[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3818-3846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2040. A bill to provide emergency agricultural assistance to 
producers of the 2002 crop; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an agricultural 
supplemental assistance package for the 2002 crops. I had hoped we 
would not be in this position today. Unfortunately, due to delays in 
completing the farm bill conference report prior to the Easter recess, 
I believe it is necessary to introduce this legislation.
  I want to make it very clear that in introducing this legislation, it 
does not mean the farm bill is dead. It may need CPR, but it certainly 
is not dead. Quite the contrary. The staff of conferees have been 
instructed by the distinguished leadership of both parties of the House 
and Senate to continue to work over the recess period in the hope that 
a bill can be completed shortly after the Easter recess. Having been 
involved in numerous farm bills, I know these conferences can often 
become quite contentious and bogged down.
  Furthermore, it is not going to be easy to implement this bill, not 
to mention the wisdom of simply trying to push through a bill so we can 
just say it applies to 2002 crops. That may be easy to do this year, 
but it may be difficult to live under the problems we could create for 
the next 5 or 6 years.
  Has anyone really stopped to consider this?
  In addition, we already have many farmers in the South who have begun 
their spring planting, and producers all throughout the Nation will 
begin to pull their drills through the fields in the coming weeks. Many 
of these producers and their bankers are desperately trying to run 
cashflow charts and figure out exactly what they will be dealing with 
for this current crop as they work to determine their operating loans. 
They are scratching their heads.
  The biggest uncertainty they face is the level and form of 
agricultural assistance for this crop-year. Will it be through a new 
farm bill, if we can get through a new farm bill--and I certainly hope 
we can and people are working in good faith to get that accomplished--
but will it be through a new farm bill in place for the 2002 crops, or 
will it be through a supplemental assistance package for 2002 while the 
new bill would go into effect for the 2003 crops?
  My point in introducing this legislation is to send a clear message 
to producers and their bankers, and that message is this: We are going 
to do everything in our power in Congress to get a farm bill completed 
and out the door, but we should also make sure it is a good bill, and 
doing a good bill does take time. If additional time is needed to 
complete the bill past the time when it can apply to this year's crops, 
we are then ready to come in with a supplemental assistance package.
  This is an important line in the sand that our producers and our 
lenders can use to gauge cashflow projections as they work on operating 
loans for this crop-year. It is an important and necessary signal as we 
move toward a planting season that will soon be in full swing in many 
parts of the country.
  Unlike the 1,400-page farm bill we passed in the Senate, there are no 
surprises in this supplemental legislation. The bill is very similar to 
the assistance packages we have provided to our producers in recent 
years, and it adheres to the budget allocations that were provided for 
agriculture in last year's budget resolution.
  I have a list of levels of assistance that will be provided to 
farmers and ranchers. The levels of assistance are as follows:
  $5.047 billion for a Market Loss Assistance, MLA, payment equal to 
the 2000 AMTA payment received by our producers. On a crop-by-crop 
basis, this is: wheat, 58.8 cents a bushel; corn, 33.4 cents a bushel; 
sorghum, 40 cents a bushel; barley, 25.1 cents a bushel; cotton, 7.33 
cents a pound; rice, $2.60 per cwt; oats, 2.8 cents a bushel.
  All of these figures are above the level of MLAs we provided last 
year.
  The bill also includes: $466 million for oilseed payments; $55.21 
million for payments to peanut producers; $93 million for recourse 
loans to honey producers; $186 million for specialty crop commodity 
purchases, with at least $55 million used for school lunch program 
purchases; $16.94 million for payments to wool and mohair producers; 
$93 million for cottonseed assistance; LDP eligibility for crops 
produced on non-AMTA acreage; LDP graze-out for wheat, barley, and oats 
for the 2002 crop; extension of the dairy price support program through 
December 31, 2002; $20 million for payment to producers of pulse crops; 
$100 million for tobacco assistance; $44 million for Conservation 
Reserve Program Technical Assistance; $200 million for the Wetlands 
Reserve Program; $300 million in

[[Page 3819]]

additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
EQIP; $161 million for the Farmland Protection Program; and $500 
million for the livestock feed assistance program, LAP, to provide 
assistance to producers for losses suffered in 2001 and 2002.
  I will be happy to talk this proposal over with my colleagues, and I 
seek bipartisan cosponsors in this effort. These market loss assistance 
levels are above the levels provided to program crops last year and 
they are similar to the AMTA payment levels we provided in 2000.
  In closing, while this package does not represent a new farm bill, it 
does send a strong signal to producers and their bankers that even if a 
farm bill cannot be completed in time to apply to the 2002 year crop, 
we do intend to hold them whole or have a hold harmless bill at a level 
of Market Loss Assistance that is somewhat higher than occurred last 
year.
  Many of us are hearing from producers and lenders for guidance on 
what to plan for in terms of assistance this year. This bill makes 
clear we stand ready to again support our producers if we cannot 
complete the new bill in time for 2002 crops, which I hope we can do. I 
urge support for this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2042. A bill to expand access to affordable health care and to 
strengthen the health care safety net and make health care services 
more available in rural and underserved areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend 
and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, in 
introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act. This is a 
comprehensive seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our 
current programs, both public and private, to make quality affordable 
health care available to millions more Americans.
  One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to 
affordable health care to all Americans. There are still far too many 
people in our country without health insurance or with woefully 
inadequate coverage. An estimated 39 million Americans do not have 
health care insurance, including more than 150,000 in my home State of 
Maine.
  The fact is, health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people 
with health insurance are healthier than those who lack coverage. 
People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they 
need it and tend to forgo services such as periodic checkups and 
preventative services. As a consequence, they are far more likely to be 
hospitalized or to require costly medical attention for conditions that 
could have been prevented or cured if caught at an early stage.
  Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater 
risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our already financially 
challenged hospitals and emergency rooms. Compared with people who have 
health insurance coverage, uninsured adults are four times and 
uninsured children five times more likely to use a hospital emergency 
room. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by 
providers and then passed on to covered individuals through increased 
fees and higher insurance premiums.
  Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis. Insurance 
premiums are rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-
employed fisherman or the owner of a struggling small business or the 
human resources manager of a large corporation, the cost of health 
insurance is a common concern.
  In 1999, the average family premium for employer-based coverage in 
Maine was more than $6,000, the 14th highest in the Nation at that 
time. Since then, Maine employers have faced premium increases of as 
much as 40 percent a year. In fact, my own brother called me recently 
to tell me that his small business is faced with a 40-percent increase 
in health insurance premiums on top of a 30-percent increase the year 
before.
  These premium increases are particularly burdensome for smaller 
businesses, the backbone of Maine's economy. Many small business owners 
are caught in a real squeeze. They know if they pass on the premium 
increase to their employees, then more and more employees will be 
forced to decline coverage and, thus, will be completely uninsured, and 
yet these small employers simply cannot continue to absorb premium 
increases of 20 to 30 to 40 percent year after year.
  The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and 
families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Anthem Blue 
Cross/Blue Shield, the single remaining carrier in Maine's nongroup 
market, has increased its rates by 40 percent over the past 2 years. 
Monthly insurance premiums often exceed the family's monthly mortgage 
payments. It is no wonder that more than 150,000 Mainers are now 
uninsured. Clearly, we simply must do more to make health insurance 
more affordable and more available.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which Senator Landrieu and 
I are introducing today, is a 7-point plan that combines a variety of 
public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more 
affordable.
  The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to 
affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health 
insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing 
coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net 
for those who lack coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural 
and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term 
care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles, and seven, to provide more 
equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare 
shortfall.
  This shortfall, this lack of fair reimbursement for Medicare 
services, has forced hospitals, physicians, and other providers to 
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. That 
drives up the cost of health insurance, and it is one of the reasons 
that Maine's rates are higher than the insurance rates in most other 
States.
  I will discuss each of these seven points in more detail. First, 
expanding access for small businesses, this legislation builds upon a 
bill I introduced with Senator Landrieu last year to help small 
employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get 
their health insurance through their employers, it is a common 
assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed, but 
that is not accurate. The fact is most uninsured Americans are members 
of families with at least one full-time worker.
  As many as 82 percent of Americans without health insurance are in a 
family with a full-time worker. Uninsured working Americans are most 
often the employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of 
uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally 
face higher costs for health insurance than larger companies, which 
makes them less likely to offer coverage.
  I know from my conversations with small businesses all over Maine 
that they want to offer health insurance as a benefit for their 
employees. They know it would help them to attract and retain good 
workers. The only reason these small businesses are not offering health 
insurance is a simple one: They simply cannot afford the premium costs.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help small businesses 
cope with rising costs by providing new tax credits for them to make 
health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small 
businesses who are now offering health insurance to continue to do so 
in the face of escalating premiums. It will encourage them to make the 
decision not to drop coverage, and it will prompt small employers who 
want to provide this coverage but have found it financially out of 
reach, to now offer this important benefit.
  The legislation will also help to increase the clout of small 
businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher 
for smaller businesses because they do not have as

[[Page 3820]]

much purchasing power as large companies. This limits their ability to 
bargain for lower rates. They also tend to have higher administrative 
costs than larger companies because they have fewer employees among 
whom to spread the fixed costs of a health insurance plan.
  Moreover, they are not able to spread the risks of medical claims 
over as many employees as large firms. The legislation we are 
introducing will help address these problems by authorizing Federal 
grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the 
planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing 
cooperatives.
  I am not talking about association health plans, which are 
controversial for a number of reasons. I am talking about small 
employer purchasing cooperatives. They will help to reduce the costs of 
health insurance for small employers by allowing them to band together 
to purchase insurance jointly.
  Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for smaller 
employers. They will, for example, bring an increased number of 
participants into the group and that helps to lower the premium costs. 
They also decrease the risk of adverse selection. Our legislation would 
also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for 
States, local governments, and nonprofits to provide information about 
the benefits of health insurance to smaller employers, including the 
tax benefits, the increased productivity of employees and decreased 
turnover. Grants would be used to make employers aware of their current 
rights under State and Federal laws.
  For example, one survey showed that 57 percent of small employers did 
not realize they could deduct 100 percent of the costs of their health 
insurance premiums as a business expense.
  The legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing would 
also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding 
demonstration grants in up to 10 States to look at innovative coverage 
expansion such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, 
individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or 
individuals purchasing coverage.
  The States have been the laboratories of reform. For example, some 
States have looked at providing assistance to employees to help them 
afford their share of an employer-provided insurance plan.
  Second, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help expand 
access to affordable health care for individuals and families who are 
purchasing coverage on their own. It would, for example, allow self-
employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care 
premiums retroactive to January 1 of this year.
  Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed 
individual, and of these 5 million are uninsured. So if we establish 
parity in the tax treatment for health insured costs between the self-
employed and those working for large corporations, we will promote 
equity, and we will help to reduce the number of uninsured by working 
Americans.
  Another step this bill would take would build on the success of the 
State children's health insurance program, one of the very first bills 
I sponsored as a Senator. This program provides insurance for children 
of low-income families who cannot afford health insurance and yet earn 
too much money to qualify for Medicaid.
  We are proposing that we allow, as Senator Kennedy's family care bill 
would, the option for States to cover the parents of children who are 
enrolled in programs like Maine's MaineCare program. States could also 
use funds provided through this program to help eligible working 
families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In 
short, this legislation will help ensure low-income working families 
receive the health care they need.
  Another provision of the bill would allow States to expand coverage 
to eligible legal immigrants through the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. 
Maine is one of a number of States that is already covering eligible 
legal immigrants, pregnant women, and children under Medicaid using 100 
percent State dollars. Giving States the option of covering these 
children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive 
Federal matching funds.
  Another provision of the bill would give States the option of 
extending Medicaid to childless adults below 125 percent of the Federal 
poverty level who cannot afford private insurance and who have been 
forgotten or overlooked by other public programs. Maine has applied for 
a waiver to expand its Medicaid Program in this way, and the State 
estimates this will provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-
income uninsured Mainers.
  Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in 
finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this 
problem, the Collins-Landrieu bill authorizes Federal grants to provide 
money for States to create high-risk pools through which individuals 
who have preexisting health conditions can obtain affordable health 
insurance.
  Finally, the legislation in this section would provide an 
advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals 
earning up to $30,000, and up to $3,000 for families earning up to 
$60,000.
  This provision, which is similar to that proposed by President Bush, 
would help to provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who 
otherwise would be uninsured for 1 or more months. It will help many 
more working lower income families who currently purchase private 
health insurance with little or no government help and finding it 
increasingly difficult to do so.
  Third, the Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will help to 
strengthen our Nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over 
the next 5 years for community health centers. We want to make sure we 
are reaching individuals who are homeless, individuals who are migrant 
workers, individuals who are living in public housing. These centers, 
which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide 
critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of 
their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at 
Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage. Many more 
have inadequate coverage. These community health centers play a 
critical role in providing a health care safety net for some of our 
most vulnerable individuals.
  The problem of access to affordable health care services is not 
limited to the uninsured. It is also shared by many Americans living in 
rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health 
care providers. The legislation we are introducing, therefore, includes 
a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, 
which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in 
rural and inner-city areas.
  For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial 
incentive to participate in the National Health Service Corps and 
provide health care services in underserved communities. Last year's 
tax bill provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps 
scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees, and related 
educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not 
extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts 
are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program 
are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax 
lability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more 
sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.
  In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps 
participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current 
law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve 
full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough 
volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some 
sites may not need a particular type of provider--for example, a 
dentist--on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part-
time

[[Page 3821]]

service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and 
retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional 
flexibility to meet community needs.
  Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by 
older American today, and these costs will only increase with the aging 
of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or 
their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-
term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment 
like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover 
that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the 
difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-
term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to 
cover the costs themselves.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit 
for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to 
those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It 
will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term 
care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private 
long-term insurance.
  Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted 
author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of 
medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our 
most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy 
behaviors-- smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These 
three major risk factors alone have made Maine the State with the 
fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable disease: 
Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. 
These four chronic diseases are reponsible for 70 percent of the health 
care problems in Maine.
  Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to 
promoted healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows 
that these kinds of investment in health promotiong and prevention 
offer returns not only in reduced health care bill, but in longer life 
and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to 
States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite 
wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a 
grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' 
such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote 
healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community 
organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or 
expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, 
physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, 
healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy 
and safe school environment.
  And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote 
equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system 
rewards rather than punishes States like Maine that deliver high-
quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled 
citizens.
  According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the 
quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 
11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare 
spending.
  The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize 
higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not 
fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to 
favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States 
into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result 
of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In 
the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify 
lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only 
served to widen the gap between low and high-cost States.
  As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians, and other providers 
have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to 
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The 
Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the 
highest health insurance premiums in the Nation. The provisions in the 
Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to 
legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Russ 
Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians 
and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic 
adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.
  Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a 
blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a 
bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant 
strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing 
million more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the 
health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the 
Medicare system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2043. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend by 
five years the period for the provision by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs of noninstitutional extended care services and required nursing 
home care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
improve VA's response to meeting the long-term care needs of an aging 
veteran population. Specifically, the bill would extend two long-term 
care authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits 
Act of 1999.
  In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care 
legislation for veterans. For the first time, VA was required to 
provide extended care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of 
Public Law 106-117, directed the VA to provide nursing home care to any 
veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, 
or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled. In addition, 
VA was to have provided non-institutional care, such as home-based 
care, respite, and adult day health care, to all enrolled veterans. 
Within 3 years of the bill's enactment, VA was to evaluate and report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on its 
experience in providing services under both of these provisions and to 
make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. 
These programs were given an expiration date of 4 years so that we 
could adequately study its effects and, if need be, make appropriate 
adjustments.
  Unfortunately, it's been more than two years and very little has 
happened with these long-term care programs. With both provisions due 
to expire next year, there is hardly enough time to sufficiently study 
them. The legislation I introduce today will extend the expiration 
dates of both long-term care authorities for an additional 5 years, 
until December 31, 2008.
  I am extremely disappointed that the VA has taken so long to bring 
these new extended care authorities into the lives of veterans. 
Although there is a sense of urgency about meeting the long-term care 
needs of veterans, the VA seems frozen to respond.
  In addition to mandating that VA provide nursing home care to any 
veteran who is in need of such care for a service-connected condition, 
or who is 70 percent or more service-connected disabled, the Veterans 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act required the VA to maintain the 
staffing and level of extended care during any fiscal year at the same 
level that was provided in fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, both the 
staffing level for nursing home care and the average daily census has 
dropped since 1998, and VA readily admits that they are not in 
compliance with this mandate, citing a lack of resources.
  In addition to providing nursing home care, a key element of the 
Millennium bill required VA to furnish non-institutional long-term care 
as part of the standard benefits package. While the bill was signed 
into law at the end of 1999, it was just last October

[[Page 3822]]

that VA finally issued interim guidance on the new benefit. The policy 
was essentially meaningless, in that it required facilities to either 
have these non-institutional long-term care services available or to 
develop a plan for providing such services. As a result, I suspect that 
many facilities have not yet made non-institutional services 
universally available. In order to confirm this, I have asked that the 
General Accounting Office provide me with information as to what 
inventory of noninstitutional long-term care programs exists within VA. 
The GAO's report should be completed shortly.
  We know that there is an expanding need for long-term care in our 
country, and in the VA that demand is even more pressing. About 37 
percent of the veteran population is 65 years or older, and that number 
will grow dramatically in the next few years. By extending the existing 
long-term care authorities, we signal to VA that they cannot shirk this 
responsibility.
  There is no doubt that long-term care is expensive. It is our 
responsibility, however, to make sure that the necessary resources are 
provided to VA to implement existing long-term care programs. For my 
part, I will continue to push VA to move forward, and in the near 
future, I will be chairing a Committee hearing to learn more about VA's 
inaction.
  Long-term care should be seen as a part of the continuum of quality 
health care we have promised our veterans. The point of this 
legislation is to extend two important VA long-term care authorities, 
and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2044. A bill to provide for further improvement of the program to 
expand and improve the provision of specialized mental health services 
to veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today to ensure that veterans who struggle with post-traumatic stress 
and substance use disorders continue to get the care that they need and 
deserve. This legislation would increase the funding for an already-
established grant program for specialized mental health services 
programs. In addition, the legislation would guarantee that some 
funding would go to those facilities which need it the most but, for 
whatever reason, have not sought grants.
  From its inception, the VA health care system has been challenged to 
meet the special needs of veterans, such as spinal cord injuries, the 
need for prosthetics, blindness, traumatic brain injury, homelessness, 
post-traumatic stress disorders or PTSD, and the substance abuse 
disorders that frequently accompany these other afflictions. Over the 
years, VA has developed widely commended expertise in providing 
specialized services to meet these needs. We can all be rightfully 
proud of VA's specialized programs, which provide care that is often 
unparalleled in the greater health care community.
  Unfortunately, these programs have been endangered by budget 
constraints, a shift in focus from inpatient care to outpatient 
clinics, and the introduction of a new resource allocation system. In 
1996, Congress recognized that VA's constant battle to serve more 
veterans with a limited budget made these relatively costly specialized 
services programs disproportionately vulnerable to reductions, and took 
steps to protect them. The Veteran's Health Care Eligibility Reform Act 
of 1966 required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain VA's 
capacity to treat specific special needs of disabled veterans at the 
then-current level, and to report to Congress annually on the 
maintenance of these specialized services.
  Subsequently, internal VA advisory committees, the GAO, and my own 
staff on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported that these 
protections did not go far enough. Many specialized programs--
particularly substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, were closed, 
reduced in size, or understaffed, offering little or no care to 
veterans suffering from these seriously debilitating disorders which 
often result from combat experiences.
  VA's own annual capacity reports give evidence that these programs 
have failed to provide services to veterans at the needed levels, or to 
preserve equal access throughout the system. However, the current law's 
reliance on systemwide, rather than local or regional capacity, and 
VA's failure to issue these reports on a timely basis as mandated, 
prevent us from understanding how well these programs meet veterans' 
needs throughout the Nation.
  In December 2001, Congress strengthened protection of specialized 
services through the VA Health Care Programs Enhancement Act, which 
described how VA is to maintain capacity for these services in 
considerably more detail. However, I believe that we must continue to 
do what we can to foster innovation and to patch some of the holes in 
substance abuse and PTSD programs.
  In addition to protecting VA's capacity to treat veterans' special 
needs, Congress also designated $15 million in VA funding specifically 
to help medical families improve care for veterans with substance abuse 
disorders and PTSD. The funds for these mental health grant programs, 
mandated by the Veterans Millennium Benefits and Health Care Act of 
1999, will soon revert to a general fund.
  In order to distribute these funds, VA sought proposals from 
facilities interested in expanding and improving their substance use 
disorder and PTSD programs. VA began to release these funds a little 
more than a year ago. As of this month, only 8 of the 16 PTSD treatment 
programs awarded funding had become operational, and only a third of 
these have hired their full complement of authorized and funded staff. 
Of the substance abuse disorder programs funded through this act, 18 of 
31 have not yet hired complete staffs.
  Despite the slow start, this funding has already increased the PTSD 
and substance abuse disorder treatment programs available to veterans. 
More than 100 staff have been hired in 18 of VA's 21 service networks 
to treat substance abuse disorders. Nine new programs, in Baltimore, 
MD; Atlanta, GA; San Francisco, CA; and Dayton, OH, among others, have 
initiated or intensified opioid substitution programs for veterans who 
have not responded well to drug-free treatment regimens. Other new 
programs, such as those in Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH, Columbia, MO; and 
Loma Linda, CA, put special emphasis on treating veterans with more 
complex conditions that include PTSD and substance abuse. The 
additional funding has enabled VA to develop better outpatient 
substance abuse and PTSD treatment programs, outpatient dual-diagnosis 
programs, more PTSD community clinical teams, and more residential 
substance abuse disorder rehabilitation programs.
  Due to these grants, VA has made improvements; however, many VA 
medical center directors have been reluctant to hire specialized 
substance abuse or PTSD treatment staff when, in FY 2003, the funding 
for these programs will be subject to a population-based allocation 
system and may disappear from their budgets. The legislation that I 
introduce today would ensure that this funding remained ``protected'' 
for three more years, and would increase the total amount of funding 
identified specifically for treatment of substance abuse disorders and 
PTSD from $15 million to $25 million.
  Of the $25 million authorized for this program, $15 million would be 
allocated to individual medical facilities which respond to the call 
for proposals. The remaining $10 million would be provided as direct 
grants to VA treatment facilities throughout the Nation, based on 
veterans' needs as identified by VA's Mental Health Strategic Health 
Care Group and the Committee on Care of the Severely Chronically 
Mentally Ill.
  Although I am disappointed that VA has still been unable to properly 
maintain adequate levels of care for those veterans with specialized 
health care needs, I am encouraged that our actions to fund specific 
PTSD and substance abuse programs have provided a strong start.

[[Page 3823]]

  Congress has spoken quite clearly in the past: VA does not have the 
discretion to decide whether or not to provide adequate care for 
veterans with substance abuse and post traumatic stress disorders. I 
ask that my colleagues support this bill, which would help ensure that 
these specialized services, a critical aspect of the health care VA 
provides to veterans, are maintained at the necessary levels for the 
men and women who have served this Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 2045. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to take 
steps to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, Senator Smith and I are proud to 
introduce the International Tuberculosis Control Act of 2002. This bill 
will provide $200 million during each of the next three years for U.S. 
efforts to combat international TB.
  Our bill also sets as a goal the detection of at least 70 percent of 
the cases of infectious tuberculosis, and the cure of at least 85 
percent of the cases detected by the end of 2005 for those countries 
with the highest tuberculosis burden.
  Why is this bill important? Consider the facts: Tuberculosis kills 2 
million people each year; someone in the world is newly infected with 
TB every second; nearly one percent of the world's population is newly 
infected with TB each year; TB is the single leading cause of death 
among women between the age of 15-44; and half of all people living 
with HIV-AIDS will develop TB because of suppressed immune systems.
  TB is an airborne disease. You can get it when someone coughs or 
sneezes. And with the increased immigration and travel to the United 
States, we are seeing it re-emerge in many of our communities. That is 
why it is in the national interest here in the United States to fight 
TB throughout the world.
  This is especially true when you consider that in the year 2000, 46 
percent of TB cases detected in the U.S. occurred to foreign-born 
persons, up from 22 percent in 1986. In California, of the 3,297 cases 
detected in 2000, 72 percent were among foreign born individuals.
  Two years ago, Senator Smith and I teamed up to triple TB funding and 
get the authorization level up to $60 million. We are teaming up again 
so that USAID can work with its international partners like the World 
Health Organization to expand the most effective program to stop the 
spread of TB--DOTS or Directly Observed Treatment Short-Course.
  DOTS is so effective because it reduces the chance of Multi-Drug 
Resident TB from developing. In the early 1990s, New York City spent 
nearly $1 billion to control an outbreak of drug-resistant TB. However, 
a 6-month course of TB drugs under the DOTS programs can cost just $10.
  That is why we feel that our bill is a wise investment that will 
reduce the cost of treating TB over the long run and, most important, 
save lives throughout the world.
  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. 2045

       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 ``International Tuberculosis 
     Control Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) Tuberculosis is a great health and economic burden to 
     impoverished nations and a health and security threat to the 
     United States and other industrialized countries.
       (2) Tuberculosis kills 2,000,000 people each year (a person 
     every 15 seconds) and is second only to HIV/AIDS as the 
     greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide.
       (3) Tuberculosis is today the leading killer of women of 
     reproductive age and of people who are HIV-positive.
       (4) One-third of the world's population is currently 
     infected with the tuberculosis bacterium, including 
     10,000,000 through 15,000,000 persons in the United States, 
     and someone in the world is newly infected with tuberculosis 
     every second.
       (5) With 46 percent of tuberculosis cases in the United 
     States in the year 2000 found in foreign-born persons, as 
     compared to 24 percent in 1990, it is clear that the only way 
     to control tuberculosis in the United States is to control it 
     worldwide.
       (6) Left untreated, a person with active tuberculosis can 
     infect an average of 10 through 15 people in one year.
       (7) Pakistan and Afghanistan are among the 22 countries 
     identified by the World Health Organization as having the 
     highest tuberculosis burden globally.
       (8) More than one-quarter of all adult deaths in Pakistan 
     are due to tuberculosis, and Afghan refugees entering 
     Pakistan have very high rates of tuberculosis, with refugee 
     camps, in particular, being areas where tuberculosis runs 
     rampant.
       (9) The tuberculosis and AIDS epidemics are inextricably 
     linked. Tuberculosis is the first manifestation of AIDS in 
     more than 50 percent of cases in developing countries and is 
     responsible for 40 percent or more of deaths of people with 
     AIDS worldwide.
       (10) An effective, low-cost cure exists for tuberculosis: 
     Directly Observed Treatment Short-course or DOTS. Expansion 
     of DOTS is an urgent global priority.
       (11) DOTS is one of the most cost-effective health 
     interventions available today. A full course of DOTS drugs 
     costs as little as US$10 in low-income countries.
       (12) Proper DOTS treatment is imperative to prevent the 
     development of dangerous multidrug resistant tuberculosis 
     (MDR-TB) that arises through improper or incomplete 
     tuberculosis treatment.
       (13) The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
     Malaria is an important new global partnership established to 
     combat these 3 infectious diseases that together kill 
     6,000,000 people a year. Expansion of effective tuberculosis 
     treatment programs should constitute a major component of 
     Global Fund investment.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) DOTS.--The term ``DOTS'' or ``Directly Observed 
     Treatment Short-course'' means the World Health Organization-
     recommended strategy for treating standard tuberculosis.
       (2) Global alliance for tuberculosis drug development.--The 
     term ``Global Alliance for Tuberculosis Drug Development'' 
     means the public-private partnership that brings together 
     leaders in health, science, philanthropy, and private 
     industry to devise new approaches to tuberculosis and to 
     ensure that new medications are available and affordable in 
     high tuberculosis burden countries and other affected 
     countries.
       (3) Global plan to stop tuberculosis.--The term ``Global 
     Plan to Stop Tuberculosis'' means the plan developed jointly 
     by the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership Secretariat and Partners 
     in Health that lays out what needs to be done to control and 
     eliminate tuberculosis.
       (4) Global tuberculosis drug facility.--The term ``Global 
     Tuberculosis Drug Facility (GDF)'' means the new initiative 
     of the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership to increase access to 
     high-quality tuberculosis drugs to facilitate DOTS expansion.
       (5) Stop tuberculosis partnership.--The term ``Stop 
     Tuberculosis Partnership'' means the partnership of the World 
     Health Organization, donors including the United States, high 
     tuberculosis burden countries, multilateral agencies, and 
     nongovernmental and technical agencies committed to short- 
     and long-term measures required to control and eventually 
     eliminate tuberculosis as a public health problem in the 
     world.

      SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION, TREATMENT, 
                   CONTROL, AND ELIMINATION.

       Section 104(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2151b(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7)(A) Congress recognizes the growing international 
     problem of tuberculosis and the impact its continued 
     existence has on those countries that had previously largely 
     controlled the disease. Congress further recognizes that the 
     means exist to control and treat tuberculosis by implementing 
     the Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and by adequately 
     investing in newly created mechanisms, including the Global 
     Tuberculosis Drug Facility, and that it is therefore a major 
     objective of the foreign assistance program to control the 
     disease. To this end, Congress expects the agency primarily 
     responsible for administering this part--
       ``(i) to coordinate with the World Health Organization, the 
     Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of 
     Health, and other organizations with respect to the 
     development and implementation of a comprehensive 
     tuberculosis control program; and
       ``(ii) to set as a goal the detection of at least 70 
     percent of the cases of infectious tuberculosis, and the cure 
     of at least 85 percent of the cases detected, by December 31, 
     2005, in those countries classified by the World Health 
     Organization as among the highest tuberculosis burden, and by 
     December 31, 2010, in all countries in which the agency has 
     established development programs.
       ``(B)(i) There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005 
     for carrying out this paragraph.

[[Page 3824]]

       ``(ii) Funds appropriated under this paragraph are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       ``(C) In carrying out subparagraph (A), not less than 75 
     percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be expended for antituberculosis 
     drugs, supplies, patient services, and training in diagnosis 
     and care, in order to increase directly observed treatment 
     shortcourse (DOTS) coverage, including funding for the Global 
     Tuberculosis Drug Facility.
       ``(D) In carrying out subparagraph (A), of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) not less than 10 percent shall be used for funding of 
     the Global Tuberculosis Drug Facility;
       ``(ii) not less than 7.5 percent shall be used for funding 
     of the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership; and
       ``(iii) not less than 2.5 percent shall be used for funding 
     of the Global Alliance for Tuberculosis Drug Development.
       ``(E) The President shall submit a report to Congress 
     annually specifying the increases in the number of people 
     treated and the increases in number of tuberculosis patients 
     cured through each program, project, or activity receiving 
     United States foreign assistance for tuberculosis control 
     purposes.''.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join my 
colleague Senator Boxer in introducing important tuberculosis control 
legislation today on the floor of the Senate. Today we are introducing 
The International Tuberculosis Control Act--this important legislation 
is designed to address the growing international problem of 
tuberculosis, (TB). We are introducing this legislation to coincide 
with World Tuberculosis Day, this Sunday, March 24. World TB Day is an 
occasion for countries around the world to raise awareness about the 
threat to the world's health caused by tuberculosis.
  As many of us know TB is a global health crisis. Over two million 
people will die from TB this year, and it is the leading killer of 
young women and of people with AIDS worldwide. Further, TB anywhere is 
a threat everywhere in our highly mobile world. The Center for Disease 
Control CDC reports that in the year 2000, nearly 50 percent of all TB 
cases in the US occurred in foreign-born persons. We will not be safe 
from TB until we control the disease globally.
  TB and HIV form a deadly co-epidemic. TB is responsible for more than 
40 percent of all AIDS deaths worldwide. An HIV-positive person is 30 
times more likely to develop active tuberculosis and become infectious 
to others. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have seen TB rates 
increase 4-fold due to the HIV-TB co-epidemic, decimating a whole 
generation of adults in many communities. In Eastern Europe and Asia, 
TB infection is widespread and HIV rates are rising rapidly. These 
areas are poised to see the TB-HIV co-epidemic explode.
  TB also flourishes in and causes poverty. About 98 percent of the 
annual deaths from TB are in poor countries. Those who fall ill are 
often their family's primary breadwinner. When that person cannot work, 
children must often leave school to work or care for a sick relative. 
The World Health Organization reported in 2000 that 75 percent of TB 
patients are men and women between the ages of 15-54, the most 
economically productive years of life. Stopping TB will help fight 
poverty.
  I strongly believe we must act to control TB now or pay later. Rising 
drug resistance is a time bomb that could make TB virtually 
uncontrollable. Multi-drug resistant TB is far more dangerous and 
difficult to treat, can cost up to $1 million per patient to cure, and 
kills over half of its victims, even in the U.S.
  There is a plan for controlling TB. The new, internationally agreed-
upon ``Global Plan to Stop TB'' provides a much-needed roadmap. It 
describes the resources needed, country-by-country, to meet 
international TB control targets by 2005. Complementary National TB 
control plans exist for nearly all of the 22 high-burden TB countries.
  The world must invest less than $1 billion in additional funds per 
year to control TB, about what New York City spent to control an 
outbreak of drug-resistant TB in the early 1990s! And I believe that 
$200 million is a reasonable US share of the $1 billion needed globally 
to control this killer.
  We have the tools to stop TB. ``The Global Plan to Stop TB'' is built 
around expanding access to DOTS treatment worldwide, a proven, and very 
cost-effective treatment system that uses just $10 worth of drugs to 
cure a patient in 6 months. Currently just one in four of those who 
needs DOTS have access to it. Another tool for fighting TB is the new 
Global TB Drug Facility, which can provide the steady supply of 
affordable drugs needed to cure patients and prevent the further spread 
of drug-resistance.
  My colleague, Barbara Boxer, and I have been leading the way (along 
with Foreign Operations Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Senator 
Mitch McConnell) in increasing US funding for international TB control, 
from virtually zero in 1997 to $75 million in 2002. The President's 
2003 Budget proposes to cut TB funding by one-third, but I feel that we 
must do more in this area, not less. Just $200 million annually from 
the U.S. would save tens of thousands of lives around the world and 
would protect US citizens from TB and from the growing threat of drug-
resistant TB. Investing in TB control is not only the right thing to 
do; it is a wise U.S. investment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2046. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
loan guarantees for rural health facilities to buy new and repair 
existing infrastructure and technology; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health 
Care Facility Improvement Act.
  Traveling throughout my State of Idaho, I have heard from many people 
about the need for additional funding to keep rural health facilities 
operational and up-to-date. After doing further research, I have found 
that this is true in all States in virtually all rural areas. For this 
reason, I am introducing the Rural Health Care facility Improvement 
Act.
  This bill would allow for $250,000,000 million in guaranteed loans to 
be available to rural health care facilities. Individual facilities 
could borrow up to $5,000,000 to be used for two purposes. First, to 
allow for capital improvements to their facility and equipment and 
second, to allow for the purchase of high-technology equipment.
  Providing health care services to much of rural America has become 
increasingly difficult in recent years. During the 1970s, rural 
communities thrived with economic expansion and unprecedented 
population growth. Rural health providers represented valuable 
institutions offering an array of medical services to their 
communities. Now many of these rural communities are struggling to 
maintain critical health care facilities.
  We all know that rural health care facilities are a vital part of the 
infrastructure of rural communities and the collapse of health care 
services in many areas often contributes to the further decline of 
rural communities. That's why it is so important to make sure that 
rural facilities have access to funds to keep them operational.
  In the 1990's, rural health care providers have begun to rally in the 
face of this challenge. They have developed creative ways to meet the 
needs of their communities with their limited resources. This 
legislation is one more way to help those who are working to guarantee 
health care in rural America.
  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. 2046

       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 ``Rural Health Care Facility 
     Improvement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. GUARANTEED LOANS FOR RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES.

       Title VI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 291 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 3825]]

                   ``PART E--RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES

     ``SEC. 651. GUARANTEED LOANS FOR RURAL HEALTH FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Authorization of Loan Guarantees.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish a program under which the Secretary may guarantee 
     100 percent of the principal and interest on loans made by 
     non-Federal lenders to rural health facilities to pay for the 
     costs of--
       ``(A) buying new or repairing existing infrastructure; and
       ``(B) buying new or repairing existing technology.
       ``(2) Total loan amount available.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to guarantee not more than--
       ``(A) $250,000,000 in the aggregate of the principal and 
     interest on loans for rural health facilities under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) $5,000,000 of the principal and interest on loans 
     under paragraph (1) for each rural health facility.
       ``(b) Protection of Financial Interests.--The Secretary may 
     not approve a loan guarantee under this section unless the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) the terms, conditions, security (if any), and 
     schedule and amount of repayments with respect to the loan 
     are sufficient to protect the financial interests of the 
     United States and are otherwise reasonable, including a 
     determination that the rate of interest does not exceed such 
     percent per annum on the principal obligation outstanding as 
     the Secretary determines to be reasonable, taking into 
     account the range of interest rates prevailing in the private 
     market for similar loans and the risks assumed by the United 
     States, except that the Secretary may not require as security 
     any rural health facility asset that is, or may be, needed by 
     the rural health facility involved to provide health 
     services;
       ``(2) the loan would not be available on reasonable terms 
     and conditions without the guarantee under this section; and
       ``(3) amounts appropriated for the program under this 
     section are sufficient to provide loan guarantees under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Recovery of Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The United States shall be entitled to 
     recover from the applicant for a loan guarantee under this 
     section the amount of any payment made pursuant to such 
     guarantee, unless the Secretary for good cause waives such 
     right of recovery (subject to appropriations remaining 
     available to permit such a waiver) and, upon making any such 
     payment, the United States shall be subrogated to all of the 
     rights of the recipient of the payments with respect to which 
     the guarantee was made. Amounts recovered under this section 
     shall be credited as reimbursements to the financing account 
     of the program established under this section.
       ``(2) Modification of terms and conditions.--To the extent 
     permitted by paragraph (3) and subject to the requirements of 
     section 504(e) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 
     U.S.C. 661c(e)), any terms and conditions applicable to a 
     loan guarantee under this section (including terms and 
     conditions imposed under paragraph (4)) may be modified or 
     waived by the Secretary to the extent the Secretary 
     determines it to be consistent with the financial interest of 
     the United States.
       ``(3) Incontestability.--Any loan guarantee made by the 
     Secretary under this section shall be incontestable--
       ``(A) in the hands of an applicant on whose behalf such 
     guarantee is made unless the applicant engaged in fraud or 
     misrepresentation in securing such guarantee; and
       ``(B) as to any person (or successor in interest) who makes 
     or contracts to make a loan to such applicant in reliance 
     thereon unless such person (or successor in interest) engaged 
     in fraud or misrepresentation in making or contracting to 
     make such loan.
       ``(4) Further terms and conditions.--Guarantees of loans 
     under this section shall be subject to such further terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     assure that the purposes of this section will be achieved.
       ``(d) Defaults.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of the 
     Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the 
     Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to prevent 
     a default on a loan guaranteed under this section, including 
     the waiver of regulatory conditions, deferral of loan 
     payments, renegotiation of loans, and the expenditure of 
     funds for technical and consultative assistance, for the 
     temporary payment of the interest and principal on such a 
     loan, and for other purposes. Any such expenditure made under 
     the preceding sentence on behalf of a rural health facility 
     shall be made under such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary shall prescribe, including the implementation of 
     such organizational, operational, and financial reforms as 
     the Secretary determines are appropriate and the disclosure 
     of such financial or other information as the Secretary may 
     require to determine the extent of the implementation of such 
     reforms.
       ``(2) Foreclosure.--The Secretary may take such action, 
     consistent with State law respecting foreclosure procedures 
     and, with respect to reserves required for furnishing 
     services on a prepaid basis, subject to the consent of the 
     affected States, as the Secretary determines appropriate to 
     protect the interest of the United States in the event of a 
     default on a loan guaranteed under this section, except that 
     the Secretary may only foreclose on assets offered as 
     security (if any) in accordance with subsection (b).
       ``(e) Nonapplication of Part D.--The provisions of part D 
     shall not apply to this part.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this part:
       ``(1) Non-federal lender.--The term `non-Federal lender' 
     means any entity other than an agency or instrumentality of 
     the Federal Government authorized by law to make such loan, 
     including a federally insured bank, a lending institution 
     authorized or licensed by the State in which it resides to 
     make such loans, and a State or municipal bonding authority 
     or such authority's designee.
       ``(2) Rural area.--The term `rural area' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).
       ``(3) Rural health facility.--The term `rural health 
     facility' includes--
       ``(A) rural health clinics (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(aa)(2)));
       ``(B) critical access hospitals (as defined in section 
     1861(mm)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(mm)(1))) that are located in rural areas;
       ``(C) hospitals (as defined in section 1861(e) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(e))) that are located in 
     rural areas;
       ``(D) skilled nursing facilities (as defined in section 
     1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a))) 
     that are located in rural areas;
       ``(E) health centers (as defined in section 330) that are 
     located in rural areas;
       ``(F) federally qualified health centers (as defined in 
     section 1861(aa)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(aa)(3))); and
       ``(G) nursing homes (as defined in section 1908(e) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396g(e))) that are located in 
     rural areas.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by 
providing for private sector development of technological protection 
measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to 
protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition 
to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Stevens, 
Inouye, Breaux, Nelson, and Feinstein to introduce the Consumer 
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act of 2002, legislation 
that will promote broadband and the digital television transition by 
securing content on the Internet and over the Nation's airwaves.
  For several years the private sector has attempted to secure a safe 
haven for copyrighted digital products, unfortunately with little to 
show for its efforts. The result has been an absence of robust, 
ubiquitous protections of digital media which has lead to a lack of 
content on the Internet and over the airwaves. And who has suffered the 
most? Consumers, as they are denied access to high quality digital 
content in the home.
  The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant 
copyright privacy which drains America's content industries to the tune 
of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios 
estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog 
piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an 
individual makes an illegal copy of the movie, sometimes by taping it 
in a movie theater with a personal video recorder, and then distributes 
it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of 
analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of 
this type of piracy.
  In a digital age, however, the privacy threat is exponentially 
magnified. So on the Internet, copyright content, be it a movie, a 
book, music, or software, travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s, 
and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as 
pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which 
must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent 
around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The 
copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their 
content on the Internet absent

[[Page 3826]]

strong copyright protection measures. As Internet access becomes 
increasingly available over high-speed, broadband connections, these 
worries will only heighten.
  It should be noted, however, that the Internet is not the only threat 
to unprotected digital content. Digital video programming is also 
subject to a large privacy threat. Rapid advances in consumer 
electronics make it easier to steal copyright content. Newly developed 
digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store 
two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp. Today, 
digital media can be transmitted over wired or wireless channels and 
played and stored on a host of consumer electronics devices. By and 
large, these are positive developments for consumers.
  But any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically 
transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for 
illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies 
are incorporated into such a device. Unfortunately, as technology has 
advanced, copy protection schemes have not kept pace, fostering a set 
of consumer expectations that at times actually promote illegal 
activity on the Internet. For example, according to a Jupiter Media 
Matrix report, over 7 million Americans use technology on the Internet 
to swap music and other digital media files. More recent news reports 
place this number at over 11 million. While some of this activity is 
legal, much of it is not.
  Every week a major magazine or newspaper reports on the thousands of 
illegal pirated works that are available for copying and redistribution 
online. Academy award winning motion pictures, platinum records, and 
Emmy award winning television shows--all for free, all illegal. Piracy 
is growing exponentially on college campuses and among tech savvy 
consumers. Such lawlessness contributes to the studios and record 
labels' reluctance to place their digital content on the Internet or 
over the airwaves.
  At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little 
reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products 
whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high 
quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games. 
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition 
television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain 
priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this 
regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for 
broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an 
availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85 percent of 
Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12 
percent have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to 
paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2,000 for a fancy 
HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content 
were available, consumers might come.
  By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet 
connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can 
change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer 
electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the 
development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread 
dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums.
  Although, it is technologically feasible to provide such a protected 
environment, the solution has not been forthcoming through voluntary 
private sector negotiations involving the industries with stakes in 
this matter. This is not to say, however, that those industries do not 
recognize the tremendous economic potential to be derived from a 
proliferation of top notch digital content to consumers in the home. 
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for 
example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing 
their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, 
provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not 
infringed in the process.
  Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an 
assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, 
information technology, and content industries are America's best and 
brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and 
high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America's 
top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that 
effect. While, I want to believe them, industry negotiations have been 
lagging. Both sides share some blame in this area. But the blame games 
need to end. It's time for results, not recriminations.
  I believe the private sector is capable, through marketplace 
negotiations--of adopting standards that will ensure the secure 
transmission of copyrighted content on the Internet and over the 
airwaves. But given the pace of private talks so far, the private 
sector needs a nudge. The government can provide that nudge, and in 
doing so continue the government's longstanding role in promoting, and 
sometimes requiring, the implementation of technological standards in 
electronics equipment to benefit consumers. We debated the merits of 
such an approach in the Commerce Committee on February 28, 2002 when 
the leaders of the copyright, consumer electronics, and information 
technology industries testified as to their distinct views on this 
issue. At that hearing, every Senator and every witness agreed that the 
problem of digital piracy requires resolution.
  Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete 
problem areas that merit government intervention. First, is the piracy 
threat presented toward unprotected digital broadcast television. Over 
the air broadcast digital signals cannot be encrypted because the 
millions of Americans who receive their signal via antennas cannot 
decrypt the signal. As a result, digital broadcast signals are 
delivered in unprotected format and are subject to illegal copying or 
redistribution over the Internet upon transmission. The technology 
exists today to solve this problem. It has been referred to as a 
``broadcast flag'' which would instruct digital devices to prevent 
illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast 
television. Consumer electronic devices would respond to the technology 
and prevent copyright infringement. However, because not every device 
would be required to respond to the technology, ubiquitous response 
requires a mandate by government.
  The second problem is commonly referred to as the ``Analog hole.'' As 
protected digital programming, usually delivered over satellite or 
cable, but also available on the Internet, is decrypted for viewing by 
consumers, most frequently on television sets, the programming is 
temporarily ``in the clear.'' At this point, pirates may have the 
opportunity to take advantage of an ``Analog hole'' by copying the 
content into a digital format, i.e. re-digitizing it, and then 
illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to 
solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly. 
Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the 
``broadcast flag'' the solution to the ``Analog hole'' will require a 
government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer 
devices.
  The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of 
digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and 
transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital 
rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem. 
Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many 
others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality 
digital content on the Internet and it is not being provided in any 
widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is 
also technologically feasible. It too will require government action, 
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
  While industries are at odds as to how to solve these critical 
content protection problems, the legislation we introduce today 
provides us with the tools to break the logjam. Specifically, the 
legislation requires the content,

[[Page 3827]]

consumer electronics, and information technology industries to come 
together with representatives of consumer groups to develop standards, 
technologies, and encoding rules to safeguard digital content so that 
it will be made more readily available to consumers without being 
subject to piracy. The affected parties would have one year to reach 
agreement. The technologies would then be incorporated into all digital 
media devices to ensure universal protection for digital content and 
universal access to such content for consumers. The deadline on 
industry would work in the following fashion: if they come together to 
solve these problems in private sector talks, we will empower 
government enforcement so that all consumer devices comply. If they 
don't, the government, in consultation with the private sector, will 
have to step in.
  America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright 
industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The 
framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to 
our country's economic health when they empowered Congress in the 
Constitution to protect copyrighted products. Now, however, copyrighted 
media products are delivered digitally, and copyright infringement is 
more difficult to detect and prevent. That is why strong technological 
protections need to be layered on top of the copyright laws, to 
complement the law as it exists today. Along those lines, I want to 
emphasize that this legislation does not alter existing copyright law. 
Copyright law rests squarely within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. I hope to work closely with Chairman Leahy and 
Ranking Member Hatch to stop copyright piracy in a digital age.
  Some have said that legislation is unwieldy in this area. But our 
legislation would not be the first time Congress imposed technological 
requirements to benefit consumers. And it won't be the last. We have 
been here before. In 1962, under the All Channel Receiver Act, Congress 
mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune 
all channels, UHF and VHF, allocated to the television broadcast 
service. More recently, in 1998, Congress required that all analog VCRs 
recognize a standard copy control technology, know as ``Macrovision''. 
In the former case, the Federal Government and the Federal 
Communications Commission took the lead. In the latter case, industry 
first agreed to the `Macrovision' standard which Congress later 
codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the 
way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing 
Americans with wider access to programming and content.
  Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies, 
and encoding rule would work in the following manner. Digital content 
delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would 
include instructions as to consumers' ability to copy available content 
and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the 
Internet. Digital media devices such as televisions sets, cable boxes, 
and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond 
to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution.
  I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the 
standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart 
legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home, for time 
shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and 
encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to 
preserve fair use of otherwise protected content, for educational and 
research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that 
encoding rules ``take into account limitations on exclusive rights of 
copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine.'' In addition, the 
legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent 
consumers from ``making a personal copy for lawful use in the home'' of 
non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this 
point, no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that 
does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use 
practices.
  Critics of earlier drafts of our legislation painted it as heavy 
handed and awkward government selection of technologies. I want to 
respond. We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of 
meetings with my staff, and the bill we introduce today does nothing of 
the sort. Under the new legislation, if the required private sector 
negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with 
those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically 
feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the 
event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and 
opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own.
  Critics of earlier discussion drafts of our legislation also claimed 
that it would freeze innovation and that any solutions would invariably 
be out of date shortly after they are selected due to the rapid and 
accelerated development of technology in the high tech sector. But here 
too we have listened and responded. Pursuant to our legislation, if the 
private sector determines that the selected technological solution 
needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Its as simple as that. 
Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding 
rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates. Or, 
technological improvements may be developed that ensure greater 
security for content, or more readily take into account consumers or 
researchers' fair use expectations.
  Regardless, in any of these instances, at any time, the legislation 
would allow the representatives of the content, consumer electronics, 
and information technology industries to implement any necessary 
modification of the agreed upon technologies. They could simply do so 
on their own, and then notify the FCC of their actions.
  At every stage in the process, the private sector, not the 
government, has the opportunity and the incentive to grab the reins. To 
date, however, this has not happened. The legislation we introduce 
today seeks to change that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the 
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2048

       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 SECTIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer 
     Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules.
Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming 
              digital media devices.
Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology; 
              violation of encoding rules.
Sec. 7. Enforcement.
Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption.
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to 
     hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and 
     digital television products.
       (2) Owners of digital programming and content are 
     increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless 
     digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize 
     and respond to content security measures designed to prevent 
     theft.
       (3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, 
     and without degradation, digital programmers and content 
     owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a 
     digital age.
       (4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to 
     include security technologies in certain digital media 
     devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because 
     those agreements do not prevent the continued use and 
     manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate 
     such security technologies.
       (5) Other existing digital rights management schemes 
     represent proprietary, partial

[[Page 3828]]

     solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access 
     to the greatest variety of digital content possible.
       (6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect 
     digital content on digital broadcast television and over the 
     Internet.
       (7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement 
     on the deployment of existing technology in digital media 
     devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on 
     digital broadcast television.
       (8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary 
     precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, 
     of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers 
     and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
       (9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary 
     precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to 
     high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
       (10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive 
     advantage over digital television because the closed nature 
     of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which 
     provides some protection for digital content.
       (11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not 
     encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those 
     protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or 
     satellite.
       (12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming 
     in analog form.
       (14) When protected digital content is converted to analog 
     for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to 
     conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be 
     copied or redistributed illegally.
       (15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject 
     to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, 
     downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
       (17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading 
     television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by 
     using ``file-sharing'' technology. Much of this activity is 
     illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital 
     content.
       (18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to 
     America's content industries.
       (19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital 
     content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate 
     consumer expectations regarding use of digital content in the 
     home.
       (21) Secure technological protections should enable content 
     owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet 
     without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use 
     that content in a legal manner.
       (22) Technologies used to protect digital content should 
     facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
       (23) Technologies used to protect digital content should 
     facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use 
     of digital content for educational or research purposes.

     SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING 
                   RULES.

       (a) Private Sector Efforts.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission, in 
     consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a 
     determination, not more than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, as to whether--
       (A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, 
     consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement 
     on security system standards for use in digital media devices 
     and encoding rules; and
       (B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the 
     requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
       (2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--
     Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the 
     Judiciary as to whether--
       (A) substantial progress has been made toward the 
     development of security system standards and encoding rules 
     that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and 
     (e);
       (B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good 
     faith;
       (C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement 
     will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be 
     reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be 
     extended.
       (b) Affirmative Determination.--If the Commission makes a 
     determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on 
     security system standards and encoding rules that conform to 
     the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, 
     then the Commission shall--
       (1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on 
     which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and 
     encoding rules; and
       (2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not 
     later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that 
     will take effect 1 year after its publication.
       (c) Negative Determination.--If the Commission makes a 
     determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on 
     security system standards and encoding rules that conform to 
     the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been 
     reached, then the Commission--
       (1) in consultation with representatives described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall 
     initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which 
     the determination is made, to adopt security system standards 
     and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of 
     subsections (d) and (e); and
       (2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, 
     not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that 
     will take effect 1 year after its publication.
       (d) Security System Standards.--In achieving the goals of 
     setting open security system standards that will provide 
     effective security for copyrighted works, the security system 
     standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that--
       (1) the standard security technologies are--
       (A) reliable;
       (B) renewable;
       (C) resistant to attack;
       (D) readily implemented;
       (E) modular;
       (F) applicable to multiple technology platforms;
       (G) extensible;
       (H) upgradable;
       (I) not cost prohibitive; and
       (2) any software portion of such standards is based on open 
     source code.
       (e) Encoding Rules.--
       (1) Limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright 
     owners.--In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful 
     uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as 
     much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take 
     into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of 
     copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.
       (2) Personal use copies.--No person may apply a security 
     measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a 
     lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use 
     in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully 
     performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-
     premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite 
     channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in 
     section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a 
     cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or 
     a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such 
     title).
       (f) Means of Implementing Standards.--The security system 
     standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall 
     provide for secure technical means of implementing directions 
     of copyright owners for copyrighted works.
       (g) Commission May Revise Standards and Rules Through 
     Rulemaking.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may conduct subsequent 
     rulemakings to modify any security system standards or 
     encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to 
     adopt new security system standards that conform to the 
     requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
       (2) Consultation required.--The Commission shall conduct 
     any such subsequent rulemaking in consultation with 
     representatives of digital media device manufacturers, 
     consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights.
       (3) Implementation.--Any final rule published in such a 
     subsequent rulemaking shall--
       (A) apply prospectively only; and
       (B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the 
     modified or new security system standards and encoding rules 
     on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices 
     manufactured before the modified or new standards take 
     effect.
       (h) Modification of Technology by Private Sector.--
       (1) In general.--After security system standards have been 
     established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this 
     section, representatives of digital media device 
     manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard 
     security technology that adheres to the security system 
     standards rules established under this section if those 
     representatives determine that a change in the technology is 
     necessary because--
       (A) the technology in use has been compromised; or
       (B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the 
     technology in use.
       (2) Implementation notification.--The representatives 
     described in paragraph (1) shall notify the Commission of any 
     such modification before it is implemented or, if immediate 
     implementation is determined by the representatives to be 
     necessary, as soon thereafter as possible.

[[Page 3829]]

       (3) Compliance with subsection (d) requirements.--The 
     Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard 
     security technology under this subsection conforms to the 
     requirements of subsection (d).

     SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY.

       An interactive computer service shall store and transmit 
     with integrity any security measure associated with standard 
     security technologies that is used in connection with 
     copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF 
                   NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.

       (a) In General.--A manufacturer, importer, or seller of 
     digital media devices may not--
       (1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
       (2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, 
     interstate commerce,
     a digital media device unless the device includes and 
     utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the 
     security system standards adopted under section 3.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, 
     offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device 
     that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the 
     consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted 
     under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of 
     section 6(a).

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY 
                   TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.

       (a) Removal or Alteration of Security Technology.--No 
     person may--
       (1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security 
     technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in 
     interstate commerce; or
       (2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any 
     copyrighted material where the security measure associated 
     with a standard security technology has been removed or 
     altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
       (b) Compliance with Encoding Rules.--No person may 
     knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been 
     distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a 
     standard security technology in violation of the encoding 
     rules adopted under section 3.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of 
     title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of 
     this Act as if--
       (1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a 
     violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) a violation of section 4 or section 6(a)(2) of this Act 
     were a violation of section 1202 of that title.
       (b) Statutory Damages.--A court may award damages for each 
     violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more 
     than $2,500, as the court considers just.

     SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION.

       The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not 
     apply to any committee, board, commission, council, 
     conference, panel, task force, or other similar group of 
     representatives of digital media devices and representatives 
     of copyright owners convened for the purpose of developing 
     the security system standards and encoding rules described in 
     section 3.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Standard security technology.--The term ``standard 
     security technology'' means a security technology that 
     adheres to the security system standards adopted under 
     section 3.
       (2) Interactive computer service.--The term ``interactive 
     computer service'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
       (3) Digital media device.--The term ``digital media 
     device'' means any hardware or software that--
       (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
       (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form 
     whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
       (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form 
     and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to 
     hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on 
     the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b) 
     or (c) takes effect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 2050. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
nominally foreign corporations created through inversion transactions 
as domestic corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
would bar multinational corporations from avoiding millions of dollars 
in taxes through the use of shell corporations in foreign tax havens.
  On February 18 the New York Times in an article entitled ``U.S. 
Corporations Are Using Bermuda to Slash Tax Bills,'' reported that a 
number of prominent U.S. corporations, using creative paperwork, have 
transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations purely to avoid paying 
their share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda entities are shell 
corporations. They have no staff, no offices and no real business 
activity in Bermuda. They exist for the purpose of shielding income 
from the IRS.
  How does the ``Bermuda Triangle'' tax loophole work? U.S. companies, 
referred to as ``domestic corporations,'' pay U.S. taxes on their 
worldwide income, whether that income is earned in the United States or 
abroad. Foreign corporations pay U.S. taxes only on income earned in 
the United States.
  Through the use of a process called corporate inversion, a domestic 
company can be ``acquired'' by a shell corporation chartered in a 
foreign county with low or no corporate taxes, Bermuda for example. 
Under such an arrangement, the shareholders of the new foreign parent 
are the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company. This maneuver 
requires little more than filing of the proper paperwork in the new 
``home'' country and payment of a registration fee. The new foreign 
parent corporation need not have any offices or any staff, and they 
usually don't.
  United States tax law contains many provisions designed to expose 
such creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign 
in name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations. 
Corporate inversions are designed to exploit a specific loophole in 
current law so that the company is treated as foreign for tax purposes, 
and therefore pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income.
  My bill closes this loophole in a way that is narrowly tailored to 
capture corporate inversion transactions. In the case of inversion 
``stock swaps'' the bill directs the IRS to look at the ownership of 
the new company to assess whether it is a domestic firm.
  The loophole gives tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks to major 
multinational companies with significant non-U.S. business. It also 
puts other U.S. companies unwilling or unable to use this loophole at a 
competitive disadvantage. No American company should be penalized 
staying put while others renounce U.S. ``citizenship'' for a tax break.
  Of course when some companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of 
American taxpayers and businesses are stuck with the bill. I think I 
can safely say that very few of the small businesses that I visit in 
Detroit Lakes, MN, or Mankato, in Minneapolis, or Duluth can avail 
themselves of the Bermuda Triangle.
  When we have our debate over budget priorities here in the Senate, we 
need to decide whether we are going to go after tax scofflaws or 
instead put these resources into fair tax relief, public investment, or 
saving social security. That's what this legislation is all about. I 
hope colleagues will take a close look and be able to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of 
        Nebraska, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dayton, 
        Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2051. A bill to remove a condition preventing authority for 
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability 
compensation from taking effect, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Session I, along with 79 cosponsors, 
introduced

[[Page 3830]]

S. 170, ``The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.'' Our bill addressed 
a 110-year-old injustice against over 500 thousand of our Nation's 
veterans. Congress has repeatedly forced the bravest men and women in 
our Nation, retired career veterans, to essentially forgo receipt of a 
portion of their retired pay if they received a disability injury in 
the line of service.
  In October, I introduced an amendment identical to S. 170 for the 
Senate Defense Authorization Bill. The Senate adopted my amendment by 
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House choose not to appropriate 
funds for this important measure.
  I rise today to again introduce a bill along with my colleagues Mr. 
Hutchinson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kennedy, 
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Akaka, 
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Bunning, and 
Mr. Bingaman that will correct this inequity for veterans who have 
retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
  Our bill will repeal the contingency language enacted in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and thus remove a 
condition preventing authority for concurrent receipt of military 
retired pay and veterans' disability compensation from taking effect. 
It will permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service 
connected disability to receive military retirement pay while also 
receiving veterans' disability compensation.
  Congress approved inequitable legislation prohibiting the concurrent 
receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation shortly 
after the Civil War, when the standing army of the United States was 
extremely limited. At that time, only a small portion of our armed 
forces consisted of career soldiers.
  Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives 
to the defense of our Nation. The United States' military force is 
unmatched in terms of power, training and ability. Our nation's status 
as the world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our 
veterans made during the last century. Rather than honoring their 
commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal 
government has chosen instead to perpetuate a longstanding injustice. 
Quite simply, this is disgraceful, and we must correct it.
  Once again our Nation is calling upon the members of the Armed Forces 
to defend democracy and freedom. We must send a signal to the men and 
women currently in uniform that our government takes care of those that 
make sacrifices for our Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we 
are thankful for their dedicated service.
  Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and 
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the 
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retired pay is 
earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices 
inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two 
decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable. 
Veterans' disability compensation, on the other hand, is recompense for 
pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-
connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on their 
retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem worse 
by limiting or denying any post-service working life.
  Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal 
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to 
receive VA disability. All other federal employees receive both their 
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. Simply put, 
the law discriminates against career military men and women. It 
assumes, in effect, that disabled military retirees neither need nor 
deserve the full compensation they earned for their 20 or more years 
served in uniform.
  This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women 
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great Nation? How do we 
explain this inequity to those members currently risking their lives to 
defeat terror?
  We are currently losing over one thousand World War II veterans each 
day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing to 
deny fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will 
never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
  This bill represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that 
has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans to receive 
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently 
will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
  This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the 
Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
  Passing this bill will finally eliminate a grossly inequitable 19th 
century law and ensure fairness within the Federal retirement policy. 
Our veterans have heard enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear 
our gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation to finally end this disservice to our retired military men 
and women.
  Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their 
service to our nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2051

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

     SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUTHORITY FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT 
                   OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY AMD VETERANS' 
                   DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Repeal of Contingent Effective Date.--Section 1414 of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added by section 641(a) of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
     (Public Law 107-107), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``, subject to the 
     enactment of qualifying offsetting legislation as specified 
     in subsection (f)''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (e) and (f).
       (b) Substitution of Effective Date.--Section 1414 of title 
     10, United States Code, shall apply with respect to months 
     beginning on or after on October 1, 2002.
       (c) Prohibition of Retroactive Benefits.--(1) No benefit 
     may be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title 
     10, United States Code, for any period before the date 
     specified in subsection (b).
       (2) Section 641 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1149) is 
     amended by striking subsection (d).
       (d) Conforming Termination of Special Compensation 
     Program.--(1) Effective on the date specified in subsection 
     (b), section 1413 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (2) Section 1413 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) For payments'' and 
     all that follows through ``December 2002, the following:'';
       (ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) 
     as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively, and 
     realigning such paragraphs (as so redesignated) two ems from 
     the left margin.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Reid and 
Senator Warner in introducing a bill that will eliminate, once and for 
all, the inequity that our Nation's veterans have been burdened with 
for 110 years. Across this great Nation there are over 400,000 
disabled, military retirees that must give up their retired pay in 
order to receive their VA disability compensation. Military retirees 
are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund their own 
disability benefits.
  Men and women who served our country, who dedicated their lives to 
the defense of freedom, have earned fair compensation. The issue has 
been before

[[Page 3831]]

the Senate for years. Concurrent receipt legislation introduced earlier 
this year by Senator Reid and myself had 79 cosponsors. The Congress 
needs to act this year on this issue.
  This bill will honor Americans who answered our Nation's call for 20 
years or more. They are veterans who stood the line, defending our 
Nation, during times of peace and times of war. Military retirement pay 
and disability compensation are earned and awarded for entirely 
different purposes. Current law ignores the distinction between these 
entitlements. Military retirees have dedicated 20 or more years to our 
national defense in earning their retirement, whereas disability 
compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in 
service to our Nation. Our veterans have earned and deserve fair 
compensation. I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal 
the century-old law that prohibits military retirees from collecting 
the retired pay that they earned as well as VA disability compensation.
  Since September 11, the American people have gained a greater 
appreciation of our military. The men and women in uniform have 
performed admirably in the war against terrorism. I recently visited 
our troops in Afghanistan. Their professionalism, their dedication, and 
their patriotism was an inspiration. As we all know, Afghanistan is 
still a very dangerous place. We need to send a message to those 
soldiers that are putting their lives on the line every day that our 
government provides just and fair compensation for those that will have 
gone before them.
  The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act included authority for 
concurrent receipt, but made it subject to offsetting funding. The bill 
we are introducing today moves forward in requiring full concurrent 
receipt, with no restrictions.
  I pledge to continue the fight on this important issue. I look 
forward to joining with Senator Reid in ensuring that the Senate Budget 
Resolution includes full funding for concurrent receipt. I will work 
with Senator Warner and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee to see that the bill we are introducing today is incorporated 
into the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization bill.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this important legislation. Is is simply the right and fair 
thing to do for American veterans.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing 
legislation to allow our disabled military retirees to receive all of 
the compensation they have earned through their service to our Nation.
  With this legislation, we are taking the next critical step in 
eliminating a tremendous injustice that impacts disabled military 
retirees. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have 
joined in cosponsoring this important legislation.
  What is our common goal? To ensure that an important class of 
disabled veterans, military retirees who have suffered disability 
during their years of military service, are fairly and appropriately 
compensated by the Nation they served so well. We cannot and should not 
wait any longer for this to happen.
  Last year, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Congress 
overturned the 110-year-old prohibition against ``concurrent receipt'' 
as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. In 
other words, we repealed the prohibition in law that prevents military 
retirees from receiving both their regular retired pay and veterans 
disability compensation, without a dollar for dollar offset. 
Unfortunately, we did not have the necessary funding to pay for this 
repeal. The resulting compromise in conference was a confidential 
repeal.
  On its face this legislation before us is a somewhat technical 
proposal. By its terms, it simply repeals language enacted in law last 
December that requires the President to propose offsetting legislation 
funding concurrent receipt and requires Congress to pass ``qualifying 
offsetting legislation'' before concurrent receipt of military retired 
pay and veterans' disability compensation can begin. The underlying 
authorization to receive both concurrently, as provided for in the 
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, stands. The 
condition which has delayed implementation would be removed by the 
legislation we are introducing today.
  Both Senator Levin as chairman, and I as ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, have requested that the Senate Budget 
Committee include funding in the budget resolution to fund this hard-
earned benefit. I have requested that this funding be included ``above 
the line''--that is, in addition to the President's requested amount 
for defense. In my view, Congress should not be forced to cut the 
President's requested initiatives and programs--which are critical to 
the ongoing war on terrorism, to fund this benefit.
  The House Budget Committee has already included a portion of the 
funds required for ``concurrent receipt'' in their budget resolution, 
``above the line.''
  It is time to move forward on this important issue. The legislation 
we are introducing will permit implementation of the law the Congress 
has already passed, and I am confident that, working with the Budget 
Committee, we can find the money to pay for it.
  Our Nation has no more valuable assets than our men and women in 
uniform. They are called upon to leave their families, deploy to areas 
around the world, and face threats on a daily basis. They are on the 
front lines, defending our freedom. Our Nation must meet its commitment 
to those dedicated Service members. How can we ask the men and women 
who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their 
retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury 
suffered while serving their country?
  Our career military service members were promised health care for 
life for themselves and their families. Two years ago, we the Congress 
acted to make that promise a reality. Yes, there was a significant cost 
associated with providing that care. But there is no cost too high to 
provide for those who ensure our freedom.
  Today we are considering a similar situation. Is the cost too high of 
providing our disabled military retirees both the military retired pay 
they have earned and compensation they are due for a disability they 
received while serving their Nation? I think not.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2052. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to reauthorize and improve the temporary assistance to needy 
families program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr President, I am proud to introduce a bill that 
reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed 1996. It 
will allow States to continue their excellent work on behalf of 
families on welfare. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow 
states to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have 
reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved 
millions of Americans from welfare to work.
  Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major 
social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible 
families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are 
impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare 
rolls have left for work.
  Six years ago, we said the goal of welfare reform should be to 
promote work and to protect children. We stood here together, on 
unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we 
believed would help families gain independence and economic self-
sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise 
welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each 
state designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific 
to their populations.
  While there are still many challenges facing families who are 
struggling to make the transition from welfare to work, as well as 
challenges facing

[[Page 3832]]

States in administering the program, I believe that we are on the right 
course. It is essential to keep on course and support the fundamental 
principles adopted in 1996, as well as maintain new State flexibility 
in order to reward and continue the innovations made by the States.
  In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on 
welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and 
obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. Last summer, I 
hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians 
who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were 
proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make 
ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this 
legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the 
well-being of their children even as they work.
  Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2002. States are making 
measurable progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, 
and not reduce State flexibility. It is essential we continue welfare 
reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.
  This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both 
requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents 
leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the 
caseload reduction credit with a new employment credit. States will 
only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents 
move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of 
all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and 
part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a 
part-time job has had a true accomplishment, and that deserves 
recognition. It is also the first step toward independence.
  I am especially grateful to Senator Lincoln and Congressman Levin for 
their leadership and vision in designing this new incentive. It is an 
empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to 
families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to 
incorporate their proposal into my bill.
  At this point, with a soft economy, it would be unwise to 
significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher 
work participation rates requiring 40 hours per job placement 
activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate.
  State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such 
changes would force States to restructure existing programs that are 
working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance 
with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a 
welfare check. We should not turn away from helping our working 
families while spending limited resources to meet new, and arbitrary, 
work rates and hours.
  To promote work, it is essential to help working parents. We 
obviously must invest more in child care funding to help parents stay 
on the job. My proposal seeks to increase guaranteed child care funding 
for this provision by $1 billion each year. This increase is designed 
to address existing needs of the current TANF program.
  This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so 
families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from 
welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and 
the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such 
vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan 
bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage and I appreciate his 
leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states 
more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training 
and English as a Second Language programs so parents can get jobs. In 
recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, 
states have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their 
caseload to combine work and education.
  Because States are investing more in the existing welfare program 
than the current $16.5 billion grant, this legislation would provide a 
modest increase of $2.5 billion in the basic TANF block grant over the 
next five years. The new TANF funding would be allocated based on the 
number of poor children. In 1996, Congress promised States that it 
would fully fund the Social Services Block Grant at $2.8 billion 
dollars. The block grant is a flexible resource to states to help 
families, and many States use it for child care. Unfortunately, its 
funding was slashed to $1.7 billion in recent years. I believe that 
since the States kept their promise on welfare reform, Congress should 
keep our promise to fund the Social Services Block Grant.
  The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, 
competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help 
parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example 
of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real 
difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have 
provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to 
work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should 
encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the 
Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing 
transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be 
eligible for grants as well.
  A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful 
transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve 
this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to 
improve this support network for parents. These grants are intended to 
provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit 
organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for 
working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a 
range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support 
will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.
  Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important 
aspects of the lives of children and children. This legislation creates 
a Family Formation Fund to encourage health families, reduce teenage 
pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in 
children's lives. The bill authorizes Second Chance homes, an 
innovative program to help teenage parents get the support and 
education they need. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and 
harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal 
is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.
  Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the 
current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual 
Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In 
addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a 
responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize 
this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to 
incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's 
Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it 
is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's 
responsibilities is the well-being of their children.
  This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that 
this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can 
make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining 
our partnership with the States. We all must work together, the 
Administration, the Congress and the States, to improve our partnership 
to help families move from welfare to work.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the section-by-section summary of my 
bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the section by section analysis was ordered 
to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                      Section by Section Analysis


                         TITLE I--TANF Funding

       Increase the main TANF grant of $16.5 by adding $2.5 
     billion over 5 years, based on the number of poor children 
     per state. It will

[[Page 3833]]

     gradually increase the TANF block grant from $16.5 billion in 
     2003 to $17.4 billion in 2007.
       The Supplemental Grants are renewed, in an expanded manner, 
     and ``built into'' the main TANF funding stream. Under 
     expansion, 34 States will qualify, compared to 17 States in 
     the past. The new Supplemental Grant is $472,749,000 per 
     year.
       The Contingency Fund is reinstated in a more effective 
     form.
       A $300 million bonus fund is created to reward States which 
     reduce poverty, along the lines of the ``high performance'' 
     bonus. In addition, States which show an increase in child 
     poverty are required to include ``measurable milestones'' in 
     their corrective action plans.
       Reauthorization of other grants, such as bonus grants to 
     high performance states and grants for Indian Tribes, and 
     continuation of penalties for failure of any State to 
     maintain certain level of historic effort.
       Funding for the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, which 
     funds an array of needed programs including day care, 
     education and training programs, and services for victims of 
     domestic violence, is restored to $2.8 billion per year, as 
     is the 10 percent TANF transfer authority, as promised in the 
     original 1996 welfare reform law.


                       TITLE II--Supporting Work

       Replace caseload reduction credit with employment credit 
     beginning with fiscal year 2005. Employment credit will 
     reward States in which families leave welfare for work; 
     additional credit will be awarded for families leaving 
     welfare with higher earnings.
       Guaranteed funding for the mandatory component of the Child 
     Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, is increased from $2.7 
     billion to $3.7 billion per year. The TANF transfer authority 
     continues.
       States which adopt a ``Parents as Scholars'' program, which 
     combines work and post-secondary education, may count 
     participants in such a program as meeting the work 
     participation requirements, up to a maximum of 5 percent of a 
     State's caseload. Vocational training and education are 
     permitted to count toward the work participation requirements 
     for up to 24 months, not 12, and teenage mothers completing 
     high school are exempt from the 30 percent cap. States can 
     count up to 10 hours of ESL, with assessment, toward work 
     participation.
       Provide $200 million over five years for new Business Link 
     grants to create public/private partnerships to encourage 
     employers to design innovative ways, including transitional 
     jobs, to help individuals moving from welfare to work.


                     TITLE III--Supporting Families

       Eliminate the stricter work participation requirement for 
     two-parent families.
       States are prohibited from imposing stricter eligibility 
     criteria for two-parent families, such as continuing the AFDC 
     ``100 hour'' rule. In addition, the work participation rate 
     for two-parent families is conformed to that for one-parent 
     families.
       Create a Family Formation Fund to provide $100 million for 
     research, technical assistance, and best practices in three 
     areas, including; 1. formation of two-parent families, 2. 
     reducing teen pregnancy, and 3. increasing the ability of 
     non-custodial parents to support and be involved in their 
     children's lives.
       Since a child's well-being is part of a parent's 
     responsibility, states are directed to include child well-
     being as part of the Individual Responsibility Pan for all 
     parents in the program.


                      TITLE IV--State Flexibility

       New Pathway to Self-Sufficiency Grants, $150 million over 5 
     years, are made available to improve coordination of benefit 
     systems and to conduct outreach to low-income families, 
     working families in particular, to promote enrollment of 
     eligible families in assistance programs. States, local 
     governments, and non-profit organizations are eligible to 
     receive the grants, with a preference for applications which 
     involve collaborations.
       States deserve flexibility and the option to offer wage 
     subsidies to parents who meet the existing work requirements 
     but need modest income support. Such subsidies would be 
     considered ``work supports'' and as such would be treated as 
     work supports, and not count toward the federal 60-month time 
     limit.
       Retain the 20 percent hardship waivers for State 
     flexibility, but allow States that select the Domestic 
     Violence Option to serve the victims of domestic violence as 
     a separate and distinct category, since this option has 
     specific rules, including a 6-month review.
       States operating under 1996 waivers are permitted to 
     continued doing so.
       Provide States with the option to align foster care and 
     adoption assistance eligibility with TANF eligibility. States 
     must retain the income and assets standards for foster care 
     established in the 1996 welfare reform law as the minimum 
     standard, but States would have the option of updating the 
     standards to align them with TANF eligibility. This is 
     designed to streamline administrative work, and is similar to 
     State flexibility to align food stamp vehicle rules to TANF 
     vehicle rules.
       Allow States to cover eligible legal immigrants under TANF, 
     regardless of date of entry.
       Give States more flexibility to transfer TANF funds to 
     carry out existing transportation-for-jobs programs or 
     reverse commute projects.


                       TITLE V--Healthy Children

       Provide transitional Medicaid to parents and children 
     making the transition from welfare to work. Provide States 
     with the option of automatically enrolling families who leave 
     TANF for a job in Medicaid for a full year, without the 
     necessity of reapplying.
       States will have an option to provide Medicaid and CHIP 
     services to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, 
     regardless of date of entry.
       Authorize $32 million for Second Chance Homes for teenage 
     expectant mothers. These facilities allow these girls to live 
     in a safe environment and receive formal and parenting 
     education and prenatal care.


                    TITLE VI--Public Accountability

       To improve accountability, States are required to make 
     public the financial and program data submitted to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, when the data 
     is transmitted, including posting the information on the 
     State's web site.
       Under current law, four antidiscrimination statutes apply 
     to activities funded by TANF: the Age Discrimination Act of 
     1975; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and Title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964. GAO is required to conduct a review 
     of how States have complied with the requirements of these 
     laws and make recommendations for improving compliance. HHS 
     is also required to issue a ``best practices'' guide for 
     States in complying with these laws in TANF.
       Ensure that an adult in a family receiving TANF and engaged 
     in a work activity shall not displace any public employee or 
     position.
       Conduct longitudinal studies in 10 States of TANF 
     applicants and recipients to determine the factors that 
     contribute to positive employment and family outcomes.
       A GAO study to determine the impact of the prohibition on 
     SSI benefits for legal immigrants.
       Grant to improve States' policies and procedures for 
     assisting individuals with barriers to work.
       GAO survey and evaluation of State activities on workforce 
     development for professional staff delivery in TANF and TANF-
     related services. The report should assess the range of 
     caseloads and effects of caseload on family outcomes and 
     satisfaction. The survey should provide information on the 
     qualifications, education and training for staff, and the 
     amount of staff turnover.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 2053. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve 
immunization rates by increasing the distribution of vaccines and 
improving and clarifying the vaccine injury compensation program, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Vaccine 
Affordability and Availability Act.'' The United States has succeeded 
in dramatically reducing the incidence of disease through the use of 
vaccines. In some cases, we've even been able to eradicate specific 
diseases, including smallpox. Smallpox, which has killed more people 
than any other disease or war in history, has been eradicated by the 
research, development and deployment of vaccines.
  Still, our success should not and must not dampen our resolve for 
combating disease with vaccines. Many vaccine-preventable diseases are 
still increasing morbidity and mortality due to a lack of public 
awareness about the existence and effectiveness of vaccines, and, in 
some cases, due to a shortage of certain vaccines.
  The goal of this bill is to improve how we vaccinate people in 
America today. It would reduce the cost of vaccines, make vaccines more 
accessible, enhance vaccine education, and streamline the vaccine 
compensation program. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the 
aisle, to support this bill and, in so doing, support the prevention of 
disease and the saving of lives.
  We must strengthen our immunization system. We need only look at the 
experiences of three developed countries, Great Britain, Sweden and 
Japan, when they allowed their immunization rates to drop due to fear 
associated with the pertussis, whooping cough, vaccine. In Great 
Britain, a decrease in pertussis immunizations in 1974 resulted in an 
epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. 
In Japan between 1974 and 1979, pertussis vaccination rates fell from 
70 percent, with 393 cases and no deaths, to around 20 to 40 percent,

[[Page 3834]]

with 13,000 cases and 41 deaths. In Sweden between 1981 and 1985, the 
annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of 
age increased from 700 cases to 3,200 cases. Low diphtheria 
immunization rates in the former Soviet Union for children and the lack 
of booster immunizations for adults have increased diphtheria from 839 
cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994.
  As the General Accounting Office, GAO, described in a March 2000 
report, infectious diseases are responsible for nearly half of all 
deaths worldwide for people under the age of 44. The report further 
states that immunizing children against infectious diseases is 
``considered to be one of the most effective public health initiatives 
ever undertaken'' in the United States and the number of people in the 
United States contracting vaccine-preventable diseases has been reduced 
by more than 95 percent. Every year, millions of children are safely 
vaccinated, preventing thousands of childhood deaths and even more 
debilitating illnesses. While vaccines save lives and save the nation 
from lifelong medical costs associated with contracting vaccine-
preventable diseases, no product is risk-free.
  When Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 
1986, it recognized that ``[v]accination of children against deadly, 
disabling, but preventable infectious diseases has been one of the most 
spectacularly effective public health initiatives this country has ever 
undertaken.'' Congress further noted that the ``[u]se of vaccines has 
prevented thousands of children's deaths each year and has 
substantially reduced the effects resulting from disease.'' Congress 
further recognized that the cost of litigation initiated on behalf of 
children claiming vaccine-related injuries has resulted in an enormous 
increase in the price of vaccines and a significant reduction in the 
number of vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. market.
  The Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, ACCV, was established 
pursuant to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to advise 
the Secretary of HHS on ways to improve the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program, which was also established in the same law. Meeting minutes 
from a September 2001 ACCV meeting best sum up the integral connection 
between vaccine supply, production, and liability concerns that our 
bill seeks to address: ``The vaccine supply in the United States is 
becoming quite fragile. Over the last 20 to 30 years, there has been a 
significant decrease in the number of vaccine manufacturers. As a 
result, there is a relatively small group of manufacturers with limited 
manufacturing capability. This fragility compromises the ability to 
meet current vaccine needs and limits capacity to respond to 
emergencies.''
  In the early 1980s, lawsuits alleging vaccine-related injury or death 
threatened vaccine production, availability, cost and even the 
development of new vaccines. Coupled with already low profit margins, 
the vaccine market became unstable. Gross sales of the DTP vaccine in 
1980 for all manufacturers fell to about $3 million. If even a few of 
the vaccinated children experienced adverse reactions to the DTP 
vaccine and recovered $1 million each, for a lifetime of mental 
impairment, then damages would easily exceed total sales. Costs 
associated with researching new vaccines and the uncertainty created by 
liability once the vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration and marketed, further jeopardized future vaccine 
development.
  In an attempt to address liability projections, manufacturers either 
raised their prices, the DTP vaccine rose from $.19 in 1980 to more 
than $12.00 by 1986, or left the vaccine market entirely. By the mid-
1980's, the number of manufacturers of DTP vaccine declined from seven 
to one and the Nation experienced a critical shortage of vaccine. As a 
result, we stopped immunizing 2 year olds, leaving them vulnerable to 
whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus.
  In 1986, Congress established the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program, VICP, as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. 
The VICP was created to address two major goals: To provide 
compensation to those who suffered rare but serious side effects from 
vaccines and to stabilize the vaccine production and supply market. The 
VICP was established as a Federal ``no-fault'' compensation system to 
compensate individuals who have been injured by certain covered 
childhood vaccines. While vaccine-injured parties are required to file 
claims under the VICP before filing lawsuits, proof requirements are 
much lower than in court and procedures are simplified for injuries 
that are listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The balance that was 
struck was that the burden of proving causation was significantly 
reduced for VICP claimants, while the litigation burden on 
manufacturers and administrators of covered vaccines is decreased.
  The Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act seeks to ensure the 
VICP balance between fairness to claimants seeking compensation for 
vaccine-related injury or death and stability for continued vaccine 
production is strengthened. It further addresses the concerns of 
claimants who file for compensation under VICP, in large part based on 
recommendations made by the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 
ACCV. Because family plays such an important role in the rehabilitation 
and treatment of a child injured by a vaccine, the legislation allows 
VICP awards to cover family counseling and guardianship costs.
  Additionally, the bill raises the payment ceiling on two capped 
payments that have not been raised since the VICP was implemented in 
1988. The legislation also lengthens the filing deadline so that 
petitioners may have more time to adequately assess the life care and 
medical needs of a vaccine-injured child before filing and adjudicating 
a VICP claim. It also allows claimants to recover interim costs before 
final judgment is reached, to ease the financial strain on petitioners 
for costs associated with filing a VICP claim. The bill also broadened 
the membership criteria so that an adult who has been injured by a 
vaccine may participate on the ACCV. Finally, the legislation makes 
clear that all of these changes apply to pending and future VICP 
claims.
  Today, only two American companies and two European companies sell 
vaccines in the United States. The United States is currently 
experiencing shortages in 5 of the 9 recommended childhood vaccines, 
for which there are only four manufacturers licensed to sell in the 
United States. Once again, the threat of liability and the cost of 
litigation pose challenges to the stability of our vaccine supply. 
According to the March 18, 2002 edition of Forbes magazine, the profit 
margin for vaccines is very slim. Just one of the pending class action 
lawsuits seeks $30 billion in damages. The entire global value of the 
vaccine market, all around the world, is only $5 billion.
  The ``Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act'' simply ensures 
that the VICP's goal of stabilizing the vaccine market is not 
jeopardized. In establishing the VICP in 1986, Congress sought to 
ensure that individuals claiming injury from covered vaccines must 
first file for compensation under the VICP. Some individuals, however, 
have attempted to evade this requirement by arguing, for example, that 
a preservative used in a vaccine, and included in the vaccine's product 
license application and product label, is not itself a ``vaccine'' so 
the VICP restrictions do not apply to claims for injuries caused by 
preservatives. This bill restates the original intent of the law, that 
a vaccine is all the ingredients and components which are approved by 
FDA to be in the product.
  The bill makes necessary clarifications to the VICP to ensure that 
unwarranted litigation does not again destabilize the vaccine market 
causing the few manufacturers licensed to sell vaccines in the United 
States to leave the market resulting in even more serious shortages of 
essential vaccines. It clarifies that a vaccine-injured person must 
timely file a petition and complete the VICP process before third 
parties may bring a civil action in connection with that person's 
injuries.

[[Page 3835]]

The bill adopts the ACCV recommendation that clarifies that certain 
well-defined medical conditions such as structural lesions and genetic 
disorders may be considered to be ``factors unrelated,'' and therefore 
non-compensable under VICP, to a vaccine, even if the exact defect in 
the gene, for example, is unknown. The legislation also clarifies that 
vaccine manufacturers and administrators cannot be sued unless there is 
evidence that a vaccine has caused present physical harm, they cannot 
be sued for medical monitoring to look for some theoretical future 
harm. The bill clarifies the definition of manufacturer to specify that 
a vaccine includes all components or ingredients of the vaccine and 
clarifies the existing law to ensure that any component or ingredient 
listed in a vaccine's product license application or label will not be 
considered to be an adulterant or contaminant. As with the changes we 
are making for VICP claimants, these changes would apply to pending and 
future VICP claims.
  This bill also requires that the Secretary of HHS prioritize, acquire 
and maintain a 6-month supply of vaccines to address future vaccine 
shortages and delays in production and authorizes new funds for this 
purpose. By authorizing additional funding for grants to State and 
local governments to increase influenza immunization rates for high 
risk populations and by authorizing funding to increase immunization 
rates for adolescents and adults who are medically underserved and at-
risk for vaccine-preventable diseases, this bill seeks to meet the 
challenge of improving adolescent and adult immunization rates. 
Finally, it ensures that colleges, universities and prisons are given 
information about the availability of a vaccine for bacterial 
meningitis and that health care clinics and providers are given 
information about the availability of hepatitis A and B vaccines.
  In summary, the ``Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act'' 
clarifies, updates, and streamlines the existing Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program to address concerns of petitioners to the program, 
to ensure that we are better prepared for normal market shortages and 
delays in production and that unwarranted litigation does not further 
destabilize our vaccine supply. I urge my colleagues to support this 
much needed legislation to improve the way the VICP operates for 
claimants seeking compensation and for manufacturers and administrators 
of vaccines seeking greater certainty in liability exposure, which, in 
turn, will stabilize vaccine production.
  This bill will help to ensure that the balance between the two very 
important goals of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is 
maintained: To provide for fair and expeditious compensation for 
persons injured by covered vaccines; and to ensure a stable supply of 
vaccines by avoiding unwarranted litigation relating to vaccine-related 
injuries and deaths. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this much 
needed legislation at a time when liability concerns once again 
threaten our vaccine supply.
  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. 2053

       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 ``Improved 
     Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                     TITLE I--STATE VACCINE GRANTS

Sec. 101. Availability of influenza vaccine.
Sec. 102. Program for increasing immunization rates for adults and 
              adolescents; collection of additional immunization data.
Sec. 103. Immunization awareness.
Sec. 104. Supply of vaccines.

             TITLE II--VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Sec. 201. Administrative revision of vaccine injury table.
Sec. 202. Equitable relief.
Sec. 203. Parent petitions for compensation.
Sec. 204. Jurisdiction to dismiss actions improperly brought. 
Sec. 205. Application.
Sec. 206. Clarification of when injury is caused by factor unrelated to 
              administration of vaccine.
Sec. 207. Increase in award in the case of a vaccine-related death and 
              for pain and suffering.
Sec. 208. Basis for calculating projected lost earnings.
Sec. 209. Allowing compensation for family counseling expenses and 
              expenses of establishing guardianship.
Sec. 210. Allowing payment of interim costs.
Sec. 211. Procedure for paying attorneys' fees.
Sec. 212. Extension of statute of limitations.
Sec. 213. Advisory commission on childhood vaccines.
Sec. 214. Clarification of standards of responsibility.
Sec. 215. Clarification of definition of manufacturer.
Sec. 216. Clarification of definition of vaccine-related injury or 
              death.
Sec. 217. Clarification of definition of vaccine.
Sec. 218. Conforming amendment to trust fund provision.
Sec. 219. Ongoing review of childhood vaccine data.
Sec. 220. Pending actions.
Sec. 221. Report.

                     TITLE I--STATE VACCINE GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AVAILABILITY OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.

       Section 317(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247b(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) For the purpose of carrying out activities 
     relating to influenza vaccine under the immunization program 
     under this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2003 and 2004. Such authorization shall be in addition 
     to amounts available under paragraphs (1) and (2) for such 
     purpose.
       ``(B) The authorization of appropriations established in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be effective for a fiscal year 
     unless the total amount appropriated under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) for the fiscal year is not less than such total for 
     fiscal year 2000.
       ``(C) The purposes for which amounts appropriated under 
     subparagraph (A) are available to the Secretary include 
     providing for improved State and local infrastructure for 
     influenza immunizations under this subsection in accordance 
     with the following:
       ``(i) Increasing influenza immunization rates in 
     populations considered by the Secretary to be at high risk 
     for influenza-related complications and in their contacts.
       ``(ii) Recommending that health care providers actively 
     target influenza vaccine that is available in September, 
     October, and November to individuals who are at increased 
     risk for influenza-related complications and to their 
     contacts.
       ``(iii) Providing for the continued availability of 
     influenza immunizations through December of such year, and 
     for additional periods to the extent that influenza vaccine 
     remains available.
       ``(iv) Encouraging States, as appropriate, to develop 
     contingency plans (including plans for public and 
     professional educational activities) for maximizing influenza 
     immunizations for high-risk populations in the event of a 
     delay or shortage of influenza vaccine.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate, periodic reports describing the activities of the 
     Secretary under this subsection regarding influenza vaccine. 
     The first such report shall be submitted not later than June 
     6, 2003, the second report shall be submitted not later than 
     June 6, 2004, and subsequent reports shall be submitted 
     biennially thereafter.''.

     SEC. 102. PROGRAM FOR INCREASING IMMUNIZATION RATES FOR 
                   ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS; COLLECTION OF 
                   ADDITIONAL IMMUNIZATION DATA.

       (a) Activities of Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.--Section 317(j) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 247b(j)), as amended by section 101, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) For the purpose of carrying out activities to 
     increase immunization rates for adults and adolescents 
     through the immunization program under this subsection, and 
     for the purpose of carrying out subsection (k)(2), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2003, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2006. Such authorization is in 
     addition to amounts available under paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) for such purposes.
       ``(B) In expending amounts appropriated under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall give priority to adults and 
     adolescents who are medically underserved and are at risk for 
     vaccine-preventable diseases, including as appropriate 
     populations identified through projects under subsection 
     (k)(2)(E).
       ``(C) The purposes for which amounts appropriated under 
     subparagraph (A) are available include (with respect to 
     immunizations for adults and adolescents) the payment of

[[Page 3836]]

     the costs of storing vaccines, outreach activities to inform 
     individuals of the availability of the immunizations, and 
     other program expenses necessary for the establishment or 
     operation of immunization programs carried out or supported 
     by States or other public entities pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a 
     report that--
       ``(A) evaluates the extent to which the immunization system 
     in the United States has been effective in providing for 
     adequate immunization rates for adults and adolescents, 
     taking into account the applicable year 2010 health 
     objectives established by the Secretary regarding the health 
     status of the people of the United States; and
       ``(B) describes any issues identified by the Secretary that 
     may affect such rates.
       ``(6) In carrying out this subsection and paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of subsection (k), the Secretary shall consider 
     recommendations regarding immunizations that are made in 
     reports issued by the Institute of Medicine.''.
       (b) Research, Demonstrations, and Education.--Section 
     317(k) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b(k)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary, directly and through grants under 
     paragraph (1), shall provide for a program of research, 
     demonstration projects, and education in accordance with the 
     following:
       ``(A) The Secretary shall coordinate with public and 
     private entities (including nonprofit private entities), and 
     develop and disseminate guidelines, toward the goal of 
     ensuring that immunizations are routinely offered to adults 
     and adolescents by public and private health care providers.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall cooperate with public and private 
     entities to obtain information for the annual evaluations 
     required in subsection (j)(5)(A).
       ``(C) The Secretary shall (relative to fiscal year 2001) 
     increase the extent to which the Secretary collects data on 
     the incidence, prevalence, and circumstances of diseases and 
     adverse events that are experienced by adults and adolescents 
     and may be associated with immunizations, including 
     collecting data in cooperation with commercial laboratories.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall ensure that the entities with 
     which the Secretary cooperates for purposes of subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C) include managed care organizations, 
     community-based organizations that provide health services, 
     and other health care providers.
       ``(E) The Secretary shall provide for projects to identify 
     racial and ethnic minority groups and other health disparity 
     populations for which immunization rates for adults and 
     adolescents are below such rates for the general population, 
     and to determine the factors underlying such disparities.''.

     SEC. 103. IMMUNIZATION AWARENESS.

       (a) Development of Information Concerning Meningitis.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, shall develop and make 
     available to entities described in paragraph (2) information 
     concerning bacterial meningitis and the availability and 
     effectiveness of vaccinations for populations targeted by the 
     Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an advisory 
     committee established by the Secretary Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention).
       (2) Entities.--An entity is described in this paragraph if 
     the entity--
       (A) is--
       (i) a college or university; or
       (ii) a prison or other detention facility; and
       (B) is determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (b) Development of Information Concerning Hepatitis.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, shall develop and make 
     available to entities described in paragraph (2) information 
     concerning hepatitis A and B and the availability and 
     effectiveness of vaccinations with respect to such diseases.
       (2) Entities.--An entity is described in this paragraph if 
     the entity--
       (A) is--
       (i) a health care clinic that serves individuals diagnosed 
     as being infected with HIV or as having other sexually 
     transmitted diseases;
       (ii) an organization or business that counsels individuals 
     about international travel or who arranges for such travel;
       (iii) a police, fire or emergency medical services 
     organization that responds to natural or man-made disasters 
     or emergencies;
       (iv) a prison or other detention facility;
       (v) a college or university; or
       (vi) a public health authority or children's health service 
     provider in areas of intermediate or high endemnicity for 
     hepatitis A as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention; and
       (B) is determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.

     SEC. 104. SUPPLY OF VACCINES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, shall prioritize, acquire, 
     and maintain a supply of such prioritized vaccines sufficient 
     to provide vaccinations throughout a 6-month period.
       (b) Proceeds.--Any proceeds received by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services from the sale of vaccines contained 
     in the supply described in subsection (a), shall be available 
     to the Secretary for the purpose of purchasing additional 
     vaccines for the supply. Such proceeds shall remain available 
     until expended.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out subsection 
     (a) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2008.

             TITLE II--VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM

     SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATIVE REVISION OF VACCINE INJURY TABLE.

       The second sentence of section 2114(c)(1) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``In promulgating such regulations, the 
     Secretary shall provide for notice and for at least 90 days 
     opportunity for public comment.''.

     SEC. 202. EQUITABLE RELIEF.

       Section 2111(a)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``No 
     person'' and all that follows through ``and--'' and inserting 
     the following: ``No person may bring or maintain a civil 
     action against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a 
     State or Federal court for damages arising from, or equitable 
     relief relating to, a vaccine-related injury or death 
     associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 
     1, 1988 and no such court may award damages or equitable 
     relief for any such vaccine-related injury or death, unless 
     the person proves present physical injury and a timely 
     petition has been filed, in accordance with section 2116 for 
     compensation under the Program for such injury or death and--
     ''.

     SEC. 203. PARENT PETITIONS FOR COMPENSATION.

       Section 2111(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or (B)'' after 
     ``subparagraph (A)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) No parent or other third party may bring or maintain 
     a civil action against a vaccine administrator or 
     manufacturer in a Federal or State court for damages or 
     equitable relief relating to a vaccine-related injury or 
     death, including but not limited to damages for loss of 
     consortium, society, companionship or services, loss of 
     earnings, medical or other expenses, and emotional distress, 
     and no court may award damages or equitable relief in such an 
     action unless the action is joined with a civil action 
     brought by the person whose vaccine-related injury is the 
     basis for the parent's or other third party's action and that 
     person has satisfied the conditions of subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 204. JURISDICTION TO DISMISS ACTIONS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT.

       Section 2111(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If any civil action which is barred under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) is filed or 
     maintained in a State court, or any vaccine administrator or 
     manufacturer is made a party to any civil action brought in 
     State court (other than a civil action which may be brought 
     under paragraph (2)) for damages or equitable relief for a 
     vaccine-related injury or death associated with the 
     administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, the civil 
     action may be removed by the defendant or defendants to the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims, which shall have 
     jurisdiction over such civil action, and which shall dismiss 
     such action. The notice required by section 1446 of title 28, 
     United States Code, shall be filed with the United States 
     Court of Federal Claims, and that court shall proceed in 
     accordance with sections 1446 through 1451 of title 28, 
     United States Code.''.

     SEC. 205. APPLICATION.

       Section 2111(a)(9) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-11(a)(9)) is amended by striking ``This'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection(a)(2), this''.

     SEC. 206. CLARIFICATION OF WHEN INJURY IS CAUSED BY FACTOR 
                   UNRELATED TO ADMINISTRATION OF VACCINE.

       Section 2113(a)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-13(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``structural lesions, genetic disorders,'' 
     after ``and related anoxia)'';
       (2) by inserting ``(without regard to whether the cause of 
     the infection, toxin, trauma, structural lesion, genetic 
     disorder, or metabolic disturbance is known)'' after 
     ``metabolic disturbances''; and
       (3) by striking ``but'' and inserting ``and''.

[[Page 3837]]

     SEC. 207. INCREASE IN AWARD IN THE CASE OF A VACCINE-RELATED 
                   DEATH AND FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING.

       Section 2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$350,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$350,000''.

     SEC. 208. BASIS FOR CALCULATING PROJECTED LOST EARNINGS.

       Section 2115(a)(3)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``loss of 
     earnings'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``loss of earnings determined on the basis of the annual 
     estimate of the average (mean) gross weekly earnings of wage 
     and salary workers age 18 and over (excluding the 
     incorporated self-employed) in the private non-farm sector 
     (which includes all industries other than agricultural 
     production crops and livestock), as calculated annually by 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the quarter sample data 
     of the Current Population Survey, or as calculated by such 
     similar method as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, 
     less appropriate taxes and the average cost of a health 
     insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 209. ALLOWING COMPENSATION FOR FAMILY COUNSELING 
                   EXPENSES AND EXPENSES OF ESTABLISHING 
                   GUARDIANSHIP.

       (a) Family Counseling Expenses in Post-1988 Cases.--Section 
     2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-
     15(a)) is amended by adding at the end to following:
       ``(5) Actual unreimbursable expenses that have been or will 
     be incurred for family counseling as is determined to be 
     reasonably necessary and that result from the vaccine-related 
     injury from which the petitioner seeks compensation.''.
       (b) Expenses of Establishing Guardianships in Post-1988 
     Cases.--Section 2115(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300aa-15(a)), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Actual unreimbursable expenses that have been, or 
     will be reasonably incurred to establish and maintain a 
     guardianship or conservatorship for an individual who has 
     suffered a vaccine-related injury, including attorney fees 
     and other costs incurred in a proceeding to establish and 
     maintain such guardianship or conservatorship.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment for Cases From 1988 and Earlier.--
     Section 2115(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting a closed parenthesis 
     before the period in that paragraph;
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2), the following:
       ``(3) family counseling expenses (as provided for in 
     paragraph (5) of subsection (a));
       ``(4) expenses of establishing guardianships (as provided 
     for in paragraph (6) of subsection (a)); and''.

     SEC. 210. ALLOWING PAYMENT OF INTERIM COSTS.

       Section 2115(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) A special master or court may make an interim award 
     of costs if--
       ``(A) the case involves a vaccine administered on or after 
     October 1, 1988;
       ``(B) the award is limited to other costs (within the 
     meaning of paragraph (1)(B)) incurred in the proceeding; and
       ``(C) the petitioner provides documentation verifying the 
     expenditure of the amount for which compensation is 
     sought.''.

     SEC. 211. PROCEDURE FOR PAYING ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Section 2115(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15(e)), as amended by section 205, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) When a special master or court awards attorney fees 
     or costs under paragraph (1) or (4), it may order that such 
     fees or costs be payable solely to the petitioner's attorney 
     if--
       ``(A) the petitioner expressly consents; or
       ``(B) the special master or court determines, after 
     affording to the Secretary and to all interested persons the 
     opportunity to submit relevant information, that--
       ``(i) the petitioner cannot be located or refuses to 
     respond to a request by the special master or court for 
     information, and there is no practical alternative means to 
     ensure that the attorney will be reimbursed for such fees or 
     costs expeditiously; or
       ``(ii) there are otherwise exceptional circumstances and 
     good cause for paying such fees or costs solely to the 
     petitioner's attorney.''.

     SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) General Rule.--Section 2116(a) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-16(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``36 months'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``48 months'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''.
       (b) Claims Based on Revisions to Table.--Strike all of 
     section 2116(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-16(b)) and insert the following:
       ``(b) Effect of Revised Table.--If at any time the Vaccine 
     Injury Table is revised and the effect of such revision is to 
     make an individual eligible for compensation under the 
     program, where, before such revision, such individual was not 
     eligible for compensation under the program, or to 
     significantly increase the likelihood that an individual will 
     be able to obtain compensation under the program, such person 
     may, and must before filing a civil action for equitable 
     relief or monetary damages, notwithstanding section 
     2111(b)(2), file a petition for such compensation if--
       ``(1) the vaccine-related death or injury with respect to 
     which the petition is filed occurred not more than 8 years 
     before the effective date of the revision of the table; and
       ``(2) either--
       ``(A) the petition satisfies the conditions described in 
     subsection (a); or
       ``(B) the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or 
     manifestation of onset of the injury occurred more than 4 
     years before the petition is filed, and the petition is filed 
     not more than 2 years after the effective date of the 
     revision of the table.''.

     SEC. 213. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES.

       (a) Selection of Persons Injured by Vaccines as Public 
     Members.--Section 2119(a)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``of 
     whom'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``of 
     whom 1 shall be the legal representative of a child who has 
     suffered a vaccine-related injury or death, and at least 1 
     other shall be either the legal representative of a child who 
     has suffered a vaccine-related injury or death or an 
     individual who has personally suffered a vaccine-related 
     injury.''.
       (b) Mandatory Meeting Schedule Eliminated.--Section 2119(c) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``not less often than four times per year 
     and''.

     SEC. 214. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Section 2122(a) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for 
     damages'' and inserting ``(d), and (f) State law shall apply 
     to a civil action brought for damages or equitable relief''; 
     and
       (b) Unavoidable Adverse Side Effects.--Section 2122(b)(1) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(b)(1)) 
     is amended by inserting ``or equitable relief'' after ``for 
     damages''.
       (c) Direct Warnings.--Section 2122(c) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(c)) is amended by inserting 
     ``or equitable relief'' after ``for damages''.
       (d) Construction.--Section 2122(d) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or equitable relief'' after ``for 
     damages''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or relief'' after ``which damages''.
       (e) Present Physical Injury.--Section 2122 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-22) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Present Physical Injury.--No vaccine manufacturer or 
     vaccine administrator shall be liable in a civil action 
     brought after October 1, 1988, for equitable or monetary 
     relief absent proof of present physical injury from the 
     administration of a vaccine, nor shall any vaccine 
     manufacturer or vaccine administrator be liable in any such 
     civil action for claims of medical monitoring, or increased 
     risk of harm.''.

     SEC. 215. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURER.

       Section 2133(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-33(3)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``under its label 
     any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table'' and 
     inserting ``any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury 
     table, including any component or ingredient of any such 
     vaccine''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``including any 
     component or ingredient of any such vaccine'' before the 
     period.

     SEC. 216. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE-RELATED 
                   INJURY OR DEATH.

       Section 2133(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-33(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``For purposes of the preceding sentence, an adulterant or 
     contaminant shall not include any component or ingredient 
     listed in a vaccine's product license application or product 
     label.''.

     SEC. 217. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE.

       Section 2133 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-33) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) The term `vaccine' means any preparation or 
     suspension, including but not limited to a preparation or 
     suspension containing an attenuated or inactive microorganism 
     or subunit thereof or toxin, developed or administered to 
     produce or enhance the body's immune response to a disease or 
     diseases and

[[Page 3838]]

     includes all components and ingredients listed in the 
     vaccines's product license application and product label.''.

     SEC. 218. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TRUST FUND PROVISION.

       Section 9510(c)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``October 18, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``the effective date of the Improved Vaccine Affordability 
     and Availability Act''.

     SEC. 219. ONGOING REVIEW OF CHILDHOOD VACCINE DATA.

       Part C of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300a-25 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2129. ONGOING REVIEW OF CHILDHOOD VACCINE DATA.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall enter into 
     a contract with the Institute of Medicine of the National 
     Academy of Science under which the Institute shall conduct an 
     ongoing, comprehensive review of new scientific data on 
     childhood vaccines (according to priorities agreed upon from 
     time to time by the Secretary and the Institute of Medicine).
       ``(b) Reports.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which the contract is entered into under paragraph (1), the 
     Institute of Medicine shall submit to the Secretary a report 
     on the findings of studies conducted, including findings as 
     to any adverse events associated with childhood vaccines, 
     including conclusions concerning causation of adverse events 
     by such vaccines, together with recommendations for changes 
     in the Vaccine Injury Table, and other appropriate 
     recommendations, based on such findings and conclusions.
       ``(c) Failure To Enter Into Contract.--If the Secretary and 
     the Institute of Medicine are unable to enter into the 
     contract described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     enter into a contract with another qualified nongovernmental 
     scientific organization for the purposes described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005 
     and 2006.''.

     SEC. 220. PENDING ACTIONS.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply to all 
     actions or proceedings pending on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 221. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit 
     recommendations regarding how to address the growing surplus 
     in the Vaccine Trust Fund, and the rationale for such 
     recommendations to--
       (1) the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of 
     the Senate;
       (2) the Finance Committee of the Senate;
       (3) the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (4) the Ways and Means Committee of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 2055. A bill to make grants to train sexual assault nurse 
examiners, law enforcement personnel, and first responders in the 
handling of sexual assault cases, to establish minimum standards for 
forensic evidence collection kits, to carry out DNA analyses of samples 
from crime scenes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Debbie 
Smith Act, a bill to provide law enforcement the tools to track and 
convict sexual assailants, and to help ensure that rape survivors are 
provided prompt treatment that also provides the dignity and respect 
they deserve. This bill addresses a serious problem in this country, 
the huge DNA backlog and uneven processing of DNA evidence in rape 
cases.
  According to the Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman 
is raped every two minutes. One in three women will be raped in her 
lifetime. In my home State of Washington the number of sexual assaults 
is even higher. According to the Washington State Office of Crime 
Victims Advocacy 38 percent of women in my State have been sexually 
assaulted. This is unacceptable.
  Debbie Smith, is a native of Roanoke, VA, who was brutally raped in 
the woods behind her house in March 1989. Six years later, because 
evidence had been properly preserved, her assailant's DNA profile was 
cross-referenced with the Virginia DNA Databank and was found to match 
the DNA of a current prison inmate. He was convicted of the rape and 
was sentenced to two life terms plus 25 years. Debbie Smith has since 
become a national spokesperson on the importance of collecting and 
analyzing DNA samples.
  As Debbie Smith and women in my State have come to know collecting, 
analyzing, and entering this critical DNA information evidence into the 
Combined DNA System, CODIS, database is often the key to finding and 
convicting a sexual assailant and stopping him from attacking again. 
Unfortunately, many jurisdictions throughout the country do not have 
the funding for this simple, yet vital process. Consequently, crime 
scene kits go unanalyzed and valuable DNA information is lost forever.
  Today, over 20,000 DNA samples are sitting useless in storage. These 
samples could be holding the clues needed to solve crimes, or even to 
track a serial rapist. This means 20,000 women who had the courage to 
report their rape may never find the peace of mind of someone knowing 
their assailant has been caught.
  By authorizing funding to carry out analyses on crime scenes samples 
and cross-reference DNA evidence with crime databanks, this bill 
provides law enforcement with the tools necessary for an effective and 
successful criminal investigation.
  The bill also provides grants to broaden the use of the Sexual 
Assault Nurse Examiners program. The SANE program provides nurses and 
first responders with specific training so that critical forensic 
evidence is thoroughly collected and documented and that sexual assault 
survivors are treated with professional care in a confidential and 
sensitive environment. SANE nurses can make the difference to women 
facing one of the most difficult events of their lives. And, SANE 
nurses can make the difference in sending valuable information to crime 
laboratories rather than improperly collected evidence that is 
impossible to analyze.
  In 1995, a young woman at home in Olympia, WA, was raped at gunpoint. 
At St. Peter Hospital later that night, she said the SANE nurses who 
collected DNA evidence after the assault ``made [her] feel at ease, 
more confident, and more comfortable.'' The SANE nurses' training in 
proper evidence collection proved equally valuable. The DNA evidence 
collected, when cross-referenced with the CODIS was databank matched 
that of a convicted serial rapist Jeffrey Paul McKechnie, the ``I-5 
Rapist,'' resulting in his conviction for the crime.
  This bill is a reasonable and necessary step that needs to be taken 
to address the backlog of DNA samples from rape cases across the 
country, and to broaden the use of the SANE program to improve and 
standardize the collection of forensic evidence while also addressing 
the physical and psychological needs of the victim. This bill makes 
sure that we can catch the next Jeffrey Paul McKechnie and make our 
streets safer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass 
this bill and get the necessary funding to address the DNA backlog in 
this critical area once and for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mrs. Carnahan):
  S. 2056. A bill to ensure the independence of accounting firms that 
provide auditing services to publicly traded companies and of 
executives, audit committees, and financial compensation committees of 
such companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Integrity in Auditing Act. I am introducing this bill with my colleague 
from the Commerce Committee, Senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri. This 
legislation presents a comprehensive approach to securities reform as a 
key element in protecting America's shareholders and consumers in our 
capitalist system. We look forward to the Commerce Committee's 
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism hearings 
in April on these issues.
  I am focusing my review of the Enron collapse on institutional 
investors, like State pension funds representing the guaranteed 
retirement plans of our police officers, firefighters, teachers, and 
other State and local workers. The Florida Pension Fund took a bath 
from investing in Enron, and it cost my

[[Page 3839]]

State plenty. I want to protect the taxpayers and prevent large losses 
in our public pension systems in the future.
  The legislation I am introducing today addresses the safety nets 
intended to protect investors like State pension funds against abuses. 
The Integrity in Auditing Act prohibits auditors from providing any 
nonaudit services to their audit clients. The bill allows auditors to 
perform tax-consulting services with the approval of a company's Audit 
Committee. Additionally, the bill prohibits outside accountants from 
working in a management job for a client company for 1 year. These key 
provisions, essential to any reform effort, are similar to those found 
in other bills including a bill introduced by my colleagues, Senators 
Corzine and Dodd.
  The legislation adds additional safeguards for the investing public, 
including State pension funds. The bill requires that companies rotate 
their outside auditors every 7 years. The company can continue its 
relationship with the auditing firm through nonaudit client services.
  The Enron collapse poses a challenge to us in designing a system of 
corporate governance that secures better financial disclosure for the 
future. In my view the best response to Arthur Andersen's precarious 
state is to make sure our efforts to reform the profession enables the 
auditing profession to continue their needed work in our capital 
markets with the potential loss of one big player. The legislation I 
introduce today strives to meet that objective.
  In addition to protecting the integrity of the auditing process, this 
legislation recognizes that independent directors should effectively 
monitor management behavior and represent the interests of the 
shareholder. The Council of Institutional Investors and others have 
called for auditor and board independence. Accordingly, the Integrity 
in Auditing Act requires enhanced disclosure of director links to 
companies.
  The bill requires that a company disclose, with every filing, any 
board of director relationship, familial, professional, financial, to 
the company. This legislation also requires that all Audit and 
Compensation Committee members must be independent directors.
  We should be clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission impose 
a swift and serious approach to improving our corporate governance 
systems. This bill includes a sense of the Senate that the SEC should 
take a tough enforcement approach, including criminal prosecutions, if 
warranted.
  One of the biggest casualties of Enron's bankruptcy filing is the 
growing lack of confidence and trust by consumers, employees, and 
investors in the financial statements of companies. Willful blindness 
of companies leads to fuzzy disclosures. Cozy relationships among 
company executives, its auditors and board of directors, money 
managers, Wall Street analysts, lawyers, and others, cry out for 
reform. Our public institutional investors like state pension funds 
deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I recently read Teddy Roosevelt's 1902 annual message 
to Congress. Our 26th President was known as a Trust Buster. He told 
the truth about our free enterprise system. He said ``We can do nothing 
of good in the way of regulating corporations until we fix clearly in 
our minds that we are not attacking corporations; we are merely 
determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. 
We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.''
  We can all learn from history as we proceed to find thoughtful and 
appropriate ways to reform our securities laws on behalf of the public.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today my friend, Senator Nelson of 
Florida, and I are introducing important legislation to restore 
accountability to the accounting industry. The Integrity in Auditing 
Act will help renew Americans' confidence in our financial markets. 
Investors rely on the financial information that is provided by 
companies and certified by independent auditors. This legislation is 
designed to make sure that these auditors are truly independent.
  Over the course of the last few months, I have been looking into the 
devastating events related to the collapse of the Enron Corporation. As 
a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Commerce 
Committee, I have participated in numerous hearings on this matter. We 
have heard testimony from many experts about the different things that 
went wrong at Enron. The shareholders were failed by many parties who 
were supposed to be looking out for their interests: the company 
executives, the board of directors, the Government watchdogs, and 
certainly, the accountants who certified that Enron's financial 
statements were accurate.
  But, this is not just about Enron. This is about the disturbing 
number of restatements that firms have filed in recent years. It is no 
longer uncommon for a company to say that profits they previously 
touted were actually fictitious. This is absolutely unacceptable. And 
to the extent that inaccurate accounting can be eliminated by removing 
any conflicts of interest that are preventing better audits, Congress 
must act quickly to do so.
  Let me be clear, that I have the deepest respect for the many 
accountants in this country who are extremely hard working and honest. 
This legislation is not meant to impugn individual accountants or the 
accounting industry. Rather, it will improve this industry. The 
Integrity in Auditing Act will ensure that accountants can do their 
jobs with the highest professionalism, free from any pressures to 
overlook suspicious bookkeeping by their clients.
  The reforms we propose today are urgent and in the interest of all 
Americans. Auditors who simply rubber stamp questionable financial 
reports for their clients do a tremendous disservice to all investors. 
If they prevent true and accurate information from coming to light, 
auditors endanger the hard earned savings of working Americans. Many 
parents are investing money every year to pay for the college expenses 
of their children. Many workers are saving for their golden years in 
401(k) plans or other retirement accounts. Young couples, saving to buy 
their first homes, often put money into mutual funds or money market 
accounts. All of these investors are entitled to accurate information 
so that they can make wise decisions about their savings.
  This legislation is an important step toward ensuring that investors 
can trust the financial information provided by companies. Let me 
briefly summarize how this legislation establishes the independence of 
auditors. First, it prohibits audit firms from providing non-audit 
services to their clients. An exception is made if the client's Audit 
Committee believes it is in the best interest of the shareholders to 
also receive tax services consulting from the audit firm. But it will 
prevent companies from engaging in extremely lucrative management 
consulting or technology consulting contracts with the auditors who 
ought to be providing unbiased assessments of the companies' financial 
health.
  Second, this legislation requires that every seven years a company 
rotate the firm that performs its independent audit. Arthur Levitt, the 
former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made it very 
clear why such rotation is important. In his testimony before the 
Senate Banking Committee he proposed that audit firms ought to be 
rotated in order ``to ensure that fresh and skeptical eyes are always 
looking at the numbers.''
  This legislation will also close the revolving door that could 
compromise independent auditors. It prohibits outside accountants from 
working, in a management capacity, for a client company for a period of 
1 year. This simple restriction will ensure that shareholders, and not 
company management, remain an auditor's primary concern.
  In the interest of providing full information to investors, our 
legislation also requires that any connections between the company and 
a member of the board of directors be fully disclosed, whether those 
connections are familial, financial, or professional. It also prohibits 
any directors who have such potential conflicts of interest

[[Page 3840]]

from serving on the board's audit or compensation committees.
  Lastly, this legislation would express the sense of the Senate that 
the Securities and Exchange Commission ought to take a tough approach 
to the enforcement of securities laws.
  America has the most vibrant and dynamic economy in the world. The 
foundation of our economy is our capital markets, which are robust and 
resilient. But the success of these markets depends on the free flow of 
accurate, reliable information. Our markets are the envy of the world 
because of the confidence investors have in the private and public 
institutions that produce, verify, and analyze this information.
  The legislation we are introducing today will improve our markets. It 
will restore public confidence in auditors. And it frees accountants 
from any inappropriate conflicts of interest. I encourage my colleagues 
to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2058. A bill to replace the caseload reduction credit with an 
employment credit under the program of block grants to States for 
temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Making 
Work Pay Act of 2002.'' A companion bill is being introduced in the 
House by Representative Sandy Levin of Michigan. I worked with Mr. 
Levin to reform the welfare program in 1996, and I am proud and honored 
to work with him again in this next phase of welfare reform.
  I am also proud to be joined today by Senator Breaux of Louisana and 
Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. As members of the Finance 
Committee and representatives of rural States with similar challenges, 
we all share the goal of ensuring that States have the resources and 
the flexibility they need to continue moving people from welfare to 
work.
  The welfare reform bill President Clinton signed into law in 1996 has 
been a success. Nationally, welfare rolls have dropped by 52 percent. 
Over the last 5 years, enrollment in Arkansas' welfare program has 
dropped by 43 percent.
  In 1996, we fundamentally changed welfare from an entitlement program 
to temporary assistance, a move which has allowed many needy families 
to achieve a liberating measure of self-sufficiency. Our message then 
was ``work first.'' Today, people are working. Now our message should 
be ``make work pay.'' To do this, we need to help people get good 
paying jobs by providing the support services like child care and 
transportation that are absolutely essential to keeping those jobs.
  We have rewarded States for moving people off welfare. Unfortunately, 
that tends to ignore the important question of what happens after they 
leave welfare. What we need to do now is find ways to reward States for 
placing people into good jobs and helping them with vital work support 
services such as child care and transportation. These services are 
particularly vital in States like Arkansas, where good child care is 
scarce and public transportation barely exists.
  The legislation we introduce today measures State performance along 
the entire continuum from welfare to work. It gives credit to States 
for providing work-support services and short-term emergency 
assistance, which prevent people from ever needing welfare benefits in 
the first place. Current law and President Bush's welfare re-
authorization proposal give no credit to States for these efforts, thus 
discouraging the use of these highly effective welfare-to-work methods.
  My legislation revises how work participation rates are calculated to 
better fit post-reform welfare programs and more accurately measure the 
level of work activity among those served. Specifically, States receive 
half credit for people who work part time and pro-rate to full time, 
and they receive full credit for people that they are able to move into 
work by supplying child care and transportation assistance. In 
addition, people who are deemed severely and permanently disabled 
during the year are excluded from the State's work participation 
requirement, so that states aren't penalized for failing to engage 
these disabled people in work.
  The ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002'' is supported by the American 
Public Human Services Association, which played a fundamental role in 
helping us develop this bill. I thank them for their support and urge 
my colleagues to use them as a resource in assessing the needs of their 
states. I also urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a 
necessary first step into the next phase of welfare reform, to move 
beyond ``work first'' to ``making work pay.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hutchinson, and 
        Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2059. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
Alzheimer's disease research and demonstration grants; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's 
Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act of 2002. I am pleased that 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Hutchinson are joining me as original 
cosponsors of this legislation. This bill expands and directs 
Alzheimer's disease research at the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH), and expands and reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant 
Program. This important legislation gets behind our Nation's families, 
both in the lab and in the community.
  Alzheimer's disease is a devastating illness. Four million Americans 
including one in 10 people over age 65 and nearly half of those over 
85, have Alzheimer's disease. The total annual Cost of Alzheimer's care 
in the United States today is at least $100 billion.
  As our population ages and baby-boomers become seniors, Alzheimer's 
disease will take an even greater toll. Unless science finds a way to 
prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease, 14 million people in the United 
States will have Alzheimer's disease by the year 2050. The race to find 
a cure is more urgent than ever.
  But these statistics do not begin to tell the story of what 
Alzheimer's means to families. My dear father suffered from Alzheimer's 
disease. My family and I watched him die one brain cell at a time. I 
know the pain that patients and families go through when Alzheimer's 
disease strikes.
  I believe that honor thy mother and father is not only a good 
commandment to live by, it is also a good policy to govern by. That's 
why I have introduced this legislation that meets the day-to-day needs 
of seniors and the long-range needs of our Nation.
  The Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care meets seniors' 
day-to-day needs by reauthorizing the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant 
Program. The purpose of the program is to develop and replicate 
innovative ways to provide care to Alzheimer's patients that are 
traditionally hard to reach or undeserved. These grants enable States 
to provide support services like home care, respite care, and day care 
to Alzheimer's patients and their families. This legislation expands 
the Alzheimer's Demonstration Program by authorizing the funding needed 
to support these outstanding programs in every State.
  In my own State of Maryland, Alzheimer's Demonstration grants have 
been used to train workers at nursing homes and assisted living 
facilities to care for people with dementia. This training means that 
Alzheimer's patients will get high quality care when they leave their 
homes and enter a nursing home. And it means that families can rest 
assured that their mom or dad is safe and in good hands.
  This legislation also meets the long term needs of our aging Nation 
by expanding and directing Alzheimer's disease research at the National 
Institute on Aging.
  Our best shot at curbing the number of families who suffer from 
Alzheimer's disease is to find ways to prevent it before it starts. 
This bill authorizes the

[[Page 3841]]

Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative. The National Institute on 
Aging is currently conducting seven prevention trials. The Alzheimer's 
Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act supports the National 
Institute on Aging's Prevention Initiative and directs the Institute to 
focus its efforts on identifying possible ways to prevent Alzheimer's 
and conducting clinical trials to test their effectiveness.
  Clinical trials can involve millions of dollars, tens of thousands of 
participants, and years or even decades. This bill establishes an 
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Group to improve and enhance the 
National Institute on Aging's ability to conduct several large scale, 
complex clinical trials simultaneously. Promising therapies should not 
have to wait to be tested until current trials are complete and 
resources are made available. This legislation authorizes a national 
consortium for cooperative clinical research at the National Institute 
on Aging to improve the existing clinical trial infrastructure, develop 
novel approaches to design these clinical trials, and make it easier to 
enroll patients.
  This bill directs the National Institute on Aging, in consultation 
with other relevant institutes, to conduct research on the early 
diagnosis and detection of Alzheimer's disease. As promising therapies 
become available that can delay the progression of Alzheimer's, new 
technologies are needed to detect and diagnose the disease before its 
symptoms strike.
  There is still much that is not known about the causes of Alzheimer's 
disease. In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that 
in stroke patients who later develop Alzheimer's disease, their 
dementia will worsen much more quickly than in Alzheimer's patients who 
have never had a stroke. This bill directs the National Institute on 
Aging to study this connection between vascular disease and Alzheimer's 
disease. Finding answers to questions about this connection will open 
new doors for researchers to explore promising ways to prevent and 
treat Alzheimer's disease.
  This legislation establishes a research program at the National 
Institute on Aging on ways to help caregivers of patients with 
Alzheimer's disease. Family caregiving comes at enormous physical, 
emotional, and financial sacrifice, which puts the whole system at 
risk. Three of four caregivers are women. One in eight Alzheimer 
caregivers becomes ill or injured as a direct result of caregiving, and 
older caregivers are three times more likely to become clinically 
depressed than others in their age group. Research is needed to find 
better ways to help caregivers bear this tremendous, at times 
overwhelming responsibility.
  Finally, this legislation increases the funding authorized for the 
National Institute on Aging to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2003. 
Investments we make now in Alzheimer's Disease and aging research mean 
longer, healthier lives for all of us. If science can help us delay the 
onset of Alzheimer's by even 5 years, it would save this country 
billions of dollars--and would improve the lives of millions of 
families.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation that gets behind our nation's families. I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter of support from the Alzheimer's Association be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   March 21, 2002.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the Alzheimer's 
     Association, I am writing to strongly support your 
     legislation, the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention and 
     Care Act of 2002. I congratulate you on your continued 
     leadership on issues important to older Americans as well as 
     issues important to individuals with Alzheimer's disease.
       Right now, 14 million Americans--most of them babyboomers--
     are living with a death sentence of Alzheimer's disease. For 
     most of them, the process that will destroy their brain cells 
     has already started. We have to act now, or it will be too 
     late to save them. Your legislation will support ongoing 
     efforts at the National Institute on Aging to find a way to 
     prevent and cure this disease. We are particularly pleased 
     that your bill places an emphasis on promising areas of 
     research, including the connection between Alzheimer's and 
     vascular disease and the development of new diagnostic 
     technologies.
       Your legislation will also reauthorize a highly successful 
     Alzheimer demonstration program at the Administration on 
     Aging (AoA). These state grant projects demonstrate how 
     existing public and private resources within states may be 
     more effectively coordinated and utilized to enhance 
     educational needs and service delivery systems for persons 
     with Alzheimer's, their families and caregivers. In addition, 
     AoA has also identified ``best practices'' among the projects 
     and disseminated information on successful innovative 
     approaches. The demonstration program has fostered 
     collaborations between Alzheimer's Association chapters and 
     state aging and mental health agencies, public health 
     departments, private foundations, universities, physicians 
     and managed care organizations, as well as more than 300 
     local community agencies.
       On behalf the 4 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease, 
     I thank you for your efforts to support research and programs 
     for these individuals and the family members who care for 
     them. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     staff on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Stephen McConnell,
                                        Interim President and CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2060 A bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional 
Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, after Franklin D. Miller; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce 
legislation to name the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Regional 
Office in St. Petersburg, FL, after Command Sergeant Major Franklin D. 
Miller, United States Army, Retired.
  Frank Miller faithfully served our country as a soldier for thirty 
years from 1962 until his retirement in 1992. During much of that time, 
Frank Miller served in Army Special Forces units, including four tours 
in the Republic of Vietnam. Frank Miller's combat decorations include 
the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, 
the Air Medal, and six Purple Hearts. He received the Medal of Honor 
for his bravery in battle in 1971, when, despite his own severe wounds, 
he single-handedly overcame four enemy attacks and safely evacuated the 
surviving members of his patrol.
  Upon Frank Miller's retirement from the Army in 1992, with the U.S. 
Army's highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major, he continued to 
serve his community, country and fellow veterans as a benefits 
counselor for the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. 
Petersburg, FL. Frank Miller remained very active in support of our 
veterans, the Armed Forces, and America's interest around the world. He 
was frequently invited to speak to groups around the country, sharing 
his experiences with others and serving as an example of honor, self-
sacrifice, and dedication. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry 
H. Shelton, who knew Frank Miller personally, has described him as, 
``an icon to what service in the armed forces is all about.''
  Sadly, in July of 2000, Frank Miller passed away in Florida. He is 
survived by his three children, Joshua, Melia, and Danielle, and his 
brother, Walter, who also is a retired Command Sergeant Major of the 
Army's Special Forces.
  Frank Miller dedicated his life to serving our country. He cared 
deeply for the soldiers he led in combat, even to the very risk of his 
own life above and beyond the call of duty. He put his fellow veterans 
above all else in his efforts to keep our nation's promise to care for 
those who put America above self and bore the pain of battle. He was a 
loving father and brother, a true soldier's soldier, and a fellow 
American whose life impacted many people. Frank Miller's life should be 
remembered and appropriately commemorated. I hope to help honor his 
life by introducing legislation to name the Florida Veterans Affairs 
Regional Office in honor of Command Sergeant Major, Retired, Franklin 
D. Miller. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 3842]]

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

                                S. 2060

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   REGIONAL OFFICE IN ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In recognition of conspicuous and meritorious duty in 
     the Army, Franklin D. Miller was awarded the Medal of Honor, 
     the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, the Air Medal, and six 
     Purple Hearts.
       (2) Upon retiring from the Army, Franklin D. Miller worked 
     for the Department of Veterans Affairs at the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, 
     thereby continuing to serve his country and his fellow 
     veterans.
       (3) Franklin D. Miller remained active in support of the 
     Armed Forces and the foreign policy of the United States by 
     making speeches, participating in the activities of civic 
     organizations and schools, and supporting special forces 
     units, and by being both a role model for all Americans and a 
     true American hero.
       (b) Designation of Building.--The building housing the 
     Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. 
     Petersburg, Florida, is hereby designated as the ``Franklin 
     D. Miller Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office 
     Building''. Any reference to that building in any law, 
     regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
     United States shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     Franklin D. Miller Department of Veterans Affairs Regional 
     Office Building.
       (c) Memorial Activities.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall, on the date of the first celebration of 
     Memorial Day that occurs after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, provide for an appropriate ceremony at the building 
     designated by subsection (b) to honor Franklin D. Miller and 
     to commemorate the designation of the building after Franklin 
     D. Miller.
       (2) The Secretary shall provide for the permanent display 
     of an appropriate copy of the Medal of Honor citation of 
     Franklin D. Miller in the lobby of the building designated by 
     subsection (b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 2061. A bill to establish a national response to terrorism, a 
national urban search and rescue task force program to ensure local 
capability to respond to the threat and aftermath of terrorist 
activities and other emergencies, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Response to Terrorism and Consequence Management Act of 2002. This bill 
is designed to take a few of the very important steps necessary to put 
in place a national policy and plan for responding to the consequences 
and aftermath of acts of terrorism, including acts involving weapons of 
mass destruction.
  The cowardly terrorist attacks on September 11 on the Pentagon, the 
World Trade Center and Pennsylvania is one of the saddest days in the 
history of our Nation. However, I can personally attest that the spirit 
of the American people has never been stronger or more caring. Last 
month, I visited ground zero, I talked with survivors as well as many 
of the heroic men and women who continue to rebuild from our losses in 
the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. I have never been more touched 
or more proud of our Nation's ability to stand tall, and to stand 
unbowed.
  While the President has advanced a plan since September 11 which the 
Congress has begun to fund, there is still much work to be accomplished 
before we have in place the necessary protection and capacities to 
respond to both the threat of acts of terrorism and the consequences of 
such acts. In particular, we need a statutory structure that will 
enable the various agencies of both the states and the Federal 
Government to coordinate and build a Federal, State and local capacity 
to fully respond to acts of terrorism, including acts involving weapons 
of mass destruction.
  We must do more to ensure that states and localities have the needed 
resources, training and equipment to respond to threats and acts of 
terrorism and the consequences of such acts. In response, the President 
is proposing to fund FEMA at an unprecedented $3.5 billion for FY 2003 
as a further downpayment to ensure that the Nation will not be caught 
unaware again by a cowardly act of terrorism and is fully capable of 
responding to both the threat and consequence of any act of terrorism.
  These FEMA funds are targeted to states and localities and are 
intended to create a safety net of First Responders with firefighters, 
law enforcement officers and emergency medical personnel at its heart. 
Despite the response to September 11, the current capacity of our 
communities and our First Responders vary widely across the United 
States, with even the best prepared States and localities lacking 
crucial resources and expertise. Many areas have little or no ability 
to cope or respond to the consequences and aftermath of a terrorist 
attack, especially ones that use weapons of mass destruction, including 
biological or chemical toxins or nuclear radioactive weapons.
  The recommended commitment of funding in the President's Budget is 
only the first step. There also needs to be a comprehensive approach 
that identifies and meets state and local First Responder needs, both 
rural and urban, pursuant to federal leadership, benchmarks and 
guidelines.
  This legislation is intended to move the Federal Government forward 
in developing that comprehensive approach with regard to the 
consequence management of acts of terrorism. The bill establishes in 
FEMA an office for coordinating the federal, state and local capacity 
to respond to the aftermath and consequences of acts of terrorism. This 
essentially represents a beginning statutory structure for the existing 
Office of National Preparedness within FEMA as the responsibilities in 
this legislation are consistent with many of the actions of that office 
currently. This bill also provides FEMA with the authority to make 
grants of technical assistance to states to develop the capacity and 
coordination of resources to respond to acts of terrorism. In addition, 
the bill authorizes $100 million for states to operate fire and safety 
programs as a step to further build the capacity of fire departments to 
respond to local emergencies as well as the often larger problems posed 
by acts of terrorism. America's firefighters are, with the police and 
emergency medical technicians, the backbone of our Nation and the first 
line of defense in responding to the consequences of acts of terrorism.
  The legislation also formally recognizes and funds the urban search 
and rescue task force response system at $160 million in fiscal year 
2002. The Nation currently is served by 28 urban search and rescue task 
forces which proved to be a key resource in our Nation's ability to 
quickly respond to the tragedy of September 11. In addition, Missouri 
is the proud home of one of these urban search and rescue task forces, 
Missouri Task Force 1. Missouri Task Force 1 made a tremendous 
difference in helping the victims of the horrific tragedy at the World 
Trade Center as well as assisting to minimize the aftermath of this 
tragedy. These task forces are underfunded and underequipped, but, 
nontheless, are committed to be the front-line soldiers for our local 
governments in responding to the worst consequences of terrorism at the 
local level. I believe we have an obligation to realize fully the 
capacity of these 28 search and rescue task forces to meet First 
Responder events and this legislation authorizes the needed funding.
  Finally, the bill removes the risk of litigation that currently 
discourages the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire 
departments. As we have discovered in the last several years, volunteer 
fire departments are underfunded, leaving the firefighters with the 
desire and will to assist their communities to fight fires and respond 
to local emergencies but without the necessary equipment or training 
that is so critical to the success of their profession. We have started 
providing needed funding for these departments though the Fire Act 
Grant program at FEMA. However, more needs to be done and this 
legislation is intended to facilitate the donation of used, but useful, 
equipment to these volunteer fire departments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

[[Page 3843]]

  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

National Response to Terrorism and Consequence Management Act of 2002--
                         Summary of Legislation


   TITLE I. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TASK FORCES

       This title may be cited as the ``National Urban Search and 
     Rescue Task Force Assistance Act of 2002.''
       Sec. 102. Statement of Findings and Purpose. The purpose of 
     this act is to provide the needed funds, equipment and 
     training to ensure that all urban search and rescue task 
     forces have the full capability to respond to all emergency 
     search and rescue needs arising from any disaster, including 
     acts of terrorism involving a weapon of mass destruction.
       Sec. 104. Assistance. Requires no less than $1.5 million 
     annually for the operational costs of each urban search and 
     rescue task forces. Authorizes additional grants for (1) 
     operational costs in excess of the $1.5 million; (2) the cost 
     of equipment; (3) the cost of equipment needed to allow a 
     task force to operate in an environment contaminated by 
     weapons of mass of destruction, including chemical, 
     biological, and nuclear/radioactive contaminants; (4) the 
     cost of training; (5) the cost of transportation; (6) the 
     cost of task force expansion; (7) the cost of Incident 
     Support Teams, including the cost to conduct appropriate task 
     force readiness evaluations; and (8) the cost of making task 
     forces capable of responding to international disasters, 
     including acts of terrorism.
       Requires FEMA to prioritize all funding to ensure that all 
     urban search and rescue task forces have the capacity, 
     including all needed equipment and training, to deploy two 
     separate task forces simultaneously from each sponsoring 
     agency.
       Sec. 106. Technical Assistance for Coordination. Allows 
     FEMA to award no more than four percent of the funds for 
     technical assistance to allow urban search and rescue task 
     forces to coordinate with other agencies and organizations, 
     including career and volunteer fire departments, to meet 
     state and local disasters, including acts of terrorism 
     involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction including 
     chemical, biological, and nuclear/radioactive weapons.
       Sec. 107. Additional Task Forces. Allows FEMA to establish 
     additional urban search and rescue teams pursuant to a 
     finding of need. No additional urban search and rescue teams 
     may be designated or funded until the first 28 teams are 
     fully funded and able to deploy simultaneously two task 
     forces from each sponsoring agency with all necessary 
     equipment, training and transportation.
       Sec. 108. Performance of Services. Incorporates section 306 
     of the Stafford Act to allow FEMA to incur any additional 
     obligations as determined necessary by FEMA, such as the cost 
     of temporary employment, workmen compensation, insurance, and 
     other compensation for work-related injuries consistent with 
     memorandums of understanding agreed to between FEMA and the 
     task forces.
       Sec. 109. Authorization of Appropriations. Authorizes $160 
     million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002.


     TITLE II. PROMOTE THE CONTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER 
                        FIREFIGHTING DEPARTMENTS

       This title may be cited as the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer 
     Firefighter Assistance Act of 2002.''
       Sec. 202. Removal of Civil Liability Barriers that 
     Discourage the Donation of Fire Equipment to Volunteer Fire 
     Companies. Removes liability for civil damages under any 
     state or federal law for any entity or person who donates 
     equipment to a volunteer fire department, except where (1) 
     the person's act or omission proximately causing the injury, 
     damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence or 
     intentional misconduct; or (2) the person is the manufacturer 
     of the fire control or fire rescue equipment. Requires the 
     State to designate its State Fire Marshall or equivalent 
     person to certify the safety and usefulness of the fire 
     control or fire rescue equipment that is being donated.


      TITLE III. ESTABLISHMENT OF COORDINATION OFFICE WITHIN FEMA

       Sec. 301. Establishment of Coordination Office for 
     Responding to Acts of Terrorism. Requires FEMA to establish 
     or designate an office within FEMA to coordinate the response 
     of State and local agencies, including fire departments, 
     hospitals, and emergency medical facilities, to acts of 
     terrorism, including the capacity to provide assistance in an 
     environment with chemical, biological, or nuclear/
     radiological contamination.
       Authorizes FEMA to make grants to provide technical 
     assistance and coordinating funding to States to ensure that 
     localities, fire departments, hospitals and other appropriate 
     entities have the capacity to respond to the consequences of 
     possible acts of terrorism, including the capacity to provide 
     assistance in an environment with chemical, biological, or 
     nuclear/radiological contamination.
       Authorizes FEMA to award grants to states to operate new 
     and existing state fire and safety training programs for 
     firefighting personnel.
       Requires FEMA to establish a task force among Federal 
     agencies for the coordination of Federal, State and local 
     resources to develop a national response plan for responding 
     to acts of terrorism, including the capacity to provide 
     assistance in an environment with chemical, biological, or 
     nuclear/radiological contamination.
       Limits administrative costs for states to 5 percent.
       Authorizes FEMA to use such sums as necessary from the 
     Disaster Relief Fund to meet the requirements of this title, 
     including no less than $100 million for grants to support 
     State fire and safety training programs. Requires at least 20 
     percent of the funds awarded State fire and safety training 
     programs to be used to assist fire departments with an annual 
     budget of no more than $25,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Jeffords,  and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2064. A bill to reauthorize the United States Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes: to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental 
Conflict Resolution. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, 
Senators Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Daniel K. Inouye. 
  The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering 
an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental 
conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in 
lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In 
cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court 
proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still 
a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for 
alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to 
address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged 
Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
  The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and 
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to 
build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The 
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden 
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many 
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
  The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have 
imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already 
provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts 
across 30 States.
  Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of 
Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for 
assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the 
Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the 
management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in 
the Northwest.
  The Institute also assisted in facilitating interagency teamwork for 
the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades 
Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to 
bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on 
grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even Members of Congress 
have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the 
Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative 
processes.
  Currently, the Institute is involved in more than 20 cases and many 
more are pending consideration. The Institute accomplishes its work by 
maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and 
facilitators

[[Page 3844]]

located in 39 States. We believe that mediators should be involved in 
the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is 
working.
  The demand on the Institute's assistance has been much greater than 
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not 
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal 
Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and 
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving 
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and 
designing internal systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
  Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal 
agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to 
pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a 
participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of 
parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will 
provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford 
mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.
  In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation 
simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional 5 
years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed 
increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's 
services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by 
preventing costly litigation.
  On February 11, 2002, the Arizona Daily Star included an editorial 
that recognizes the benefits of this Institute to resolving 
environmental conflicts faced by various parties, including Federal and 
non-Federal parties, and recommends continuing support for the 
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2002]

                          An Effective Agency

       One of the little-known gems in Tucson is one of the few 
     federal agencies, if not the only one, with headquarters 
     outside of the Washington, D.C. area--the Institute for 
     Environmental Conflict Resolution.
       With a name like that, the institute clearly is not a 
     tourist attraction. What makes it a gem is that it is proving 
     to be remarkably successful at finding solutions to 
     environmental conflicts that otherwise likely would end in 
     lawsuits.
       The institute is an arm of the Morris K. Duall Foundation. 
     It was proposed by Senator John McCain and created by 
     Congress in 1998. Very few people then realized what McCain 
     apparently did--there was a great need for such an agency.
       Terrence Bracy, chair of the Board of Trustees for the 
     foundation, says the institute expected to handle perhaps 20 
     to 25 cases per year. The institute handled 60 last year and 
     expects to handle even more this year.
       Says Bracy: ``We didn't know how big the market was. We 
     didn't know whether it would work.'' But work it has.
       Now, the institute's original funding will expire their 
     McCain is expected to introduce a bill to reauthorizing the 
     funding probably at the current level.
       It's a good idea, and it would help if Arizona's other 
     congressional delegates, especially Jim Kolbe and Ed Paster, 
     who both represent Southern Arizona, and Senator John Kyl, 
     joined McCain in seeking the funding.
       Bracy knows that the federal government has an immediate 
     stake in mediation. That is because many of the cases being 
     mediated involved governmental agencies, either as agencies 
     potentially being used or as agencies suing others.
       A Unique aspect of the institute's work is that because it 
     is a federal agency, it has status and credibility with other 
     government agencies and with the courts. That makes its 
     medication efforts even more effective.
       The institute has had contracts with the Navy, Fish and 
     Wildlife, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Parks 
     Service, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and others, according to Barcy.
       ``What happens over time,'' Bracy says, ``is we see this 
     thing this tremendous need.'' He is right.
       Tucsonans should recognize what a gem they have in their 
     midst. And Arizonas congressional delegation should get 
     firmly behind McCain's efforts to reauthorize the funding for 
     the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
       It is a government program that even the most anti-
     government conservatives should love.

  Mr. McCAIN. Nothing is more indicative of the support for the 
Institute than the cosponsorship of my two colleagues, Senator Smith 
and Senator Jeffords, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
most environmental matters before the Congress. I thank Senator Smith 
and Senator Jeffords for their critical support, and I look forward to 
working with them to enact this important, bipartisan legislation.
  This is a matter of some urgency as the existing authorization will 
expire in this fiscal year. I look forward to working with the 
cosponsors of this legislation and the rest of my colleagues to move 
this bill forward expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the 
valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict 
Resolution to our Nation.
  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. 2064

       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 ``Environmental Policy and 
     Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.

       Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental and Native American 
     Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute 
     Resolution Fund established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of which--
       ``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs 
     (including not more than $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses); and
       ``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other 
     appropriate arrangements to pay the costs of services 
     provided in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the 
     participation of non-Federal entities (such as State and 
     local governments, tribal governments, nongovernmental 
     organizations, and individuals) in, environmental conflict 
     resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2065. A bill to provide for the implementation of air quality 
programs developed pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement between 
the Southern Ute Indian Tribes and the State of Colorado concerning Air 
Quality Control on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Southern 
Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of 
2002.
  As my colleagues know, successful environmental laws recognize that 
local implementation is almost always better than a ``one size fits 
all'' program run from Washington, DC. For example, the Federal Clean 
Air Act authorizes States and Indian tribes to become responsible for 
establishing implementation plans, designating air quality standards, 
and implementing many of the regulatory programs needed to maintain or 
improve air quality.
  With respect to the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in my State of 
Colorado, however, there is some question about whether the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, can delegate Clean Air Act 
jurisdiction to the Southern Ute Tribe in the same manner that it would 
delegate authority to any other Indian tribe.
  In 1984 Congress ratified a jurisdiction and boundary agreement 
between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado. 
Approving this agreement spared both sides the exorbitant costs of 
going to court to fight over the jurisdictional status of each square 
inch on the Reservation.
  In addition, the 1994 arrangement allows the tribe and the State to 
work

[[Page 3845]]

out any questions about jurisdiction within their agreed-upon 
framework. With respect to Federal officials dealing with the tribe and 
the State, however, this arrangement could create some uncertainty. 
Because it could be argued that it prevents the tribe from exercising 
authority that may be delegated to any Indian tribe under the Clean Air 
Act.
  Instead of placing the Environmental Protection Agency in the middle 
of a controversy about whether it is authorized to delegate Clean Air 
Act programs within the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, the tribe and 
the State signed a historic ``Intergovernmental Agreement'' to resolve 
any controversy between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of 
Colorado.
  In this way, the State and the tribe have once again agreed that it 
is better for them to control their own destiny by reaching an accord 
they can both live with rather than putting their fate in the hands of 
bureaucrats and judges. I applaud the proactive spirit which led the 
tribe and the State to resolve a potential controversy before a problem 
or conflict even arose.
  The program established by the agreement reflects the unique issues 
and context that brought the tribe and the State to the negotiating 
table. First, consistent with Congress' mandate in the Clean Air Act, 
the Tribe will be the entity responsible for administering Clean Air 
Act programs within the reservation boundaries. The tribal program 
administrators have complete access to the State's technical resources 
and personnel. Second, an equal number of tribal and State 
representatives will sit on the Commission established by the 
agreement.
  The Commission is authorized to hear and decide any appealable 
decisions. The Commission will also set the pace for tribal 
applications for delegations of authority. Finally, the agreement seeks 
to make the Federal courts available to hear any challenges to 
decisions by the Commission.
  I am aware of the number of complex issues raised by this historic 
agreement, and efforts are already underway to address and resolve some 
of these issues. I believe it is the right time to introduce a bill to 
allow the appropriate committee to begin to formally consider this 
proposal. I know the parties will continue to direct their efforts at 
bringing this important matter to a successful conclusion.
  In closing, let me again commend the efforts of both the tribe and 
the State in negotiating and signing this historic agreement. I would 
ask unanimous consent that a letter from Colorado Governor Bill Owens 
be printed in the Record. Finally, I am pleased that Senator Wayne 
Allard joins with me in the views expressed in this statement and in 
cosponsoring this bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            State of Colorado,

                                         Denver, CO, May 22, 2000.
     Re: Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Colorado 
         and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Regarding Air Quality 
         regulation.

     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: On December 13, 1999 I signed an 
     historic agreement between the State of Colorado and the 
     Southern Ute Indian Tribe in which the State and the Tribe 
     agreed to establish a single, cooperative air quality 
     authority for all lands within the Southern Ute Reservation. 
     This cooperative arrangement, negotiated by Attorney General 
     Salazar, my office and the Colorado Department of Public 
     Health and Environment (``CDPHE''), is the first of its kind 
     in the United States between a state and a tribe to regulate 
     air quality. Because the arrangement is unique, statutory 
     authority or clarification is needed at both the State and 
     federal levels to accommodate the agreement. The General 
     Assembly sent to me a bill to accomplish the changes 
     necessary at the State level that I signed into law on March 
     15, 2000. I am writing today to ask you to sponsor 
     legislation achieving a clarification to existing federal law 
     assuring that the agreement in its contemplated framework can 
     move forward. I have attached a draft of the legislation we 
     believe is needed to clarify that the agreement can work as 
     well as a copy of the intergovernmental agreement signed in 
     December.


                               Background

       As you know, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe's Reservation 
     consists of approximately 681,000 acres, located mainly in La 
     Plata County. The Reservation is a checkerboard of land 
     ownership. About 308,000 surface acres are held in trust by 
     the United States for the benefit of the Tribe (``trust 
     lands.'') The remaining 3780,000 surface acres are owned in 
     fee by non-Indians or individual Tribal members (``fee 
     lands''), or consist of national forest land. In 1984, 
     Congress enacted Public Law 98-290, which confirmed the 
     exterior boundaries of the Reservation. P.L. 98-290 also 
     clarified that the Tribe has jurisdiction over the trust 
     lands and Indians anywhere in the Reservation, and the State 
     has jurisdiction over non-Indians on the fee lands.
       Oil and natural gas production takes place throughout the 
     Reservation. These facilities are stationary air pollution 
     sources. Historically CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division 
     has issued permits to non-Indian owned sources located on fee 
     lands. Recently, the Tribe petitioned EPA for the right to 
     issue all permits within the exterior boundaries of the 
     Reservation including the facilities historically regulated 
     by the State of Colorado. In 1998, the EPA issued regulations 
     implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act allowing Indian 
     tribes to be treated in the same manner as States to 
     administer certain air quality programs. In July 1998, the 
     Southern Ute Tribe applied to the EPA for treatment as a 
     state for all lands within the Reservation. On the basis of 
     PL 98-290, the State objected, arguing that it had 
     jurisdiction over the non-Indian sources on the fee lands.
       To avoid a potentially long and costly fight in the federal 
     courts about which governmental entity has jurisdiction over 
     the fee lands, the Tribe and the State have now agreed to 
     establish a single, cooperative air quality authority for all 
     lands within the Reservation. On December 13, 1999, the Tribe 
     and the State entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement 
     (copy attached) which provides that a joint Tribal/State 
     Commission will establish air quality standards. The Tribe 
     will receive a delegation of authority from EPA to administer 
     the air quality programs, but the delegation is contingent 
     upon and shall last only so long as the Agreement and 
     Commission are in place.


                      Tribal and State Legislation

       The Agreement provided for legislation by both the Tribe 
     and the State approving the Agreement and enacting 
     substantive law necessary to carry out the Agreement's 
     provisions. On January 18, 2000, the Tribe adopted its 
     legislation. On March 15, 2000, I signed HB 1324, which 
     adopted and codified the Agreement and HB 1325, which 
     established the State's authority to establish the Commission 
     and otherwise implement the Agreement.


                          Federal Legislation

       The Agreement envisions a delegation by the EPA to the 
     Tribe to administer Clean Air Act programs, contingent upon 
     the existence of the Joint State/Tribal Commission. This is a 
     unique arrangement and is not clearly specified within the 
     Clean Air Act. Parties have argued to me that clarifying 
     legislation by Congress is necessary to resolve any 
     uncertainty about the EPA's power to delegate authority to 
     run an air pollution program to the Tribe and for the 
     Commission to act under such a delegation. The Commission 
     also will set the standards and rules of the air quality 
     program that the Tribe will administer. The Commission will 
     serve as the administrative appellate review body for 
     enforcement and other administrative actions. The Agreement 
     provides that the Commission's final review is final agency 
     action, and further judicial review would be in the federal 
     courts. The existence of such federal jurisdiction should 
     also be clarified by Congress.
       Enclosed is a draft of the proposed federal legislation and 
     a legislative history for your review. These draft documents 
     would accomplish the limited but necessary changes to make 
     the Agreement fully operational. The bill is set up to add a 
     section to P.L. 98-290 to narrow the application of the 
     revisions only to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State 
     of Colorado, so that other states or tribes would not be 
     affected.


                               Next Steps

       The full operation of the Agreement is conditioned upon 
     passage of federal legislation no later than December 13, 
     2001. I recognize that this may be difficult but from the 
     State's perspective the sooner the Agreement could be 
     operational the better since EPA will be regulating the 
     affected entities until the Joint Commission and Tribe take 
     over. We would like to be helpful and I offer a meeting 
     between you and your staff and representatives of the 
     Governor's Office, the Colorado Department of Public Health 
     and Environment and the Colorado Attorney General's Office at 
     your earliest convenience discuss this issue.
       Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. 
     Please feel free to contact Britt Weygandt in my office for 
     any assistance you may need. Her extension is (303) 866-6392.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Owens,
                                                         Governor.

[[Page 3846]]



                          ____________________