-of-work prerequisite to receiving benefits 
that primarily punishes low-wage workers and newer entrants to the job 
market.
  Beginning in 1986, Federal and State governments began withholding 
taxes from the benefit checks of all aid recipients. However, no 
accommodations were made to offset these deductions, and recipients saw 
a significant reduction in benefits. To ameliorate this problem, 
Senator Kennedy's legislation would raise benefit levels by 15 percent 
or $25 a week, whichever is higher.
  Finally, a majority of States currently refuse benefits to unemployed 
workers seeking part-time work. West Virginia does cover part-time 
workers, but I believe every state should do this as well. Part-time 
work is an enormously important component of our economy, particularly 
as it involves large numbers of women and low-wage earners. Senator 
Kennedy's bill would require states to base eligibility on a worker's 
most recent earnings. This seemingly technical provision would greatly 
expand eligibility to benefits for many workers, in my state, and 
across the country.
  Millions of Americans are still struggling, and they do not have a 
steady source of income. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to 
reform America's unemployment insurance program; it is urgently needed 
and should be passed with great haste. This bill is the right thing to 
do for working Americans, and it is an essential measure for those 
still suffering from the effects of our uncertain economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2893. A bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management 
land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the 
Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Bingaman in introducing legislation that declares the United States 
holds certain public domain lands in trust for the Pueblos of San 
Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico.
  In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pursuant to the Federal 
Lands Policy and Management Act, declared approximately 4,484 acres 
located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez Mountains in north 
central New Mexico, including portions of Garcia and Chupadero Canyons, 
to be ``disposal property.'' The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify 
for disposal partially because the tract is an isolated tract of land 
almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded on three 
sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San 
Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The 
only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblo's 
reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or no public usage 
of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands in recent decades.
  I understand that currently there are no resource permits, leases, 
patents or claims affecting these lands. It is unlikely that any 
significant minerals exist with the Garcia Canyon transfer lands. The 
Garcia Canyon transfer lands contain a limited amount of lesser quality 
forage for livestock and have not been actively grazed for over a 
decade. However, the Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an 
important part of the ancestral homelands of the Pueblos of Santa Clara 
and San Ildefonso.
  Santa Clara and San Ildefonso are two of the Tewa-speaking federally-
recognized Indian Pueblos of New Mexico. Both Pueblos have occupied and 
controlled the areas where they are presently located since many 
centuries before the arrival of the first Europeans in the area in late 
16th century. Their homelands are defined by geographical landmarks, 
cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional Tewa names 
and locations have been known and passed down in each Pueblo through 
the generations. Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the 
Garcia Canyon surplus lands is within the aboriginal domain of the 
Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The remaining lands, approximately 2,484 acres 
are in Santa Clara's aboriginal lands.
  The Bureau of Land Management currently seeks to dispose of the 
Garcia Canyon surplus lands and the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San 
Ildefonso seek to obtain these lands. In addition, the BLM and Interior 
Department for years have supported the transfer of the land to the two 
Pueblos, provided the Pueblos agree upon a division of the Garcia 
Canyon surplus lands. In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal 
agreement affirming the boundary between their respective parcels on 
December 20, 2000.
  The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have worked diligently 
in arriving at this agreement. They have also worked collaboratively in 
seeking community support and garnering supporting resolutions from Los 
Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, the National Congress of 
American Indians and supporting letters from the National Audubon 
Society's New Mexico State Office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa 
Fe Group of the Sierra Club.
  This unique situation presents a win-win opportunity to support more 
efficient management of public resources while restoring to tribal 
control isolated tracts of federal disposal property. Upon transfer, 
the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso intend to maintain these 
lands in their natural state and use them for sustainable traditional 
purposes including cultural resource gathering, hunting and possibly 
livestock grazing. Where appropriate, both tribes are interested in 
performing work to restore and improve ecosystem health, particularly 
to support habitat for culturally significant animal and plant species. 
Both Pueblos have experienced Natural Resource Management and 
Environmental Protection programs and are capable of managing these 
lands for both ecologic health and community benefits.
  We want to secure Congressional authorization to transfer control of 
these lands to the two Pueblos, with legal title being held in trust by 
the Secretary of Interior for each of the Pueblos for their respective 
portions of the property. I urge my colleagues to support 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. 2893

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

[[Page 15762]]



     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement 
     entitled ``Agreement to Affirm Boundary Between Pueblo of 
     Santa Clara and Pueblo of San Ildefonso Aboriginal Lands 
     Within Garcia Canyon Tract'', entered into by the Governors 
     on December 20, 2000.
       (2) Boundary line.--The term ``boundary line'' means the 
     boundary line established under section 4(a).
       (3) Governors.--The term ``Governors'' means--
       (A) the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; 
     and
       (B) the Governor of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New 
     Mexico.
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (5) Pueblos.--The term ``Pueblos'' means--
       (A) the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; and
       (B) the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) Trust land.--The term ``trust land'' means the land 
     held by the United States in trust under section 2(a) or 
     3(a).

     SEC. 2. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the land described in subsection (b), 
     including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral 
     rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall 
     be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of Santa 
     Clara, New Mexico.
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,484 acres of 
     Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County, 
     New Mexico, and more particularly described as--
       (1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 22, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary 
     line;
       (2) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 23, New 
     Mexico Principal Meridian;
       (3) the southern half of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 24, New 
     Mexico Principal Meridian;
       (4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 25, excluding the 5-acre tract 
     in the southeast quarter owned by the Pueblo of San 
     Ildefonso;
       (5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located north and east of the 
     boundary line;
       (6) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located north of the boundary 
     line;
       (7) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 19, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is not included in the Santa Clara 
     Pueblo Grant or the Santa Clara Indian Reservation; and
       (8) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 30, that is not 
     included in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant or the San Ildefonso 
     Grant.

     SEC. 3. TRUST FOR THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the land described in subsection (b), 
     including improvements on, appurtenances to, and mineral 
     rights (including rights to oil and gas) to the land, shall 
     be held by the United States in trust for the Pueblo of San 
     Ildefonso, New Mexico.
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of approximately 2,000 acres of 
     Bureau of Land Management land located in Rio Arriba County 
     and Santa Fe County in the State of New Mexico, and more 
     particularly described as--
       (1) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 22, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary 
     line;
       (2) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 26, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located south and west of the 
     boundary line;
       (3) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 27, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is located south of the boundary 
     line;
       (4) T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 34, New Mexico Principal 
     Meridian; and
       (5) the portion of T. 20 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 35, New Mexico 
     Principal Meridian, that is not included in the San Ildefonso 
     Pueblo Grant.

     SEC. 4. SURVEY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

       (a) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Office of Cadastral Survey of the 
     Bureau of Land Management shall, in accordance with the 
     Agreement, complete a survey of the boundary line established 
     under the Agreement for the purpose of establishing, in 
     accordance with sections 2(b) and 3(b), the boundaries of the 
     trust land.
       (b) Legal Descriptions.--
       (1) Publication.--On approval by the Governors of the 
     survey completed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register--
       (A) a legal description of the boundary line; and
       (B) legal descriptions of the trust land.
       (2) Technical corrections.--Before the date on which the 
     legal descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the 
     Secretary may correct any technical errors in the 
     descriptions of the trust land provided in sections 2(b) and 
     3(b) to ensure that the descriptions are consistent with the 
     terms of the Agreement.
       (3) Effect.--Beginning on the date on which the legal 
     descriptions are published under paragraph (1)(B), the legal 
     descriptions shall be the official legal descriptions of the 
     trust land.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST LAND.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) the land held in trust under section 2(a) shall be 
     declared to be a part of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation; 
     and
       (2) the land held in trust under section 3(a) shall be 
     declared to be a part of the San Ildefonso Indian 
     Reservation.
       (b) Applicable Law.--
       (1) In general.--The trust land shall be administered in 
     accordance with any law (including regulations) or court 
     order generally applicable to property held in trust by the 
     United States for Indian tribes.
       (2) Pueblo lands act.--The following shall be subject to 
     section 17 of the Act of June 7, 1924 (commonly known as the 
     ``Pueblo Lands Act'') (25 U.S.C. 331 note):
       (A) The trust land.
       (B) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the 
     Pueblo of Santa Clara in the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant.
       (C) Any land owned as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     or acquired after the date of enactment of this Act by the 
     Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant.
       (c) Use of Trust Land.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the criteria developed under 
     paragraph (2), the trust land may be used only for--
       (A) traditional and customary uses; or
       (B) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Pueblo 
     for which the trust land is held in trust.
       (2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with the Pueblos to 
     develop appropriate criteria for using the trust land in a 
     manner that preserves the trust land for traditional and 
     customary uses or stewardship conservation.
       (3) Limitation.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the trust land shall not be used for any new commercial 
     developments.

     SEC. 6. EFFECT.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) affects any valid right-of-way, lease, permit, mining 
     claim, grazing permit, water right, or other right or 
     interest of a person or entity (other than the United States) 
     that is--
       (A) in or to the trust land; and
       (B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) enlarges, impairs, or otherwise affects a right or 
     claim of the Pueblos to any land or interest in land that 
     is--
       (A) based on Aboriginal or Indian title; and
       (B) in existence before the date of enactment of this Act;
       (3) constitutes an express or implied reservation of water 
     or water right with respect to the trust land; or
       (4) affects any water right of the Pueblos in existence 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Ms. 
        Snowe):
  S. 2895. A bill to enhance the security of the United States by 
protecting seaports, and for other purposes; to the Committee, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 to protect 
against terrorist attacks on or through our Nation's seaports. I would 
like to thank Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe for joining me in 
sponsoring this bill.
  Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our Nation's defense 
against terrorism. Of the over 18 million shipping containers that 
enter our ports each year, 6 million come from overseas. However, only 
1 or 2 percent of these containers are inspected, and inspections 
almost invariably occur after the containers arrive in the United 
States.
  The problem is that single container could contain 60,000 pounds of 
explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow 
up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma city, and a single container 
ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time. Containers 
could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a 
bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass 
destruction and killing thousands.
  Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' 
could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United 
States. The odds that the container would never be inspected. And, even 
if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The

[[Page 15763]]

weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major 
population center.
  There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit 
vulnerabilities at our seaports right now.
  For example, a recent article in the Bangkok Post notes that ``Al-
Qaeda is among international terrorist organisations responsible for an 
increase in piracy against ships carrying radioactive materials through 
the Malacca Straits. . . . The terrorist groups' main aims were to 
obtain substances such as uranium and plutonium oxide for use in so-
called dirty bombs.''
  In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have 
devastating economic consequences. Every year U.S. ports handle over 
800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.
  Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 
percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports in the world are in my 
home State of California: Los Angeles/Long Beach and at Oakland.
  We cannot inspect every container coming into the United States, but 
we can do a better job devoting our attention to cargo that could put 
our national security at risk. The legislation we introduce today will 
ensure that we devote the limited resources we do have to inspect cargo 
in the most efficient and effective manner. It will allow us to reduce 
the size of the haystack to make it easier to find the needle.
  Since September 11th, the Federal Government has taken steps to 
secure our airports and our borders, however, we still have not adopted 
a blueprint for helping protect America's 361 seaports. While the 
Senate passed S. 1214, a bill written by Senator Hollings last 
December, and the House has also passed a port security bill, 
conference negotiations are still ongoing.
  I hope the conferees will adopt the provisions in this bill before 
they complete their work in conference because I believe that this bill 
is the only legislation that thoroughly addresses the issue of port 
security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its 
arrival on land in the United States.
  We have known for a long time that America's ports needed an 
extensive security strategy and upgrade. In the fall of 2000, a 
comprehensive report was issued by the Interagency Commission on Crime 
and Security in U.S. Seaports. I testified before the commission and I 
believe its report makes a number of sensible suggestions on how we can 
improve security and fight crime at seaports.
  Before the September 11 terrorist attacks, S. 1214 was drafted to try 
to implement many of the commission's recommendations. Before the bill 
passed the Senate in December 2001, the sponsors made some additional 
changes to help prevent a terrorist attack. However, I believe that 
there is much more Congress can do to prevent terrorists from launching 
a terrorist attack through our seaports.
  The legislation I am introducing today will complement the Hollings 
bill and the seaport security legislation passed by the House. 
Together, I believe the provisions in these three bills will erect a 
formidable security barrier at our seaports.
  I believe that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the United States again 
soon and that it may well try to do so through a U.S. seaport. Indeed, 
the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point 
of vulnerability in our security.
  In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has succeeded in attacking 
American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention 
some examples.
  In June, the FBI issued a warning for Americans to be on the lookout 
for suspicious people wanting training in scuba diving or trying to 
rent underwater gear. Law enforcement officials fear that Al Qaeda 
operatives could try to blow up ships at anchor or other waterfront 
targets.
  In May the FBI received reports that Al Qaeda terrorists may be 
making their way toward Southern California from a Middle Eastern port 
via merchant ships. Catalina Island--22 miles off the coast of Los 
Angles, was mentioned as a possible destination for about 40 Al Qaeda 
terrorists.
  In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected 
for having ties to Al Qaeda in a container bound for Canada. He had 
false identifications, maps of airports, a computer, a satellite 
phones, cameras, and plenty of cash on hand.
  In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a 
deadly bombing attack against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen.
  In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used 
were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy 
bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial tries to various 
shipping companies.
  I believe that this legislation would go far to make the United 
States less vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The main provisions will: 
1. Establish a risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus 
their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and 
containers, and 2. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our Nation's 
borders to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive 
near America's shores.
  These provisions complement and extend a strategy Customs 
Commissioner Robert C. Bonner is already in the process of 
implementing. To prevent a weapon of mass destruction from getting to 
the U.S. in the first place, Customs has entered into formal agreements 
with a handful of foreign governments to station U.S. inspectors at 
ports overseas to profile high risk cargo and target suspicious 
shipments for inspection.
  The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act will also: 
Designate an official at each U.S. port as the primary authority 
responsible for security. This will enable all parties involved in 
business at a port to understand who has final say on all security 
matters.
  Require the FBI to collect and make available data relating to crime 
at and affecting seaports. With more data, law enforcement agencies 
will be able to better identify patterns and weaknesses at particular 
ports.
  Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able 
to use its non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs 
has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, 
which prevents some of the best inspection technology, which is not 
portable, from being used.
  Give Customs responsibility of licensing and overseeing regulated 
intermediaries in the international trade process, these intermediaries 
handle over 80 percent of all cargo in international trade. Currently, 
the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission oversees most of these 
intermediaries, but Customs will have more resources to oversee this 
regulation.
  Require shippers bound for U.S. ports to transmit their cargo 
manifests with more detailed information at least 24 hours prior to 
departing from a foreign port.
  Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with 
information filing requirements, including filing incorrect 
information, the current penalty is only a maximum of $1000 or $5000, 
depending on the offense. The Seaport Commission found that about half 
of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate.
  Require all port employees to have biometric smart identification 
cards.
  Restrict private vehicle access to ports.
  Prohibit guns and explosives at ports, except when authorized.
  Mandate that radiation detection pagers be issued to each inspector.
  Requires the Transportation Security Administration to set standards 
to ensure each port has a secure port perimeter, secure parking 
facilities, controlled points of access into the port, sufficient 
lighting, buildings with secure doors and windows and an alarm.

[[Page 15764]]

  Require all ports to keep sensitive information on the port secure 
and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to 
maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet.
  Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into 
the U.S.
  Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports 
receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track 
container movement from origin to destination. Require shippers to have 
similar universal numbers.
  Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured.
  Fund pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including 
those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a 
monitor at a terminal.
  I believe that Congress should act quickly on this legislation. This 
bill could very well prevent the arrival or detonation of a nuclear 
``suitcase bomb'' or radiological ``dirty bomb'' at a U.S. seaport-an 
attack that could bring U.S. seaborne commerce to a grinding halt, 
leaving our economy and national security in shambles.
  In closing, I want to thank staff at the Customs Service, 
Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and various ports 
for their helpful comments on this legislation. I also want to thank a 
``working group'' of experts I assembled for their suggestions 
regarding the bill. These experts included former government officials, 
industry executives, and security consultants.
  I also want to thank Senator Hollings and the other members of the 
Commerce Committee for the work they have done on the port security 
issue. I have spoken to Senator Hollings about the bill I am 
introducing today, and my staff is working with his staff and with the 
staff of other conferees to come up with comprehensive seaport security 
legislation.
  I hope that the legislation ultimately adopted by the conference 
includes the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002. 
I would urge the conferees to work quickly to draft a final bill that 
we can send to the President's desk before September 11.
  Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2895

       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 ``Comprehensive Seaport and 
     Container Security Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Captain-of-the-port.--The term ``Captain-of-the-Port'' 
     means the United States Coast Guard's Captain-of-the-Port.
       (2) Common carrier.--The term ``common carrier'' means any 
     person that holds itself out to the general public to provide 
     transportation by water, land, or air of merchandise, whether 
     or not the person actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or 
     aircraft by which the transportation is provided, between a 
     port or place and a port or place in the United States.
       (3) Container.--The term ``container'' means a container 
     which is used or designed for use for the international 
     transportation of merchandise by vessel, vehicle, or 
     aircraft.
       (4) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person 
     who fabricates or assembles merchandise for sale in commerce.
       (5) Merchandise.--The term ``merchandise'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1401).
       (6) Ocean transportation intermediary.--The term ``ocean 
     transportation intermediary'' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 515.2 of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (7) Shipment.--The term ``shipment'' means cargo traveling 
     in international commerce under a bill of lading.
       (8) Shipper.--The term ``shipper'' means--
       (A) a cargo owner;
       (B) the person for whose account the ocean transportation 
     is provided;
       (C) the person to whom delivery of the merchandise is to be 
     made; or
       (D) a common carrier that accepts responsibility for 
     payment of all charges applicable under a tariff or service 
     contract.
       (9) United states seaport.--The term ``United States 
     seaport'' means a place in the United States on a waterway 
     with shoreside facilities for the intermodal transfer of 
     cargo containers that are used in international trade.
       (10) Vessel.--The term ``vessel'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1401).

                  TITLE I--LAW ENFORCEMENT AT SEAPORTS

     SEC. 101. DESIGNATED SECURITY AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security, after consultation with the Director of the 
     Office of Homeland Security, shall designate a Director of 
     the Port who will be the primary authority responsible for 
     security at each United States seaport to--
       (1) coordinate security at such seaport; and
       (2) be the point of contact on seaport security issues for 
     civilian and commercial port entities at such seaport.
       (b) Delegation.--A Director of the Port may delegate the 
     responsibilities described in subsection (a) to the Captain-
     of-the-Port.

     SEC. 102. FBI CRIME DATA COLLECTION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     shall implement a data collection system to compile data 
     related to crimes at or affecting United States seaports. 
     Such data collection system shall be designed to--
       (1) identify patterns of criminal activity at particular 
     seaports; and
       (2) allow law enforcement authorities, including the 
     designated law enforcement authority for each seaport 
     described in section 101, to retrieve reliable data regarding 
     such crimes.

     SEC. 103. CUSTOMS SERVICE FACILITIES.

       (a) Operational Space in Seaports.--Each entity that owns 
     or operates a United States seaport that receives cargo from 
     a foreign country, whether governmental, quasi-governmental, 
     or private, shall allow the use of permanent suitable office 
     and inspection space within the seaport by United States 
     Customs Service officers at no cost to the Customs Service.
       (b) Inspection Technology.--The Commissioner of Customs 
     shall maintain permanent inspection facilities that utilize 
     available inspection technology in the space provided at each 
     United States seaport pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. REGULATION OF OCEAN TRANSPORT INTERMEDIARIES.

       (a) Transfer of Authority.--The responsibility to license, 
     and revoke or suspend a license, as an ocean transportation 
     intermediary of a person who carries on or wishes to carry on 
     the business of providing intermediary services is 
     transferred from the Federal Maritime Commission to the 
     Commissioner of Customs.
       (b) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs 
     shall issue final regulations to carry out the requirements 
     of subsection (a). Such regulations shall require that ocean 
     transportation intermediaries assist the Commissioner of 
     Customs in collecting data that can be used to prevent 
     terrorist attacks in the United States.
       (c) Interim Rules.--The Commissioner of Customs shall 
     enforce the regulations in part 515 of title 46, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, until the final regulations required by subsection 
     (b) are issued, except that any reference to the Federal 
     Maritime Commission in such regulations shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the Commissioner of Customs.
       (d) Continuing Effect of Legal Documents.--All orders, 
     determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements, 
     grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, 
     privileges, and other administrative actions relating to 
     ocean transportation intermediary--
       (1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to 
     become effective by the President, any Federal agency or 
     official thereof, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in 
     the performance of functions which are transferred under 
     subsection (a), and
       (2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect, 
     or were final before the effective date of this Act and are 
     to become effective on or after the effective date of this 
     Act,
     shall continue in effect according to their terms until 
     modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in 
     accordance with law by the President, the head of the Federal 
     agency to which such functions are transferred under this Act 
     or other authorized official, a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (e) Proceedings Not Affected.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     affect any proceedings, including notices of proposed rule 
     making, or any application for any license, permit, 
     certificate, or financial assistance pending on the effective 
     date of this Act before the Federal Maritime Commission with 
     respect to functions transferred by this Act, but such 
     proceedings or applications, to the extent that they relate 
     to functions transferred, shall be continued. Orders shall be 
     issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, 
     and payments shall be made under such orders, as if this Act 
     had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such 
     proceedings shall

[[Page 15765]]

     continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or 
     revoked by the head of the Federal agency to which such 
     functions are transferred by this Act, by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in 
     this subsection prohibits the discontinuance or modification 
     of any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions 
     and to the same extent that such proceeding could have been 
     discontinued or modified if this Act had not been enacted.
       (2) Regulations.--The Commissioner of Customs is authorized 
     to issue regulations providing for the orderly transfer of 
     proceedings continued under paragraph (1).

                    TITLE II--PUSHING OUT THE BORDER

     SEC. 201. INSPECTION OF MERCHANDISE AT FOREIGN FACILITIES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commissioner of Customs, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, shall submit 
     to Congress a plan to--
       (1) station inspectors from the Customs Service, other 
     Federal agencies, or the private sector at the foreign 
     facilities of manufacturers or common carriers to profile and 
     inspect merchandise and the containers or other means by 
     which such merchandise is transported as they are prepared 
     for shipment on a vessel that will arrive at any port or 
     place in the United States;
       (2) develop procedures to ensure the security of 
     merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) until it 
     reaches the United States; and
       (3) permit merchandise inspected as described in paragraph 
     (1) to receive expedited inspection upon arrival in the 
     United States.

     SEC. 202. MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1431(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any manifest'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Any manifest''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Required information.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--In addition to any other requirement 
     under this section, the pilot, master, operator, or owner (or 
     the authorized agent of such owner or operator) of every 
     vessel required to make entry or obtain clearance under the 
     customs laws of the United States shall, not later than 24 
     hours prior to departing from any foreign port or place for a 
     port or place in the United States, transmit electronically 
     the cargo manifest information described in subparagraph (B) 
     in such manner and form as the Secretary shall prescribe. The 
     Secretary shall ensure the electronic information is 
     maintained securely, and is available only to individuals 
     with Federal Government security responsibilities.
       ``(B) Content.--The cargo manifest required by subparagraph 
     (A) shall consist of the following information--
       ``(i) The port of arrival and departure.
       ``(ii) The carrier code assigned to the shipper.
       ``(iii) The flight, voyage, or trip number.
       ``(iv) The date of scheduled arrival and departure.
       ``(v) A request for a permit to proceed to the destination, 
     if such permit is required.
       ``(vi) The numbers and quantities from the carrier's master 
     air waybill, bills of lading, or ocean bills of lading.
       ``(vii) The first port of lading of the cargo and the city 
     in which the carrier took receipt of the cargo.
       ``(viii) A description and weight of the cargo (including 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number 
     under which the cargo is classified) or, for a sealed 
     container, the shipper's declared description and weight of 
     the cargo.
       ``(ix) The shipper's name and address, or an identification 
     number, from all air waybills and bills of lading.
       ``(x) The consignee's name and address, or an 
     identification number, from all air waybills and bills of 
     lading.
       ``(xi) Notice of any discrepancy between actual boarded 
     quantities and air waybill or bills of lading quantities, 
     except that a carrier is not required by this clause to 
     verify boarded quantities of cargo in sealed containers.
       ``(xii) Transfer or transit information for the cargo while 
     it has been under the control of the carrier.
       ``(xiii) The location of the warehouse or other facility 
     where the cargo was stored while under the control of the 
     carrier.
       ``(xiv) The name and address, or identification number of 
     the carrier's customer including the forwarder, nonvessel 
     operating common carrier, and consolidator.
       ``(xv) The conveyance name, national flag, and tail number, 
     vessel number, or train number.
       ``(xvi) Country of origin and ultimate destination.
       ``(xvii) Carrier's reference number including the booking 
     or bill number.
       ``(xviii) Shipper's commercial invoice number and purchase 
     order number.
       ``(xix) Information regarding any hazardous material 
     contained in the cargo.
       ``(xx) License information including the license code, 
     license number, or exemption code.
       ``(xxi) Container number for containerized shipments.
       ``(xxii) Certification of any empty containers.
       ``(xxiii) Any additional information that the Secretary by 
     regulation determines is reasonably necessary to ensure 
     aviation, maritime, and surface transportation safety 
     pursuant to those laws enforced and administered by the 
     Customs Service.''.

     SEC. 203. PENALTIES FOR INACCURATE MANIFEST.

       (a) Falsity or Lack of Manifest.--Section 584 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1584) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``$1,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$50,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Criminal Penalties.--Any person who ships or prepares 
     for shipment any merchandise bound for the United States who 
     intentionally provides inaccurate or false information, 
     whether inside or outside the United States, with respect to 
     such merchandise for the purpose of introducing such 
     merchandise into the United States in violation of the 
     customs laws of the United States, is liable, upon conviction 
     of a violation of this subsection, for a fine of not more 
     than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that 
     if the importation of such merchandise into the United States 
     is prohibited, such person is liable for an additional fine 
     of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 
     years, or both.''.
       (b) Penalties for Violations of the Arrival, Reporting, 
     Entry, and Clearance Requirements.--Subsections (b) and (c) 
     of section 436 of Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1436 (b) and 
     (c)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Civil Penalty.--Any master, person in charge of a 
     vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any violation 
     listed in subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of 
     $25,000 for the first violation, and $50,000 for each 
     subsequent violation, and any conveyance used in connection 
     with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture.
       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--In addition to being liable for a 
     civil penalty under subsection (b), any master, person in 
     charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who 
     intentionally commits or causes another to commit any 
     violation listed in subsection (a) is, upon conviction, 
     liable for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment 
     for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is 
     discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than 
     sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than 
     vessels) the importation of which into the United States is 
     prohibited, such individual is liable for an additional fine 
     of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 
     years, or both.''.

     SEC. 204. SHIPMENT PROFILING PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Customs, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Homeland 
     Security and the Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security, shall develop a shipment profiling plan to track 
     containers and shipments of merchandise that will be imported 
     into the United States for the purpose of identifying any 
     shipment that is a threat to the security of the United 
     States before such shipment is transported to a United States 
     seaport.
       (b) Information Requirements.--The shipment profiling plan 
     described in subsection (a) shall at a minimum--
       (1) require common carriers, shippers, and ocean 
     transportation intermediaries to provide appropriate 
     information regarding each shipment of merchandise, including 
     the information required under section 431(b) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) as amended by this Act, to 
     the Commissioner of Customs; and
       (2) require shippers to use a standard international bill 
     of lading for each shipment that includes--
       (A) the weight of the cargo;
       (B) the value of the cargo;
       (C) the vessel name;
       (D) the voyage number;
       (E) a description of each container;
       (F) a description of the nature, type, and contents of the 
     shipment;
       (G) the code number from Harmonized Tariff Schedule;
       (H) the port of destination;
       (I) the final destination of the cargo;
       (J) the means of conveyance of the cargo;
       (K) the origin of the cargo;
       (L) the name of the precarriage deliverer or agent;
       (M) the port at which the cargo was loaded;
       (N) the name of formatting agent;
       (O) the bill of lading number;
       (P) the name of the shipper;
       (Q) the name of the consignee;
       (R) the universal transaction number or carrier code 
     assigned to the shipper by the Commissioner of Customs; and
       (S) any additional information that the Commissioner of 
     Customs by regulation determines is reasonably necessary to 
     ensure seaport safety.
       (c) Creation of Profile.--The Commissioner of Customs shall 
     combine the information described in subsection (b) with 
     other law enforcement and national security information that 
     the Commissioner believes will assist in locating containers 
     and shipments

[[Page 15766]]

     that could pose a threat to the security of the United States 
     to create a profile of every container and every shipment 
     within the container that will enter the United States.
       (d) Cargo Screening.--
       (1) In general.--Customs Service officers shall review the 
     profile of a shipment that a shipper desires to transport 
     into the United States to determine if the shipment or the 
     container in which it is carried should be subjected to 
     additional inspection by the Customs Service. In making that 
     determination, the Customs Service officers shall consider in 
     addition to any other relevant factors--
       (A) whether the shipper has regularly shipped cargo to the 
     United States in the past; and
       (B) the specificity of the description of the shipment's 
     contents.
       (2) Notification.--The Commissioner of Customs shall notify 
     the shipper and the person in charge of the vessel on which a 
     shipment is located if the shipment will be subject to 
     additional inspection as described in paragraph (1).
       (e) Consistency With the Automated Commercial Environment 
     Project.--The Commissioner of Customs shall ensure that the 
     automated commercial environment project developed pursuant 
     to section 411 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1411) is 
     compatible with the shipment profile plan described under 
     this section.

          TITLE III--SECURITY OF CARGO CONTAINERS AND SEAPORTS

     SEC. 301. SEAPORT SECURITY CARDS.

       (a) Requirement for Cards.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, a covered individual described 
     in subsection (b) shall not be permitted to enter a United 
     States seaport unless the covered individual holds a seaport 
     security card as described in this section.
       (b) Covered Individual.--A ``covered individual'' means an 
     individual who is regularly employed at a United States 
     seaport or who is employed by a common carrier that 
     transports merchandise to or from a United States seaport.
       (c) Issuance.--
       (1) In general.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security shall issue a seaport security card under this 
     section to a covered individual unless the Under Secretary 
     determines that the individual--
       (A) poses a terrorism security risk;
       (B) poses a security risk under section 5103a of title 49, 
     United States Code;
       (C) has been convicted of a violation of chapter 27 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       (D) has not provided sufficient information to allow the 
     Under Secretary to make the determinations described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
       (2) Determination of terrorism security risk.--The Under 
     Secretary shall determine that a person poses a terrorism 
     security risk under paragraph (1)(A) if the individual--
       (A) has been convicted of a felony that the Under Secretary 
     believes could be a terrorism security risk to the United 
     States;
       (B) may be denied admission to the United States or removed 
     from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); or
       (C) otherwise poses a terrorism security risk to the United 
     States.
       (3) Considerations.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (2), the Under Secretary shall give consideration 
     to the circumstances of any disqualifying act or offense, 
     restitution made by the individual, Federal and State 
     mitigation remedies, and other factors from which it may be 
     concluded that the individual does not pose a terrorism 
     security risk sufficient to warrant denial of the card.
       (d) Appeals.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security shall establish an appeals process under this 
     section for individuals found to be ineligible for a seaport 
     security card that includes notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing.
       (e) Data on Card.--The seaport identification cards 
     required by subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be tamper resistant; and
       (2) contain--
       (A) the number of the individual's commercial driver's 
     license issued under chapter 313 of title 49, United States 
     Code, if any;
       (B) the State-issued vehicle registration number of any 
     vehicle that the individual desires to bring into the 
     seaport, if any;
       (C) the work permit number issued to the individual, if 
     any;
       (D) a unique biometric identifier to identify the license 
     holder; and
       (E) a safety rating assigned to the individual by the Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security.

     SEC. 302. SEAPORT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security, after consultation with the Commissioner of 
     Customs, shall issue final regulations setting forth minimum 
     security requirements including security performance 
     standards at United States seaports. The regulations shall--
       (1) limit private vehicle access to United States seaports 
     to vehicles that are registered at the seaport and display a 
     seaport registration pass;
       (2) prohibit individuals, other than law enforcement 
     officers, from carrying firearms or explosives inside a 
     United States seaport without written authorization from the 
     Director of the Port described in section 101(a) or, if 
     authority is delegated under section 101(b), the Captain-of-
     the-Port;
       (3) prohibit individuals from physically accessing a United 
     States seaport without a seaport specific access pass;
       (4) require that Customs Service officers, and other 
     appropriate law enforcement officers, at United States 
     seaports be provided and utilize personal radiation detection 
     pagers to increase the ability of the Customs Service to 
     accurately detect radioactive materials that could be used to 
     commit terrorist acts in the United States;
       (5) require that each United States seaport maintain--
       (A) a secure perimeter;
       (B) secure parking facilities;
       (C) monitored or locked access points;
       (D) sufficient lighting; and
       (E) secure buildings within the seaport; and
       (6) include any additional security requirement that the 
     Under Secretary determines is reasonably necessary to ensure 
     seaport security.
       (b) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (c), any 
     United States seaport that does not meet the minimum security 
     requirements described in subsection (a) is prohibited from--
       (1) handling, storing, stowing, loading, discharging, or 
     transporting dangerous cargo; and
       (2) transferring passengers to or from a passenger vessel 
     that--
       (A) weighs more than 100 gross tons;
       (B) carries more than 12 passengers for hire; and
       (C) has a planned voyage of more than 24 hours, part of 
     which is on the high seas.
       (c) Exception.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security may waive 1 or more of the minimum requirements 
     described in subsection (a) for a United States seaport if 
     the Secretary determines that it is not appropriate for such 
     seaport to implement the requirement.

     SEC. 303. SECURING SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Port described in 
     section 101(a) or, if authority is delegated under section 
     101(b), the Captain-of-the-Port of each United States seaport 
     shall secure and protect all sensitive information, including 
     information that is currently available to the public, 
     related to the seaport.
       (b) Sensitive Information.--In this section, the term 
     ``sensitive information'' means--
       (1) maps of the seaport;
       (2) blueprints of structures located within the seaport; 
     and
       (3) any other information related to the security of the 
     seaport that the Director of the Port described in section 
     101(a) or, if authority is delegated under section 101(b), 
     the Captain-of-the-Port determines is appropriate to secure 
     and protect.

     SEC. 304. CONTAINER SECURITY.

       (a) Container Seals.--
       (1) Approval.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security and the Commissioner of Customs shall jointly 
     approve minimum standards for high security container seals 
     that--
       (A) meet or exceed the American Society for Testing 
     Materials Level D seals;
       (B) permit each seal to have a unique identification 
     number; and
       (C) contain an electronic tag that can be read 
     electronically at a seaport.
       (2) Requirement for use.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security shall deny entry by a vessel into the United 
     States if the containers carried by the vessel are not sealed 
     with a high security container seal approved under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Identification Number.--
       (1) Requirement.--A shipment that is shipped to or from the 
     United States either directly or via a foreign port shall 
     have a designated universal transaction number.
       (2) Tracking.--The person responsible for the security of a 
     container shall record the universal transaction number 
     assigned to the shipment under subparagraph (1), as well as 
     any seal identification number on the container, at every 
     port of entry and point at which the container is transferred 
     from one conveyance to another conveyance.
       (c) Pilot Program.--
       (1) Grants.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security is authorized to award grants to eligible entities 
     to develop improved seals for cargo containers that are able 
     to--
       (A) immediately detect tampering with the seal;
       (B) immediately detect tampering with the walls, ceiling, 
     or floor of the container that indicates a person is 
     attempting to improperly access the container; and
       (C) transmit information regarding tampering with the seal, 
     walls, ceiling, or floor of the container in real time to the 
     appropriate authorities at a remote location.
       (2) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall

[[Page 15767]]

     submit an application to the Under Secretary at such time, in 
     such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Under 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       (3) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``eligible entity'' means any national laboratory, nonprofit 
     private organization, institution of higher education, or 
     other entity that the Under Secretary determines is eligible 
     to receive a grant authorized by paragraph (1).
       (d) Empty Containers.--
       (1) Certification.--The Commissioner of Customs shall issue 
     regulations that set out requirements for certification of 
     empty containers that will be shipped to or from the United 
     States either directly or via a foreign port. Such 
     regulations shall require that an empty container--
       (A) be inspected and certified as empty prior to being 
     loaded onto a vessel for transportation to a United States 
     seaport; and
       (B) be sealed with a high security container seal approved 
     under subsection (a)(1) to enhance the security of United 
     States seaports.

                          ____________________