[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14082-14095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1206. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for special treatment for certain drugs and biologicals under 
the prospective payment system for hospital outpatient department 
services under the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will 
ensure that cancer patients continue to have access to the treatment 
and care they desperately need in their communities.
  In Missouri alone, the number of new cancer patients is estimated to 
reach almost 30,000 this year. For the Nation, we're talking well over 
1.3 million. And the numbers continue to climb every year. These 
numbers are in addition to patients currently living with cancer. Many 
of them are surviving--and thriving--because of new tests, new 
treatments, and care they receive in community cancer centers across 
the country.
  Many of these patients will turn to hospitals in their communities 
for lifesaving treatment. Hospital outpatient departments are a 
critical part of the cancer care delivery system that provide a 
significant portion of the cancer care across the country.
  However, this vital care is in jeopardy because this year, the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has implemented 
drastic reductions in reimbursements for cancer services, including 
chemotherapy. These cuts are forcing cancer centers across the country 
to reconsider how they are providing care or accept reimbursement that 
fails to cover their costs.
  I was recently contacted by Wes Thompson, Director of Radiology at 
Ray County Memorial Hospital in Richmond, MO. For those of you 
unfamiliar with Missouri, Richmond is a small town with a population of 
about 6,100 approximately 50 miles east of Kansas City. Ray County 
Memorial Hospital is the sole referral center for chemotherapy 
treatment for the rural residents outside of Kansas City.
  In 1999, Wes' wife died of cancer at the age of 26. She happened to 
be a patient of the pharmacist, Robert Courtney, who has been convicted 
of diluting thousands of chemotherapy treatments for profit over the 
last several years. Wes will be receiving a monetary settlement from 
the legal proceeding involving Robert Courtney and he would like to 
donate it to the Ray County's oncology program in his wife's name. 
Unfortunately, cuts in reimbursements by Medicare for chemotherapy 
treatment will force Ray County Memorial Hospital to discontinue 
outpatient cancer treatment on January 1, 2004. And, that is 
devastating news to the community.
  This is a department that treats over 250 patients a year across 
three counties. 60-70 percent of their patients are Medicare 
beneficiaries and about 40

[[Page 14083]]

percent of their patients are indigent. Many of these cancer patients 
would receive no care at all if Ray County Memorial closed the doors of 
the cancer program. And yet, that's exactly what they are considering. 
Their cancer program can't stay afloat when every chemotherapy 
treatment they give is reimbursed by Medicare at less than their costs. 
There are a lot of expensive drugs involved in the treatment of cancer. 
The heavy dependence on drugs has a lot to do with why the cuts are 
devastating to cancer care in particular.
  At Ray County Memorial, the first round of cuts last year meant that 
hospital overall took a loss of over $150,000. This year's cuts will 
result in the loss of approximately $200,000-$300,000 for oncology 
services alone.
  As of January 1 of next year 250 patients in rural Missouri will be 
forced to drive to Kansas City to receive cancer treatment. Oncologists 
at Ray County Memorial Hospital estimate that 40 percent of the 
patients they treat will be unable to make the trip to Kansan City area 
facilities to receive their treatment--either because they lack the 
transportation or the help to get there and back, or they are too sick 
or too weak to endure that trip. As a result of this cancer center 
closing, 80-100 people will die from cancer with no treatment and no 
hope. Of course Ray Memorial Hospital will continue to give these 
people loving care and try to make them as comfortable as possible, but 
they will be unable to treat their cancer anymore.
  This is not a problem unique to Ray County Memorial Hospital. Due to 
cuts in Medicare reimbursement for cancer treatments hospitals across 
Missouri and across the county that provide outpatient cancer care--
large or small, rural or urban--are struggling to continue to provide 
this care. These cancer centers work every day to ensure that the 
thousands of Americans diagnosed with cancer are receiving the best 
care possible.
  I also have the privilege of representing Truman Medical Center, 
distinguished in its own way--for providing free care to so many. While 
Truman Medical Center sees only about 300-350 newly diagnosed cancer 
patients each year, about 70-75 percent of them are indigent. For these 
patients, they provide some 1,500-2,000 treatments of chemotherapy each 
year . . . and starting in January of this year, Medicare is 
reimbursing for many of these at levels dramatically below Truman's 
costs. And there are so many others.
  In rural areas, where it is often hard to recruit physicians, it is 
the community cancer centers that provide all the chemotherapy and 
other services that help ensure that cancer patients don't have to 
travel long distances for the care they need. This is particularly 
important in cancer treatment, where life saving treatments often 
result in difficult side effects in the short term.
  These cancer centers are also often the early adopters of some of the 
newest and most complicated drug regimens that cancer patients need 
today. And not only are they a ``safety net'' for rural patients, they 
are often the safety net for Medicaid and uninsured patients.
  And yet, these are the very institutions that have been suffering 
under what is essentially an experiment underway by the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. I know that this isn't anyone's 
favorite agency, but I expect more under a Republican Administration.
  For a number of years now, CMS has been trying to bring a new payment 
system to these hospitals. Each year this experiment brings a new set 
of rules and payments--for the hospitals to sort through and try to 
implement.
  But this isn't just an administrative burden that takes our 
caregivers away from their payments. In the last two years, this 
payment system has resulted in significant payment reductions for a 
setting of care that can now barely meet its costs.
  My own Missouri institutions tell me they're considering closing 
their indigent care programs or worse, closing their doors altogether.
  My office is hearing stories from around the country, about hospital 
administration arming their doctors with lists of the most expensive 
drugs and what CMS is now reimbursing them. Why do this if you aren't 
trying to influence a doctor's decision about what to prescribe? 
Pharmacists are under pressure to review dosing regimens to see where 
they can cut corners. Some drugs are just not being given in these 
community centers. Others that used to be given free of charge until 
their Medicare codes were assigned now aren't given at all.
  In some cases, hospitals are sending patients to the nearest 
physician's office, where inexplicably, Medicare is paying more for the 
same drugs. But sometimes theses offices aren't nearby. Other times, 
hospitals are getting patients returned to them with complications that 
have arisen--and now have to be admitted for overnight stays and close 
monitoring.
  How scary for a cancer patient? Sometimes with only months to live, 
to be told that it could take nine months before the next breakthrough 
drug can be given because it's just too expensive. To be told that the 
hospital where you've gotten to know your doctors and nurses after 
weeks of chemotherapy is now closing its doors. To be told that you now 
have to drive miles for care, away from friends and family who have 
helped care for you when you return feeling nauseous and weak from 
treatments.
  These stories are accumulating--all because of a failed CMS 
experiment. So should we terminate the experiment and start over with a 
payment system that actually reflects that cost of providing this care? 
Yes, of course.
  But that would take time--and while the time honored tradition here 
in Washington of debate and compromise for long term reform is a worthy 
one--these community cancer centers around the country continue to rack 
up the stories of compromised care and reduced access for patients, and 
time is one luxury many cancer patients simply do not have.
  And this brings me to my legislation, which is measured, timely, and 
focused on the most immediate of needs. And, written so as to recognize 
the budgetary constraints facing us.
  This legislation would set a payment floor for some of the most 
costly drugs given in the outpatient community centers today. This bill 
isn't limited to cancer drugs. But cancer is one of those diseases that 
relies so heavily on new drugs for treatment that tend to be costly 
drugs, so the impact of this experiment has been felt here more. The 
bill provides this relief immediately--so that in January 2004, these 
hospitals can start receiving increased payments that at least cover 
more of their costs.
  This payment floor, by the way, was set not on the basis of these 
centers' true costs. Instead, recognizing the little time they have and 
the immediacy of their need, they have settled for payment rates 
advocated by various members of Congress over the last year--as it 
began to be clear how devastating an impact this experiment could have.
  This bill, for example, wouldn't help them cover the costs of the 
pharmacy services they provide, so critical to ensuring safe and 
effective care in the hospitals. Again, these costs are especially 
significant for cancer patients, where mixing highly toxic 
chemotherapeutic agents using special equipment and wearing protective 
gear, reviewing protocols and checking for patient risks and side 
effects are all more intensive efforts. It recognizes these services by 
asking for a study of these costs, so that they may be recognized in 
longer term solutions that we develop over the next year or so.
  The legislation I introduce today will provide hospitals like Ray 
County Memorial Hospital and Truman Medical Center, and so many around 
Missouri and across the country the immediate relief they need to be 
able to treat their patients.
  I look forward to working with my Finance Committee colleagues to 
ensure that the provisions of this legislation and the immediate relief 
that it provides are incorporated in anything we do on Medicare.
  We have learned our lessons the hard way in home health. This crisis 
in community cancer centers promises to reach similar proportions if we 
don't act now.

[[Page 14084]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TALENT:
  S. 1207. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, 
Missouri, as the ``Walt Disney Post Office Building''; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1207

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

     SECTION 1. WALT DISNEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States 
     Postal Service located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in 
     Marceline, Missouri, and known as the Marceline Main Office, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Walt Disney Post 
     Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the Walt Disney Post Office Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Reed):
  S. 1208. A bill to amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
1978 to establish a program to provide assistance to States and 
nonprofit organizations to preserve suburban forest land and open space 
and contain suburban sprawl, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been 
faithful stewards of their forest lands because we understand and 
appreciate its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life.
  From the vast tracts of undeveloped land in the north, to the small 
woodlots in the south, forest land has helped to shape the character 
and the heritage of my State.
  While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forests for 
generations, there is a new and troubling thereat to Maine's forest 
lands that requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl. 
It has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in 
the southern part of my State. Sprawl occurs because the economic value 
of forests or crop land cannot compete with the value of developed 
land.
  This problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where there has 
been more than a 100-percent increase in urbanized sprawl over the past 
two decades. This has resulted in the labeling of the greater Portland 
area as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''
  I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space in 
southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul-
de-sacs. Our State is working to respond to this challenge because once 
that land is paved over, it is gone forever. Those forest lands and 
those small woodlots are lost forever once that land is developed.
  The people of Maine in response to this concern have approved a $50 
million bond issue to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future 
Board. They have also worked hard supporting local efforts to preserve 
open space. And they have contributed their time, their energy, and 
their money to the work done by our State's 88 land trusts.
  The people of my State are dedicated to preserving our working 
forests and protecting our communities from sprawl. It is now time for 
the Federal Government to lend a helping hand in support of those 
efforts.
  Today, I am introducing the Suburban Community Forestry and Open 
Space Act. This legislation, which was drafted with the advice of 
landowners, conservation groups, and the Maine State Forester, 
establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service 
to support locally driven projects that will preserve our working 
forests. Local governments and nonprofit organizations would compete 
for funds to purchase land outright or to buy conservation easements to 
keep the forest land threatened by development in their traditional 
use.
  Projects funded under this legislation must be targeted at lands 
located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. The 
legislation requires that Federal funds be matched dollar for dollar by 
State, local, or private resources so that it is a true partnership to 
preserve this open space and working forests.
  This grant program would help to promote sustainable forestry as well 
as public access to our forest lands. My legislation protects the 
rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing seller'' 
provision, which requires the consent of a landowner if a parcel of 
land is eligible to participate in the program.
  The grant program would also allow nonprofits and municipalities, but 
not the Federal Government, to hold title to the land or the easements 
purchased under this program. The $50 million is a modest amount but it 
would help to achieve a number of stewardship objectives.
  First, my legislation would help prevent forest fragmentation and 
preserve our working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber 
that fuels Maine most significant industry.
  Second, the resources made available by my legislation would be a 
valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and 
prevent sprawl. Currently, if a community trying to cope with the 
effects of sprawl turns to the Federal Government for help, they would 
find that no assistance is available.
  The Forest Legacy Program, which has been critical in preserving 
undeveloped forest land in my State and many others, is really not 
suitable for the kinds of projects my bill envisions. My bill would 
change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in 
preserving forest lands and managing sprawl, while leaving the 
decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs.
  Last year, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the 
Senate-approved version of the farm bill which passed this Senate by a 
vote of 58-40. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of 
the farm bill conference report, despite bipartisan support for 
provisions such as my legislation.
  There is a great deal that needs to be done to protect our working 
forests for the next generation. I believe the legislation I am 
reintroducing today will help advance that goal. I am grateful for the 
support of many of the people and organizations that are leading the 
effort to support this legislation. By enacting the Suburban and 
Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide a real 
boost to local conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, and help 
sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.
  Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record several letters 
of support for my legislation. They are from the National Association 
of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, The Trust for 
Public Land, and the Pacific Forest Trust. I ask unanimous consent that 
those letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                              National Association


                                           of State Foresters,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2003.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the National Association 
     of State Foresters, I would like to thank you for your 
     efforts to reduce the impacts of urban and suburban sprawl on 
     private and tribal forestlands in the U.S. Your bill to 
     protect Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space 
     demonstrates your commitment to minimizing conversion of 
     suburban forestlands to nonforest uses. Maintaining working 
     forests in suburban environments is consistent with the goals 
     of NASF, and we appreciate your efforts to develop a program 
     that can be implemented by the States.
       As the USDA Forest Service's Southern Forest Resource 
     Assessment clearly demonstrates, one of the major threats to 
     forestland is urban sprawl. The provisions in Section 1 of 
     your bill will enable private landowners to keep their land 
     in trees and sustain the public benefits that their forests 
     provide. Your bill provides another tool to address this 
     critical concern.

[[Page 14085]]

       Thank you for your commitment to sustainable forest 
     management and to reducing suburban sprawl. We look forward 
     to continuing our work with you on the details of the entire 
     bill.
           Sincerely,


                                          James L. Sledge, Jr,

     President.
                                  ____

                                                       New England


                                          Forestry Foundation,

                                                     June 3, 2003.
     Senator Susan M. Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The New England Forestry Foundation 
     applauds Senator Collins' leadership and initiative in 
     sponsoring the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space 
     Program, designed to help towns and communities across 
     America's suburban landscape combat sprawl, and preserve open 
     space. This legislative package is exactly what is needed to 
     provide an incentive for local governments and land trusts 
     across the country to unite and partner to address an issue 
     of national importance.
       Congratulations!
           Sincerely,
                                                         Amos Eno,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                    The Trust for Public Land,

                                         Boston, MA, June 4, 2003.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Trust for Public 
     Land, I am pleased to express our support for the Suburban 
     and Community Forestry and Open Space Act. This legislation 
     will provide a much-needed focus on working forests that 
     provide important resources in and around Maine's towns and 
     cities that are facing significant development pressures. We 
     applaud your foresight in addressing this issue.
       As the Trust for Public Land pursues its mission of 
     protecting land for people in Maine, we are acutely aware of 
     the difficult choices many landowners face as land values 
     rise and development pressures intensify. The forest lands 
     that lie in the path of development are incredibly important 
     to local residents for a variety of resources, including 
     recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality and open space. 
     The Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Act will 
     allow these critical lands to remain intact as community 
     assets by focusing federal assistance to landowners in areas 
     affected by suburban sprawl. This is a much-needed addition 
     to the resource conservation efforts that states, localities 
     and non-governmental partners are already undertaking and 
     will provide the extra funding leverage needed to 
     successfully meet the challenges of the future.
       Our work with willing sellers across the state leads us to 
     believe that your legislation will provide new resource 
     protection opportunities for many Maine communities that will 
     leave them in good shape for future generations. Maine's 
     forest resources are absolutely critical to ensuring a decent 
     quality of life for residents and visitors alike, and 
     proposals like yours will ensure that we address the 
     conservation of those resources wisely.
       Thank you for your leadership on this and many other issues 
     affecting Maine. We look forward to working with you on this 
     legislation and for the long-term protection of Maine's 
     outstanding natural resources.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Whitney Hatch,
     Regional Director.
                                  ____

                                                     June 3, 2003.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The Pacific Forrest Trust (PFT) 
     strongly supports your proposed legislation, which will 
     encourage and facilitate the preservation of our nation's 
     privately owned forestlands. Your amendment to the Forest 
     Legacy Program will increase the flexibility of states in the 
     administration of the Program, which will, in turn, lead to 
     greater preservation of private forestland.
       For over ten years, PFT, a non-profit organization, has 
     worked to preserve, restore and enhance the privately owned 
     productive forestlands in the United States. We currently 
     hold roughly 35,000 acres under easement and have been 
     instrumental in ensuring the preservation of private land 
     valued at over $115,000,000. We have provided oral and 
     written testimony to Congress regarding proposed policies to 
     protect and enhance our private forestlands and have written 
     extensively on this issue.
       The legislation is critical to the preservation of private 
     forestlands throughout the United States. Between 1982 and 
     1997, the United States lost over 20 million acres of private 
     forestlands to other uses. States as diverse as California 
     and Georgia have lost over 60,000 acres annually to 
     development alone. Similar statistics are reflected among 
     privately owned forestland in other areas of the United 
     States, especially in the most productive timber areas.
       The amendment to the Forest Legacy Program will provide 
     states with the option to permit qualified non-profit 
     organizations, such as land trusts, to hold easements that 
     are purchased, in part or in whole, with Forest Legacy funds. 
     Currently, land trusts may only hold easements through Forest 
     Legacy if such easements are donated. Thus, this amendment 
     will give states the opportunity and flexibility to expand 
     their pool of landowners participating in the Program and as 
     a result, protect more private forestlands.
       While many landowners acknowledge the need to preserve 
     their forestlands, they are not comfortable having a 
     governmental agency own a partial interest in their property, 
     which is the current requirement of the Program where the 
     easements are purchased. This amendment enables landowners to 
     work with a private, voluntary qualified land trust 
     organization at the option of the state. At the same time, 
     states retain full decision-making control over the selection 
     of Forest Legacy projects.
       Furthermore, this legislation will provide essential 
     flexibility for states to work with partner organizations 
     that can often leverage additional funding into Forest Legacy 
     projects. It will open the door so that many more landowners 
     can participate in the Program nationwide and therefore, will 
     expand the opportunity to reverse the trend of forestland 
     loss.
       Thank you for your continued leadership in private 
     forestland conservation. This is necessary and timely 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Laurie A. Wayburn,
                              President, The Pacific Forest Trust.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1209. A bill to provide for the acquisition of property in 
Washington County, Utah, for implementation of a desert tortoise 
habitat conservation plan; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill which will 
bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of 
privately held land, located within the federally designated desert 
tortoise reserve in Washington County, UT.
  As some of my colleagues are aware, this is not the first time 
legislation has been introduced in an attempt to resolve this issue. In 
July of 2000, I introduced S. 2873, which was referred to and reported 
favorably by the Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In 
addition, similar legislation was twice approved by the other body, 
both in the 106th and 107th Congresses. Nevertheless, we have been 
unable to bring this issue to resolution in the full Senate. For nearly 
a decade, the private property addressed by this bill has been under 
Federal control during which time the Federal Government has been 
enjoying the benefits of the private property without compensating the 
landowner. It is my hope that the time has come to finally resolve this 
issue.
  In March of 1991, the desert tortoise was listed as an endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act. Government and environmental 
researchers determined that the land immediately north of St. George, 
UT, was prime desert tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, 
nearly five years after the listing, the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, USFWS, issued Washington County a section 10 permit 
under the Endangered Species Act which paved the way for the adoption 
of a habitat conservation plan, HCP, and an implementation agreement. 
Under the plan and agreement, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, 
committed to acquire all private lands in the designated habitat area 
for the formation of the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the 
dessert tortoise.
  One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental 
Land Technology, Limited, ELT, which had begun acquiring lands from the 
State of Utah in 1981 for purposes of residential and recreational 
development several years prior to the listing of the species. 
Moreover, in the years preceding the listing of the desert tortoise and 
the adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed 
appraisals, cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, 
utility layouts, and right-of-way negotiations. They staked out golf 
courses, and obtained water rights for the development of this land. 
Prior to the adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the 
Federal and local governments would set aside for the desert tortoise, 
although it was assumed that there were sufficient surrounding Federal 
lands to provide adequate habitat. However, when the HCP was adopted in 
1996, the decision was made to include ELT's

[[Page 14086]]

lands within the boundaries of the reserve primarily because of the 
high concentrations of tortoises. The tortoises on ELT land also 
appeared to be one of, if not the only population without an upper 
respiratory disease that afflicted all of the other populations. As a 
consequence of the inclusion of the ELT lands, the development efforts 
were halted.
  With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of 
the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated 
with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the 
BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land 
owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable federal 
lands within the state that would be suitable for an exchange for his 
lands in Washington County. Over the last seven years, BLM and the 
private land owners, including ELT, have completed several exchanges, 
and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or 
direct purchases, nearly all of the private property located within the 
reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development 
land. However, with the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument in September 1996, and the subsequent land exchanges 
between the state of Utah and the Federal Government to consolidate 
federal lands within that monument, there are no longer sufficient 
comparable federal lands within Utah to complete the originally 
contemplated intrastate exchanges for the remainder of the ELT land.
  Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the 
Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring these lands, BLM 
officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct 
purchase: During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 
million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in 
Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves 
endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for 
administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office 
of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget 
request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 
budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds were made 
available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the 
reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a 
matching basis for the use of individual states to acquire wildlife 
habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in 
extreme financial hardship for ELT.
  The lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's main asset. The 
establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively taken this 
property and prevented ELT from developing or otherwise disposing of 
the property. ELT has been brought to the brink of financial ruin as it 
has exhausted its resources in an effort to hold the property while 
awaiting the compensation to which it is entitled. ELT has had to sell 
its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had to sell 
assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. This has 
become a financial crisis for the landowner. It is simply wrong for the 
Federal Government to expect the landowner to continue to bear the cost 
of the government's efforts to provide habitat for an endangered 
species. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government. 
Moreover, while the landowner is bearing these costs, he continues to 
pay taxes on the property. This situation is made more egregious by the 
failure of the Department of the Interior to request any acquisition 
funding for FY 2004, even though this acquisition has been designated a 
high priority by the agency. Over the past several years, ELT has 
pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition of these 
lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars pursuing 
both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked 
cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all 
of these efforts have thus far been fruitless.
  The bill that I am introducing today will finally bring this 
acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking should be an 
action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted legislative 
condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer all right, title, and 
interest in the ELT development property within the Red Cliffs Reserve, 
including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real property owned by 
ELT adjacent to the land within the reserve, to the federal government. 
It provides an initial payment to ELT to pay off existing debts accrued 
in holding the property, and provides 90 days during which ELT and the 
Department of the Interior can attempt to reach a negotiated settlement 
on the remaining value of the property. I am aware that one of the 
difficulties in solving this issue is the high value of the lands to be 
acquired. Due to the absence of comparable lands within the state for 
exchange, the legislation also authorizes an interstate land exchange 
as a means of acquiring the property. In the absence of a negotiated 
amount, the Secretary of the Interior will be required to bring an 
action in the Federal District Court for the District of Utah to 
determine a value for the land. Payment for the land, whether 
negotiated or determined by the court, will be made from the permanent 
judgment appropriation or any other appropriate account, or, at the 
option of the land owner, the Secretary of the Interior will credit a 
surplus property account, established and maintained by the General 
Services Administration, which the land owner can then use to bid on 
surplus government property.
  Unfortunately, when this bill has been introduced in the past, there 
has been occasional misunderstanding regarding the inclusion of the 
bill's reference to section 309(f) of Public Law 104-333, which 
requires all Federal appraisals and acquisitions of land within 
Washington County to be conducted ``without regard'' to the presence of 
an endangered species. This references does not create a new appraisal 
standard but rather restates the existing standard for all Federal land 
acquisition in Washington County, UT. Since its enactment, and without 
exception, the Department of the Interior has applied this standard to 
all its acquisitions in the county. This language was originally 
adopted to allay concerns that local landowners would not receive fair 
compensation for their property which was being acquired for government 
purposes. Some have supposed the inclusion of this language would 
constitute preferential treatment. To the contrary, the absence of this 
language would unfairly treat this landowner differently than every 
other landowner in the reserve whose land has thus far been acquired by 
the Federal Government. Moreover, its omission at this point would 
likely lead the Justice Department to argue that Congress did not 
intend for this statutory standard to apply.
  The bill includes language to allow, as part of the legislative 
taking, for the landowner to recover reasonable costs, interest, and 
damages. It is important to understand that while Federal acquisitions 
should be completed on the basis of fair market value, when the Federal 
Government makes the commitment to acquire private land, the landowner 
should not have to be driven into financial ruin while waiting upon the 
federal government to discharge its obligation. While the Federal 
Government has never disputed its obligation to acquire the property, 
it has had the benefit of the private land for all these years without 
having to pay for it. The private landowner should not have to bear the 
costs of this Federal foot-dragging.
  This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department 
of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is 
a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution. The time for 
pursuing other options has long since expired and it is unfortunate 
that it requires legislation action. Without commenting on the 
Endangered Species Act itself, it would seem that if it is the 
government's objective to provide habitat for the benefit of an 
endangered species, then the government ought to bear the costs, rather 
than forcing them upon the landowner. It is also time to address this 
issue so that the Federal agencies may be single minded in their 
efforts

[[Page 14087]]

to recover the desert tortoise which remains the aim of the creation of 
the reserve. It is time to right this wrong and get on with the efforts 
to recover the species and I encourage my colleagues to support the 
timely enactment of this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1210. A bill to assist in the conservation of marine turtles and 
the nesting habitats of marine turtles in foreign countries; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the ``Marine 
Turtle Conservation Act of 2003''.
  Marine turtles were once abundant, but now they are in serious 
trouble. Six of the seven recognized species are listed as threatened 
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and all seven species 
have been included in Appendix I of the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, CITES. Because 
marine turtles are long-lived, late-maturing, and highly migratory, 
they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of human exploitation 
and habitat loss. In addition, for some species, illegal trade 
seriously threatens wild populations. Because of the immense challenges 
facing marine turtles, the resources available to date have not been 
sufficient to cope with the continued loss of nesting habitat due to 
human activities and the resulting diminution of marine turtle 
populations.
  The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2003 is modeled after the 
successful Asian Elephant Conservation Act, the African Elephant 
Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. These 
acts have established programs within the Department of the Interior to 
assist in the conservation and preservation of these species around the 
world. More than 300 projects have been funded and generated millions 
of dollars in private matching funds from sponsors representing a 
diverse group of conservation organizations. The projects range from 
purchasing anti-poaching equipment for wildlife rangers to implementing 
elephant conservation plans to aerial monitoring of the Northern white 
rhinoceros.
  The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2003 will assist in the 
recovery and protection of marine turtles by supporting and providing 
financial resources for projects to conserve nesting habitats of marine 
turtles in foreign countries and marine turtles while they are found in 
such habitats, to prevent illegal trade in marine turtle parts and 
products, and to address other threats to the survival of marine 
turtles. The bill authorizes $5 million annually to implement the 
program.
  This legislation will help to preserve this ancient and distinctive 
part of the world's biological diversity.
  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. 1210

       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 ``Marine Turtle Conservation 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) marine turtle populations have declined to the point 
     that the long-term survival of the loggerhead, green, 
     hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, olive ridley, and leatherback 
     turtle in the wild is in serious jeopardy;
       (2) 6 of the 7 recognized species of marine turtles are 
     listed as threatened or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 
     all 7 species have been included in Appendix I of CITES;
       (3) because marine turtles are long-lived, late-maturing, 
     and highly migratory, marine turtles are particularly 
     vulnerable to the impacts of human exploitation and habitat 
     loss;
       (4) illegal international trade seriously threatens wild 
     populations of some marine turtle species, particularly the 
     hawksbill turtle;
       (5) the challenges facing marine turtles are immense, and 
     the resources available have not been sufficient to cope with 
     the continued loss of nesting habitats caused by human 
     activities and the consequent diminution of marine turtle 
     populations;
       (6) because marine turtles are flagship species for the 
     ecosystems in which marine turtles are found, sustaining 
     healthy populations of marine turtles provides benefits to 
     many other species of wildlife, including many other 
     threatened or endangered species;
       (7) marine turtles are important components of the 
     ecosystems that they inhabit, and studies of wild populations 
     of marine turtles have provided important biological 
     insights;
       (8) changes in marine turtle populations are most reliably 
     indicated by changes in the numbers of nests and nesting 
     females; and
       (9) the reduction, removal, or other effective addressing 
     of the threats to the long-term viability of populations of 
     marine turtles will require the joint commitment and effort 
     of--
       (A) countries that have within their boundaries marine 
     turtle nesting habitats; and
       (B) persons with expertise in the conservation of marine 
     turtles.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to assist in the 
     conservation of marine turtles and the nesting habitats of 
     marine turtles in foreign countries by supporting and 
     providing financial resources for projects to conserve the 
     nesting habitats, conserve marine turtles in those habitats, 
     and address other threats to the survival of marine turtles.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on 
     International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
     Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249).
       (2) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of all methods and procedures necessary to protect nesting 
     habitats of marine turtles in foreign countries and of marine 
     turtles in those habitats, including--
       (A) protection, restoration, and management of nesting 
     habitats;
       (B) onsite research and monitoring of nesting populations, 
     nesting habitats, annual reproduction, and species population 
     trends;
       (C) assistance in the development, implementation, and 
     improvement of national and regional management plans for 
     nesting habitat ranges;
       (D) enforcement and implementation of CITES and laws of 
     foreign countries to--
       (i) protect and manage nesting populations and nesting 
     habitats; and
       (ii) prevent illegal trade of marine turtles;
       (E) training of local law enforcement officials in the 
     interdiction and prevention of--
       (i) the illegal killing of marine turtles on nesting 
     habitat; and
       (ii) illegal trade in marine turtles;
       (F) initiatives to resolve conflicts between humans and 
     marine turtles over habitat used by marine turtles for 
     nesting;
       (G) community outreach and education; and
       (H) strengthening of the ability of local communities to 
     implement nesting population and nesting habitat conservation 
     programs.
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Marine Turtle 
     Conservation Fund established by section 5.
       (4) Marine turtle.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``marine turtle'' means any 
     member of the family Cheloniidae or Dermochelyidae.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``marine turtle'' includes--
       (i) any part, product, egg, or offspring of a turtle 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) a carcass of such a turtle.
       (5) Multinational species conservation fund.--The term 
     ``Multinational Species Conservation Fund'' means the fund 
     established under the heading ``multinational species 
     conservation fund'' in title I of the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 
     U.S.C. 4246).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds and 
     in consultation with other Federal officials, the Secretary 
     shall use amounts in the Fund to provide financial assistance 
     for projects for the conservation of marine turtles for which 
     project proposals are approved by the Secretary in accordance 
     with this section.
       (b) Project Proposals.--
       (1) Eligible applicants.--A proposal for a project for the 
     conservation of marine turtles may be submitted to the 
     Secretary by--
       (A) any wildlife management authority of a foreign country 
     that has within its boundaries marine turtle nesting habitat 
     if the activities of the authority directly or indirectly 
     affect marine turtle conservation; or
       (B) any other person or group with the demonstrated 
     expertise required for the conservation of marine turtles.
       (2) Required elements.--A project proposal shall include--
       (A) a statement of the purposes of the project;
       (B) the name of the individual with overall responsibility 
     for the project;

[[Page 14088]]

       (C) a description of the qualifications of the individuals 
     that will conduct the project;
       (D) a description of--
       (i) methods for project implementation and outcome 
     assessment;
       (ii) staff and community management for the project; and
       (iii) the logistics of the project;
       (E) an estimate of the funds and time required to complete 
     the project;
       (F) evidence of support for the project by appropriate 
     governmental entities of the countries in which the project 
     will be conducted, if the Secretary determines that such 
     support is required for the success of the project;
       (G) information regarding the source and amount of matching 
     funding available for the project; and
       (H) any other information that the Secretary considers to 
     be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project 
     for funding under this Act.
       (c) Project Review and Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) not later than 30 days after receiving a project 
     proposal, provide a copy of the proposal to other Federal 
     officials, as appropriate; and
       (B) review each project proposal in a timely manner to 
     determine whether the proposal meets the criteria specified 
     in subsection (d).
       (2) Consultation; approval or disapproval.--Not later than 
     180 days after receiving a project proposal, and subject to 
     the availability of funds, the Secretary, after consulting 
     with other Federal officials, as appropriate, shall--
       (A) consult on the proposal with the government of each 
     country in which the project is to be conducted;
       (B) after taking into consideration any comments resulting 
     from the consultation, approve or disapprove the project 
     proposal; and
       (C) provide written notification of the approval or 
     disapproval to the person that submitted the project 
     proposal, other Federal officials, and each country described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (d) Criteria for Approval.--The Secretary may approve a 
     project proposal under this section if the project will help 
     recover and sustain viable populations of marine turtles in 
     the wild by assisting efforts in foreign countries to 
     implement marine turtle conservation programs.
       (e) Project Sustainability.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, in determining whether to approve project 
     proposals under this section, the Secretary shall give 
     preference to conservation projects that are designed to 
     ensure effective, long-term conservation of marine turtles 
     and their nesting habitats.
       (f) Matching Funds.--In determining whether to approve 
     project proposals under this section, the Secretary shall 
     give preference to projects for which matching funds are 
     available.
       (g) Project Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Each person that receives assistance under 
     this section for a project shall submit to the Secretary 
     periodic reports (at such intervals as the Secretary may 
     require) that include all information that the Secretary, 
     after consultation with other government officials, 
     determines is necessary to evaluate the progress and success 
     of the project for the purposes of ensuring positive results, 
     assessing problems, and fostering improvements.
       (2) Availability to the public.--Reports under paragraph 
     (1), and any other documents relating to projects for which 
     financial assistance is provided under this Act, shall be 
     made available to the public.

     SEC. 5. MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund a separate account to 
     be known as the ``Marine Turtle Conservation Fund'', 
     consisting of--
       (1) amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     for deposit into the Fund under subsection (e);
       (2) amounts appropriated to the Fund under section 6; and
       (3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Fund under subsection (c).
       (b) Expenditures From Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on request by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer 
     from the Fund to the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation, such amounts as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to carry out section 4.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts in the account 
     available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not 
     more than 3 percent, or up to $80,000, whichever is greater, 
     to pay the administrative expenses necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
       (c) Investment of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (4) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
       (d) Transfers of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to 
     the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least 
     monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on 
     the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in 
     amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required 
     to be transferred.
       (e) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may 
     accept and use donations to provide assistance under section 
     4. Amounts received by the Secretary in the form of donations 
     shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     deposit in the Fund.

     SEC. 6. ADVISORY GROUP.

       (a) In General.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of 
     individuals representing public and private organizations 
     actively involved in the conservation of marine turtles.
       (b) Public Participation.--
       (1) Meetings.--The Advisory Group shall--
       (A) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open 
     to the public; and
       (B) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for interested 
     persons to present oral or written statements concerning 
     items on the agenda.
       (2) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public 
     timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
       (3) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group 
     shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to 
     the public.
       (c) Exemption From Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the advisory group.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 1211. A bill to further the purposes of title XVI of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, the 
``Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act'', by 
directing the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a demonstration 
program for water reclamation in the Tularosa Basin of New Mexico, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, in the United States, especially when 
you live in the eastern United States, you take water and the 
availability of water for granted. Probably the only thing that is ever 
thought about is: Do we have a big enough reservoir? Or are those 
aqueducts getting too old that feed New York and northeastern America?
  But I am here to suggest there are parts of these great United States 
where there is a huge shortage of the kind of water we need day by day 
for our daily activities: to drink, to use for our families, and for 
the everyday use of our people.
  First, I show you a little chart with blue and white areas on it. All 
of the blue areas on this chart of the United States, believe it or 
not, are areas in these United States where saline--that is, salty--
aquifers exist; that is, salty water either in large ponds or 
underground in large pools.
  So while we are running out of water, at the same time we have been 
blessed in that we have plenty of water available if we do something 
about it. And I propose that we do something about it. I have a bill 
that I hope will do something about it.
  This second chart shows what would be a proposed Tularosa Basin 
desalination facility. I show it because this is not a new concept. As 
a matter of fact, this Tularosa Basin is a huge underground water basin 
in New Mexico. Much of it is very salty, large quantities are not so 
salty, and then large quantities are of minor salt content.
  The legislation I am introducing is to try to make a leap of 
technology for it directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake at 
this program, for lack of a better way to do it, what we call a 
demonstration program, but it would be one that would be easily adopted

[[Page 14089]]

anywhere. We ask that it have a capability of 100,000 gallons so that 
the research would not be carried out at an academic level but really 
usable.
  The Secretary is supposed to work with the greatest laboratories in 
the Nation that have access in this regard to develop new desalination 
technology and a plan. The facility should be completed within 3 years. 
The water from this facility will be disposed of to communities in and 
around this basin and in and around the county of Otero. We authorize 
the money necessary for it. I have a detailed statement indicating why 
we are doing this along with the bill and an extra bill which goes to 
the desk, one for reference and one for retention.
  I am quite confident that a new method of desalination beyond that 
one that we all hear about is going to be forthcoming. I believe one of 
the laboratories--probably Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, 
but not certain, but probably--will make the breakthrough so that we 
will not be using the old system that we might have been trying for as 
long now as the occupant of the chair is of age. I even remember that 
system being used when I first came to the Senate. We were 
experimenting with it in the city of Roswell under a Government 
program, and we stopped the program because it was too farfetched.
  We have come a long way. Just as we have serious problems cleaning 
water of other pollutants, and we have old-fashioned ways of doing it, 
very modern technology is being applied. As an example, we all know 
there is a big problem in some parts of America where arsenic which is 
found in the normal topography, normal ground of the surrounding area 
and has been consumed by whoever lived there for years with no harm--we 
are going to have to remove it now to some very minuscule content per 
thousand gallons. In order to do that the old-fashioned way, the costs 
are enormous. But believe it or not, because of science, we might be 
able to do that job--albeit some of it should not have to be done at 
all--for a tenth of the cost.
  We are hopeful that same new breed of technology will apply to taking 
salt out of inland water or ocean water.
  Mr. President, as I say, I rise today to introduce a bill that has 
the potential to supply vast quantities of water to a thirsty New 
Mexico and a number of Western States. New Mexico and the West face a 
critical lack of water, but through the program contained in my bill, 
the faucets could be ready to flow.
  Most Western States already have large quantities of water. However, 
the water contains such high levels of salt that it is simply unusable. 
My bill proposes to turn untapped resource into potable water that 
cities, towns, farmers, industry, and nature can use to meet their 
needs. This bill provides the opportunity for use to utilize brand new 
technology that may save the West.
  This piece of legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
undertake a desalination demonstration program in the Tularosa Basin 
located in southern New Mexico. Additionally, it requires collaboration 
between the Bureau of Reclamation, an established leader in 
desalination research and development, and the Department of Energy. 
Our national laboratories are at the forefront of science in many areas 
including water technology. The collaboration between these two 
departments would bring together the best minds and the most 
experienced technicians. This bill would further task the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Department of Energy with evaluating current 
technology, advising on how to proceed with additional research, 
developing a research plan and confirming project and operation costs 
in a real-world application. Finally, the bill authorizes the building 
of a facility where advances in technology could be tested.
  The bill authorizes appropriations of $1.5 million for development of 
a desalination technology plan which will utilize the experiences of 
present facilities and programs to build the facility and guide its 
research. It further authorizes $30 million to construct the 
desalination facility, $6 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
2010 for research programs at Sandia National Lab associated with the 
facility, and $10 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
2010 for research and development of desalination technologies.
  Only 3 percent of the world's water is fresh and much of that is 
stored in the ice that caps the Earth's poles. We must develop the 
technology to economically utilize the rest of that water. Today, most 
of the world's desalination plants are applied to sea water. As I 
states before, much of the west and, indeed, the Nation, sits on saline 
aquifers. The facility I propose will develop and test the technologies 
to best access and utilize this inland water.
  Currently, Sandia National Lab and the Department of the Interior are 
looking for optimum sites to locate the facility and are developing a 
feasibility study for the program. The sites are all in or around the 
city of Alamogordo, NM. The designers envision a 13,000 square foot 
facility that can process up to 100,000 gallons of water per day. It 
will draw researchers from around the country and play an essential 
role in alleviating the pressures on our water resources.
  Mr. President, let me also say that I have a broader vision for what 
can be accomplished with desalination. This is only the first step. 
This is a serious issue, not only for New Mexico, but the world. More 
than half the world's population will face severe water shortages in 
the next 50 years. We must get started on this problem.
  I have no doubt that this legislation will help to push forward the 
state of the art to ensure that we have access to the most precious of 
resources. Let's take the first step.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1211

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Sec. 1. (a) Tularosa Basin Facility.--In furtherance of the 
     purposes of title XVI of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4600, 
     4663; 43 U.S.C. 390h), the Secretary of the Interior 
     (``Secretary'') shall construct, manage, and maintain a test 
     and evaluation facility (``facility'') at the Tularosa Basin, 
     located in Otero County in the State of New Mexico capable of 
     processing at least 100,000 gallons of water per day.
       (b) Objectives of Facility.--The facility shall be used to 
     carry out research on, and to test, demonstrate, and evaluate 
     new desalination technologies to produce potable water from 
     saline or other unsuitable water, including analysis of 
     effects on energy consumption, byproduct disposal, and 
     operations and maintenance costs to determine the most 
     technologically-efficient and cost-effective means to produce 
     potable water from saline or other unsuitable water using 
     desalination technologies.
       (c) Technology Plan Development.--The Secretary shall 
     contract with Sandia National Laboratory (``Sandia'') to 
     develop a desalination technology plan (``plan'') within one 
     year from the date when funds are made available for the 
     purposes of this Act. The plan shall--
       (1) be developed in consultation with the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Energy;
       (2) consider the experience of similar facilities and 
     research programs operated by the Federal government and by 
     other research institutions; and
       (3) include recommendations for the siting and 
     configuration of the facility and the research and 
     development program to be undertaken at the facility.
       (d) Review of Plan.--The Secretary shall review the plan 
     and may modify or change any recommendation after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
       (e) Construction of Facility.--Within three years from the 
     date of completion of the plan, the Secretary shall construct 
     the facility in accordance with the recommendations contained 
     in the plan, including any modifications or changes. The 
     Secretary may contract with other Federal agencies, State 
     agencies, educational institutions, and private entities for 
     construction of the facility.
       (f) Memorandum of Agreement for Operation.--The Secretary 
     and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into a Memorandum of 
     Agreement for the operation of the facility and the conduct 
     of research under this Act. Research may be conducted at the 
     facility and may also be carried out at any laboratory 
     facility determined to be suitable by Sandia. The Secretary 
     and the Secretary of

[[Page 14090]]

     Energy shall establish a technical advisory panel drawn from 
     Federal or State agencies, academic institutions, and private 
     or public entities to provide program guidance and technical 
     assistance in the operation of the facility and conduct of 
     research.
       (g) Provision of Water.--The Secretary shall dispose of all 
     water produced by the facility under contract with one or 
     more communities located in Otero County, New Mexico where 
     the water would be supplementary to water provided by public 
     water systems or wells in the communities and only after 
     Sandia notifies the Secretary that the water is of a 
     consistent, reliable quality. The water shall be provided at 
     no cost to the local community except for the costs of 
     conveyance and delivery.
       Sec. 2. Research and Development Program.--The Secretary 
     and the Secretary of Energy may undertake research and 
     development of desalination technologies in addition to the 
     program carried out at the facility directly or by contract, 
     interagency agreement, cooperative agreement, or grant. Any 
     agreement or grant may be made only on the basis of a 
     competitive, merit-reviewed process. The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Energy may carry out the program at a location 
     outside the United States after consultation with and 
     approval by the Secretary of State.
       Sec. 3. Authorization of Appropriations.--Appropriations 
     may be made to the Secretary and to the Secretary of Energy. 
     There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, but not to 
     exceed--
       (1) $1,500,000 for development of the plan under section 
     1(c);
       (2) $30,000,000 (January 2003 price levels), plus or minus 
     such amounts, if any, as may be required by reason of 
     ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by 
     engineering cost indexes applicable to the types of 
     construction involved for the construction of the facility;
       (3) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010 
     for transfer to Sandia to carry out research programs 
     associated with the facility; and
       (4) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010 
     for research and development activities under section 2 of 
     which not more than $1,500,000 in any fiscal year may be for 
     research undertaken directly by the Secretary and not more 
     than $1,000,000 in any fiscal year may be for grants to 
     institutions of higher education (including United States-
     Mexico binational research foundations and interuniversity 
     research programs established by the 2 countries).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1212. A bill to identify certain sites as key resources for 
protection by the Directorate for Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, and 
for other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill, to identify certain sites as key resources for protection by 
the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 
of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1212

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

     SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY RESOURCES.

       Section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Definition.--In this section, the term `key 
     resources' includes National Park Service sites identified by 
     the Secretary of the Interior as being so universally 
     recognized as symbols of the United States and so heavily 
     visited by the American and international public that such 
     sites would likely be identified as targets of terrorist 
     attacks, including--
       ``(1) the Statue of Liberty National Monument in New York 
     Harbor;
       ``(2) Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
       ``(3) the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri;
       ``(4) Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, South 
     Dakota; and
       ``(5) memorials and monuments in the District of 
     Columbia.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (by request):
  S. 1213. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the 
ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve benefits for 
Filipino veterans of World War II and survivors of such veterans, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, S. 1213, a proposed bill to improve the benefits for 
Filipino veterans of World War II and survivors of such veterans and 
for other purposes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has submitted 
this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letter 
dated May 12, 2003.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record, together with the transmittal letter and a section-by-section 
analysis which accompanied it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1213

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 2003''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment or repeal to a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF FILIPINO VETERANS FOR HEALTH CARE IN 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       Health Care.--Section 1734 is amended as follows:
       ``(a) The Secretary, within the limits of Department 
     facilities, shall furnish hospital and nursing home care and 
     medical services to an individual identified in subsection 
     (b) in the same manner as provided for under section 1710 of 
     this title.
       ``(b) An individual covered under subsection (a) of this 
     section includes:
       ``(1) a Commonwealth Army veteran; and
       ``(2) a new Philippine Scout.

     ``who is residing in the United States and is a citizen of, 
     or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the 
     United States.''

     SEC. 3. RATE OF PAYMENT OF BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FILIPINO 
                   VETERANS AND THEIR SURVIVORS RESIDING IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Rate of Payment.--Section 107 is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``Payments'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection 
     (c), payments''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by inserting ``and subchapter II of chapter 13 (except 
     section 1312(a)) of this title'' after chapter 11 of this 
     title'';
       (B) by striking ``in subsection (a)'' and inserting ``in 
     subsection (a) or (b)''; and
       (C) by striking ``of subsection (a)'' and inserting ``of 
     the applicable subsection''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to benefits paid for months beginning after 
     that date.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE REGIONAL OFFICE IN 
                   THE PHILIPPINES.

       Subsection (b) of section 315 is amended by striking 
     ``2003'' and inserting ``2008''.

     SEC. 5. BURIAL BENEFITS FOR NEW PHILIPPINE SCOUTS RESIDING IN 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Benefit Eligibility.--Section 107 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' and inserting a comma; and
       (B) by inserting ``, 23, and 24 (to the extent provided for 
     in section 2402(8))'' after ``(except section 1312(a))'';
       (2) in the second sentence of subsection (b), as amended by 
     section 3 of this Act, by inserting ``or (d)'' after 
     ``subsection (c)'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``or (b), as 
     otherwise applicable,'' after ``subsection (a)''; and
       (4) in section (d)(2), by inserting ``or whose service is 
     described in subsection (b) and who dies after the date of 
     the enactment of the Filipino Veterans Benefits Act of 
     2003,'' after ``November 1, 2000,''.
       (b) National Cemetery Interment.--Section 2402(8) is 
     amended by inserting ``or (b)'' after ``section 107(a)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 14091]]

     
                                  ____
                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2003.
     Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To 
     amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits for 
     Filipino veterans of World War II and survivors of such 
     veterans, and for other purposes.'' We request that it be 
     referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     consideration and enactment.
       The draft bill would extend health care benefits to certain 
     Filipino veterans residing legally in the United States. It 
     would also eliminate an inequity in statutory payment rates 
     between Filipino veterans and their survivors who legally 
     reside in the United States and other veterans and their 
     survivors living in the United States.
       More specifically, section 2 of the draft bill would amend 
     38 U.S.C. Sec. 1734 to require the Secretary, within the 
     limits of Department facilities, to provide hospitals and 
     nursing home care and medical services to Commonwealth Army 
     veterans and to new Philippine Scouts in the same manner as 
     provided under section 1710, if such individuals reside 
     legally in the United States. Currently, both Commonwealth 
     Army veterans and new Philippine Scouts are eligible for 
     treatment of service-connected disabilities within the limit 
     of Department facilities. However, Commonwealth Army veterans 
     are also eligible for treatment of non service-connected 
     disabilities in the same manner as a veteran, if they are in 
     receipt of certain compensation and reside legally in the 
     United States. The proposal would extend to new Philippine 
     Scouts who reside legally in the United States the same 
     eligibility for medical care and services of non service-
     connected disabilities that currently exists for Commonwealth 
     Army veterans, while eliminating the receipt-of-compensation 
     requirement for these veterans and scouts. It would also 
     apply the facilities-resources limitation to all care 
     furnished under this section. The Department estimates that 
     costs associated with enactment of this proposal would be 
     $16,228,000 for Fiscal Year 2004. The projected costs would 
     be $73,678,000 over a five-year period, and $130,265,000 over 
     a ten-year period. The Department will offset the 
     discretionary costs of this proposal with available de-
     obligations of prior year Medical Care Collection Fund 
     balances.
       Section 3 of the draft bill would, in the case of 
     compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation 
     (``DIC'') paid by reason of service in the new Philippine 
     Scouts, and in the case of DIC paid by reason of service in 
     the organized military forces of the Government of the 
     Commonwealth of the Philippines, including organized guerilla 
     units, remove the current $0.50 on-the-dollar limitation if 
     the individual to whom the benefits are payable resides in 
     the United States and is either a citizen of the United 
     States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     in the United States. The amendments made by section 3 would 
     take effect on the date of enactment of the Act and apply to 
     benefits paid for months beginning after that date.
       Section 107(a) of title 38, United States Code, generally 
     provides that service before July 1, 1946, in the organized 
     military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the 
     Philippines, including organized guerilla units, may in some 
     circumstances be a basis for entitlement to disability 
     compensation, DIC, monetary burial benefits, and certain 
     other benefits under title 38, United States Code, but that 
     payment of such benefits will be at the rate of $0.50 for 
     each collar authorized. Similarly, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 107(b) 
     generally provides that service in the Philippine Scouts 
     under section 14 of the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment 
     Act of 1945, i.e., service in the new Philippine Scouts, may 
     be a basis for entitlement to disability compensation, DIC, 
     and certain other benefits under title 38, United States 
     Code, but that payment of such benefits will be at the rate 
     of $0.50 for each dollar authorized.
       These limitations on benefit payments to certain Filipino 
     beneficiaries were intended to reflect the differing economic 
     conditions in the Philippines and the United States. These 
     limitations were not made contingent, in any respect, on the 
     place of residence of the beneficiary, although, when the 
     limitations were established, the great majority of affected 
     individuals resided in the Philippines. Through the years, 
     numerous Filipino veterans and their dependents and survivors 
     have immigrated to this country, and many have become 
     permanent residents or citizens. It became evident that the 
     policy considerations underlying the restrictions on payment 
     of compensation and DIC to the affected individuals are no 
     longer relevant in the case of those who reside in the United 
     States. VA realized that Filipino beneficiaries residing in 
     the United States face living expenses comparable to United 
     States veterans and that limiting the payment of these 
     subsistence benefits to these individuals based on policy 
     considerations applicable to Philippine residents is not only 
     inequitable, but may result in undue hardships to these 
     beneficiaries.
       Section 501(a) of Public Law 106-377, enacted in October 
     2000, added subsection (c) to section 107, providing that, in 
     the case of disability compensation paid by reason of service 
     in the organized military forces of the Government of the 
     commonwealth of the Philippines, including organized guerilla 
     forces, the $0.50 on-the-dollar limitation would not apply if 
     the individual to whom the benefits are payable resides in 
     the United States and is either a citizen of the United 
     States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 
     However, the statute left unchanged the $0.50 on-the-dollar 
     limitation on the payment of DIC for all Filipino veterans 
     and compensation for new Philippine Scouts regardless of the 
     recipient's place of residence.
       In the case of those Filipino veterans and their dependents 
     and survivors who reside in the United States and therefore 
     face living expenses comparable to United States veterans and 
     their dependents and survivors, limiting the payment of 
     subsistence benefits based on policy considerations 
     applicable to Philippine residents is inequitable and may 
     result in undue hardships to those beneficiaries. A change in 
     law such as that provided in Public Law 106-377 is justified 
     in the case of compensation and DIC payable to United States 
     residents based on service in the new Philippine Scouts and 
     DIC payable to United States residents based on service in 
     the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including organized 
     guerilla units. Thus, we propose that the $0.50-on-the-dollar 
     limitation contained in section 107 be eliminated in the case 
     of disability compensation and DIC payments to all Filipino 
     veterans and their survivors who legally reside in the United 
     States.
       We estimate that section 3, if enacted, would increase 
     benefit costs by $2.9 million in the first year and $45.6 
     million cumulatively for ten years. VA has determined that 
     general-operating-expense costs for this proposal would be 
     insignificant. This provision was included in the FY 2004 
     Budget.
       Section 4 of the draft bill would extend until December 31, 
     2008, the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 315(b) to operate a regional office in 
     the Republic of the Philippines. Under current law, that 
     authority will expire on December 31, 2003. Congress has 
     periodically extended this authority, most recently in Public 
     Law 106-117.
       Were VA to close the Manila regional office, veterans' 
     assistance activities would still be needed in the 
     Philippines. A Federal Benefits Unit would have to be 
     attached to the Department of State. Under such an 
     arrangement, VA's control of costs and quality of service 
     would be limited. Because a Federal Benefits Unit would 
     assume responsibility only for disseminating information and 
     assistance, but not processing benefits, there could be no 
     assurance that the extensive fraud-preventive activities 
     currently performed by the Manila regional office would 
     continue. This provision was included in the FY 2004 Budget.
       Section 5 of the draft bill would extend eligibility for 
     national cemetery burial to new Philippine Scouts who 
     lawfully reside in the United States. This section would also 
     extend eligibility for other in-kind burial benefits and 
     monetary burial benefits to new Philippine Scouts lawfully 
     residing in the United states on the same basis as such 
     benefits are provided under current law to persons who served 
     in the organized military forces of the Government of the 
     Commonwealth of the Philippines, including organized 
     guerrilla units (Commonwealth Army veterans).
       Under current 38 U.S.C. Sec. 107, Commonwealth Army 
     veterans who lawfully reside in the United States are 
     eligible for national cemetery burial and are eligible for 
     monetary burial benefits at the full-dollar rate if at the 
     time of death they are receiving VA disability compensation 
     or would have been receiving VA pension but for their lack of 
     qualifying service. Section 5 would extend these benefits to 
     new Philippine Scouts who live in the United States. We 
     believe provision of these same benefits to new Philippine 
     Scouts who reside in the United States is equitable because 
     the service of new Philippine Scouts is also worthy of 
     recognition and new Philippine Scouts living in the Unites 
     States face the same cost of living as other Filipino 
     veterans who live in the United States. Enactment of this 
     provision is consistent with VA's goal of achieving parity in 
     the provision of veterans' benefits among similarly situated 
     Filipino beneficiaries.
       We estimate the cost associated with national-cemetery-
     burial eligibility for new Philippine Scouts would be $3,600 
     for one year, $16,700 for five years, and $35,300 for ten 
     years. We estimate the costs of providing full-rate monetary 
     burial benefits to new Philippine Scouts lawfully residing in 
     the United States on the same basis as these benefits are 
     provided to Commonwealth Army veterans would be $4,000 for 
     one year, $16,000 for five years, and $32,000 for ten years.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the transmission of this bill and that its 
     enactment would be in accord with the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Anthony J. Principi,

[[Page 14092]]

     
                                  ____
                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                               Section 1

       Section 1(a) of the draft bill would provide that the short 
     title of this Act be the ``Filipino Veterans' Benefits Act of 
     2003''.
       Section 1(b) would provide that amendments or repeals in 
     this Act be considered references to a section or other 
     provision of title 38, United States Code.


                               Section 2

       Section 2 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1734 to require the 
     Secretary, within the limits of Department facilities, to 
     provide hospital and nursing home care and medical services 
     to Commonwealth Army veterans and to new Philippine Scouts in 
     the same manner as provided under section 1710, if such 
     individuals reside legally in the United States. Currently, 
     both Commonwealth Army veterans and new Philippine Scouts are 
     eligible for treatment of service-connected disabilities 
     within the limits of Department facilities. However, 
     Commonwealth Army veterans are also eligible for treatment of 
     non service-connected disabilities in the same manner as a 
     veteran if they are in receipt of certain compensation and 
     reside legally in the United States. The proposal would 
     extend to new Philippine Scouts who reside legally in the 
     United States the same eligibility for medical care and 
     services that currently exists for Commonwealth Army 
     veterans, while eliminating the receipt of compensation 
     requirements for the veterans and scouts. It would also apply 
     the facilities-resources limitation to all care furnished 
     under this section. The Department estimates that costs 
     associated with enactment of this proposal would be 
     $16,228,000 for Fiscal Year 2004. The projected costs would 
     be $73,678,000 over a five-year period, and $130,265,000 over 
     a ten-year period.


                               Section 3

       Section 3 would, in the case of compensation and dependency 
     and indemnity compensation (``DIC'') paid by reason of 
     service in the new Philippine Scouts, and in the case of DIC 
     paid by reason of service in the organized military forces of 
     the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, 
     including organized guerrilla units, remove the current $0.50 
     on-the-dollar limitation if the individual to whom the 
     benefits are payable resides in the United States and is 
     either a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in the United States. These 
     amendments would take effect on the date of enactment of the 
     Act and apply to benefits paid for months beginning after 
     that date. This provision was included in the FY 2004 Budget.


                               Section 4

       Section 4 would extend until December 31, 2008, the 
     authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 38 
     U.S.C. Sec. 315(b) to operate a regional office in the 
     Republic of the Philippines. This provision was included in 
     the FY 2004 Budget.


                               section 5

       Section 5(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 107 to extend 
     eligibility for national cemetery burial to new Philippine 
     Scouts who lawfully reside in the United States and to extend 
     eligibility for other in-kind burial benefits and monetary 
     burial benefits to new Philippine Scouts who lawfully reside 
     in the United States on the same basis as such benefits are 
     provided under current law to Commonwealth Army veterans. 
     Section 5(b) makes a conforming amendment to section 38 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2402(8), which authorizes national cemetery 
     burial for certain Filipino veterans. Section 5(c) provides 
     that the amendments made by this section shall apply with 
     respect to deaths occurring after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1214. A bill to provide a partially refundable tax credit for 
caregiving related expenses; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Family 
Caregiver Relief Act of 2003--my legislation to help those who face the 
crushing consequences of caring for a chronically ill family member. 
While we stand up for America, we must also stand up for what America 
stands for. That means strengthening the safety net for those who need 
it most. That means standing up for American families.
  Families are hurting. The economy is weak. Many are holding down two 
jobs to make ends meet, going into debt to put kids through college, or 
finding and paying for health insurance.
  Some families are facing extraordinary challenges. They are caring 
for a loved one with special needs which could be a child with autism, 
or cerebral palsy, a parent with alzheimer's, or a spouse with multiple 
sclerosis. These families struggle every day to take care of their 
loved ones.
  I want to give help to those who practice self-help. My bill would 
provide a tax credit of up to $5,000 for family caregivers. This tax 
credit would help people pay for prescription drugs, home health care, 
specialized day care, respite care, transportation to chronic care or 
medical facilities, specialized therapy, including occupational, 
physical, or rehabilitational therapy, and other specialized services 
for children, including day care for children with special needs.
  Family caregivers face so many stresses--emotional, physical, and 
financial stresses of caregiving. They face long days, supporting a 
family--while caring for a loved one with a chronic condition. A dad 
might have to work two jobs to meet the costs of care which places 
strains on marriage and relationships with other family members.
  Caregivers also face high costs for medications, home health care, 
adult day care, physical therapy, durable medical equipment like a 
wheelchair, day care for children with special needs, and medical bills 
from care with specialists.
  People who care for chronically ill family must patch together 
whatever care they can afford. Too often they go into debt, use their 
college accounts or their retirement savings or go without the care 
their loved ones need.
  I have heard from families from around Maryland who are facing these 
strains, who are trying to make ends meet, and who are caring for a 
loved one who is chronically ill or needs assistance with activities of 
daily living.
  The Hart family from Baltimore has a 2 year old son named Jackson who 
was born with severe brain abnormalities. He has the motor skill 
development of a 4 month old. He has daily seizures, so he needs total, 
round the clock care. The emotional cost of caring for a severely 
disabled child are incalculable and the financial costs are crushing. 
For the Harts, the costs include: $650 a month for day care for 
medically fragile children; $1,400 for a wheel chair; and, $700 for a 
special shower chair--since Jackson can't sit up in the bath. My 
proposal would help them meet these costs by providing them with a tax 
credit of $2,750.
  I know of a couple in Baltimore where the wife is in the final stages 
of Alzheimers. She was a school teacher and once spoke 5 languages. 
Now, she can only say a few words. She needs 24 hours-a-day care which 
costs almost three thousand dollars a month. Their retirement savings 
are gone though this couple is only in their early sixties. My bill 
would only provide a tax credit of five thousand to this couple. I know 
that this would help this couple as they face the challenges of her 
final days.
  My last example is a woman in Potomac, MD who is caring for her 
husband who has multiple sclerosis. He can no longer talk, walk, stand 
or feed himself. She works full time to support them and cobbles 
together whatever home care she can afford. She is not able to afford 
respite care to run errands, or take herself to the doctor. This couple 
made a commitment in sickness or in health.
  These are just a few examples of the stresses facing thousands of 
American families. One in five Americans has multiple chronic 
conditions. About 26 million people in this country care for a family 
member who is chronically ill or disabled.
  My legislation is supported by groups who see everyday the human cost 
of family caregiving, including: Autism Society of America; Cystic 
Fibrosis Foundation; National Organization for Rare Disorders; Easter 
Seals; United Cerebral Palsy Associations; Arc of the United States; 
National Health Council; National Council on the Aging; Paralyzed 
Veterans of America; Family Voices; National Respite Coalition; 
National Family Caregivers Association; and National Alliance for 
Caregiving.
  One of my first milestones in the Senate was the enactment of the 
Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act to change the cruel rules of Medicaid 
so that families would not have to go bankrupt before Medicaid would 
pay for nursing home care for a spouse. Under this law, the spouse 
living in the community could keep the family

[[Page 14093]]

home, keep a car, and keep some income each month to live on. This law 
helped one million people. But this was only a down payment.
  Not much has been done since then except the National Family 
Caregiver Support Program and long-term care insurance for Federal 
employees. I was proud to sponsor and work on both of these bills on a 
bipartisan basis to get them signed into law.
  Now it is time to help family caregivers. They are the backbone of 
the long term care system in this country. They must be a priority in 
the Federal law books and the tax code.
  I thank Senators Clinton, Corzine, Sarbanes, Johnson, Lautenberg, 
Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Dayton, and Harkin for cosponsoring the 
Family Caregiver Relief Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1214

       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 ``Family Caregiver Relief Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Allowance of Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 24(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of child 
     tax credit) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the per child amount multiplied by the number of 
     qualifying children of the taxpayer, plus
       ``(B) the sum of the eligible expenses of the taxpayer, not 
     compensated by insurance or otherwise, for each applicable 
     individual with respect to whom the taxpayer is an eligible 
     caregiver for the taxable year.''.
       (2) Limitation.--Section 24(b) of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4), respectively, and by inserting before paragraph 
     (2) (as redesignated by this paragraph) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B) shall not exceed $5,000 for any taxable year.''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 24(d)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (b)(3)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(4)''.
       (B) The heading for section 24 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 24. FAMILY CARE CREDIT.''.

       (C) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 24 and inserting the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 24. Family care credit.''.
       (b) Eligible Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) 
     as subsections (c) through (g), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Eligible Expenses.--For the purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `eligible expenses' means 
     expenses incurred by the taxpayer for--
       ``(A) medical care (as defined in section 213(d)(1) without 
     regard to subparagraph (D) thereof),
       ``(B) lodging away from home in accordance with section 
     213(d)(2),
       ``(C) adult day care,
       ``(D) custodial care,
       ``(E) respite care, and
       ``(F) other specialized services for children, including 
     day care for children with special needs.
       ``(2) Adult day care.--The term `adult day care' means care 
     provided for adults with functional or cognitive impairments 
     through a structured, community-based group program which 
     provides health, social, and other related support services 
     on a less than 24-hour per day basis.
       ``(3) Custodial care.--The term `custodial care' means 
     reasonable personal care services provided to assist with 
     daily living and which do not require the skills of qualified 
     technical or professional personnel.
       ``(4) Respite care.--The term `respite care' means planned 
     or emergency care provided to an applicable individual in 
     order to provide temporary relief to an eligible 
     caregiver.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 24(e)(1) of such Code (relating to portion of 
     credit refundable), as redesignated by paragraph (1) and as 
     amended by subsection (a)(3)(A), is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (b)(4)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)(4)''.
       (B) Section 501(c)(26) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 24(c)'' and inserting ``section 24(d)''.
       (C) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 24(d)'' and inserting ``section 24(e)''.
       (D) Section 6213(g)(2)(I) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 24(e)'' and inserting ``section 24(f)''.
       (c) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by subsection 
     (b)(1), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualifying child.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualifying child' means any 
     individual if--
       ``(i) the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151 
     with respect to such individual for the taxable year,
       ``(ii) such individual has not attained the age of 17 as of 
     the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year of 
     the taxpayer begins, and
       ``(iii) such individual bears a relationship to the 
     taxpayer described in section 32(c)(3)(B).
       ``(B) Exception for certain noncitizens.--The term 
     `qualifying child' shall not include any individual who would 
     not be a dependent if the first sentence of section 152(b)(3) 
     were applied without regard to all that follows `resident of 
     the United States'.
       ``(2) Applicable individual.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `applicable individual' means, 
     with respect to any taxable year, any individual who has been 
     certified, before the due date for filing the return of tax 
     for the taxable year (without extensions), by a physician (as 
     defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Social Security Act) as 
     being an individual with long-term care needs described in 
     subparagraph (B) for a period--
       ``(i) which is at least 180 consecutive days, and
       ``(ii) a portion of which occurs within the taxable year.

     Such term shall not include any individual otherwise meeting 
     the requirements of the preceding sentence unless within the 
     39\1/2\ month period ending on such due date (or such other 
     period as the Secretary prescribes) a physician (as so 
     defined) has certified that such individual meets such 
     requirements.
       ``(B) Individuals with long-term care needs.--An individual 
     is described in this subparagraph if the individual meets any 
     of the following requirements:
       ``(i) The individual is at least 18 years of age and--

       ``(I) is unable to perform (without substantial assistance 
     from another individual) at least 3 activities of daily 
     living (as defined in section 7702B(c)(2)(B)) due to a loss 
     of functional capacity, or
       ``(II) requires substantial supervision to protect such 
     individual from threats to health and safety due to severe 
     cognitive impairment and is unable to perform at least 1 
     activity of daily living (as so defined) or to the extent 
     provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary (in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services), is unable to engage in age appropriate activities.

       ``(ii) The individual is at least 6 but not 18 years of age 
     and--

       ``(I) is unable to perform (without substantial assistance 
     from another individual) at least 3 activities of daily 
     living (as defined in section 7702B(c)(2)(B)) due to a loss 
     of functional capacity,
       ``(II) requires substantial supervision to protect such 
     individual from threats to health and safety due to severe 
     cognitive impairment and is unable to perform at least 1 
     activity of daily living (as so defined) or to the extent 
     provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary (in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services), is unable to engage in age appropriate activities,
       ``(III) has a level of disability similar to the level of 
     disability described in subclause (I) (as determined under 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary), or
       ``(IV) has a complex medical condition (as defined by the 
     Secretary) that requires medical management and coordination 
     of care.

       ``(iii) The individual is at least 2 but not 6 years of age 
     and--

       ``(I) is unable due to a loss of functional capacity to 
     perform (without substantial assistance from another 
     individual) at least 2 of the following activities: eating, 
     transferring, or mobility,
       ``(II) has a level of disability similar to the level of 
     disability described in subclause (I) (as determined under 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary), or
       ``(III) has a complex medical condition (as defined by the 
     Secretary) that requires medical management and coordination 
     of care.

       ``(iv) The individual is under 2 years of age and--

       ``(I) requires specific durable medical equipment by reason 
     of a severe health condition or requires a skilled 
     practitioner trained to address the individual's condition to 
     be available if the individual's parents or guardians are 
     absent,
       ``(II) has a level of disability similar to the level of 
     disability described in subclause (I)

[[Page 14094]]

     (as determined under regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary), or
       ``(III) has a complex medical condition (as defined by the 
     Secretary) that requires medical management and coordination 
     of care.

       ``(v) The individual has 5 or more chronic conditions (as 
     defined in subparagraph (C)) and is unable to perform 
     (without substantial assistance from another individual) at 
     least 1 activity of daily living (as so defined) due to a 
     loss of functional capacity.
       ``(C) Chronic condition.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `chronic condition' means a condition that lasts for 
     at least 6 consecutive months and requires ongoing medical 
     care.
       ``(3) Eligible caregiver.--
       ``(A) In general.--A taxpayer shall be treated as an 
     eligible caregiver for any taxable year with respect to the 
     following individuals:
       ``(i) The taxpayer.
       ``(ii) The taxpayer's spouse.
       ``(iii) An individual with respect to whom the taxpayer is 
     allowed a deduction under section 151 for the taxable year.
       ``(iv) An individual who would be described in clause (iii) 
     for the taxable year if section 151(c)(1)(A) were applied by 
     substituting for the exemption amount an amount equal to the 
     sum of the exemption amount, the standard deduction under 
     section 63(c)(2)(C), and any additional standard deduction 
     under section 63(c)(3) which would be applicable to the 
     individual if clause (iii) applied.
       ``(v) An individual who would be described in clause (iii) 
     for the taxable year if--

       ``(I) the requirements of clause (iv) are met with respect 
     to the individual, and
       ``(II) the requirements of subparagraph (B) are met with 
     respect to the individual in lieu of the support test of 
     section 152(a).

       ``(B) Residency test.--The requirements of this 
     subparagraph are met if an individual has as such 
     individual's principal place of abode the home of the 
     taxpayer and--
       ``(i) in the case of an individual who is an ancestor or 
     descendant of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse, is a 
     member of the taxpayer's household for over half the taxable 
     year, or
       ``(ii) in the case of any other individual, is a member of 
     the taxpayer's household for the entire taxable year.
       ``(C) Special rules where more than 1 eligible caregiver.--
       ``(i) In general.--If more than 1 individual is an eligible 
     caregiver with respect to the same applicable individual for 
     taxable years ending with or within the same calendar year, a 
     taxpayer shall be treated as the eligible caregiver if each 
     such individual (other than the taxpayer) files a written 
     declaration (in such form and manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe) that such individual will not claim such 
     applicable individual for the credit under this section.
       ``(ii) No agreement.--If each individual required under 
     clause (i) to file a written declaration under clause (i) 
     does not do so, the individual with the highest modified 
     adjusted gross income (as defined in section 32(c)(5)) shall 
     be treated as the eligible caregiver.
       ``(iii) Married individuals filing separately.--In the case 
     of married individuals filing separately, the determination 
     under this subparagraph as to whether the husband or wife is 
     the eligible caregiver shall be made under the rules of 
     clause (ii) (whether or not one of them has filed a written 
     declaration under clause (i)).''.
       (d) Identification Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 24(f) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to identification requirement), as 
     redesignated by subsection(b)(1), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section to a taxpayer with respect to any 
     applicable individual unless the taxpayer includes the name 
     and taxpayer identification number of such individual, and 
     the identification number of the physician certifying such 
     individual, on the return of tax for the taxable year.''.
       (2) Assessment.--Section 6213(g)(2)(I) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or physician identification'' after 
     ``correct TIN'', and
       (B) by striking ``child tax'' and inserting ``family 
     care''.
       (e) Denial of Double Benefit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 213(e) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion of amounts allowed for 
     care of certain dependents) is amended by inserting ``or 
     section 24'' after ``section 21''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 213(e) of 
     such Code is amended by inserting ``Long-Term Care or'' after 
     ``for''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the later of 
     December 31, 2003, or the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1217. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to expand and intensify programs with respect to research and related 
activities concerning elder falls; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, walking--climbing the stairs--reaching for 
an object or a needed item on a shelf. They're all things we do and 
take for granted every day. But for many of our Nation's elderly, they 
are a constant source of anxiety and apprehension.
  Anyone who has an elderly parent, relative or friend who lives alone 
knows the concern that is often raised when a phone call placed to them 
goes unanswered. Our first and immediate reaction is often worry 
because we know that for many of our Nation's elderly, a fall can 
produce a very serious injury. As the phone continues to ring we wonder 
if Mom is upstairs and can't hear the phone, or Dad is in his workshop, 
or our friend has just stepped outside to catch a breath of fresh air.
  We hang up, wait a few minutes and place our call again, often with a 
greater sense of urgency.
  This time, our concern becomes worry as we picture our loved one 
suffering from the effects of a fall, alone, with no one to help them.
  Then, when the phone is answered, a huge rush of relief overcomes us 
as we realize our fears were misplaced.
  Would that every story like that have such a happy ending. For too 
many of our Nation's elderly, however, it sometimes ends tragically as 
brittle bones and a reduction in our sense of balance becomes a formula 
for serious injury and a dramatic reduction in one's quality of life.
  Although the physical healing process after a fall can be long and 
traumatic, it often pales in comparison to the psychological effects of 
a loss of confidence--and therefore activity--of an elderly individual 
who no longer takes for granted his or her ability to walk and safely 
navigate their world without assistance or support.
  Fortunately, there are things that can be done to both reduce the 
number of these tragic falls and restore the confidence of our loved 
ones in their ability to once again lead a normal life.
  In an effort to address this issue I am introducing legislation, 
together with my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator 
Mikulski, that would take a multi-faceted approach to solving this 
problem. The Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003 will look at every 
aspect of this matter, from educating the elderly about how to ``fall-
proof'' their home, to researching the causes of most falls and trying 
to find ways both to avoid them and to provide better treatment to 
those who are recovering from them.
  In today's world, when so many of us are living longer, it is quite 
commonplace to hear of elderly friends and relatives who have fallen 
and faced the challenge of recovering from a broken bone. Almost all of 
us have had that experience, either with family or friends.
  What is less well known is that 25 percent of the elderly who sustain 
a hip fracture die within one year. On an annual basis, 40,000 people 
over age 65 visit emergency departments with traumatic brain injuries 
suffered as a result of a fall; 16,000 of those people are 
hospitalized, and 4,000 die. By the year 2030, as the baby boomer 
generation is added to the ranks of the elderly, the number of people 
over age 65 will double, potentially doubling the current elder fall 
injury statistics.
  There are also significant costs associated with such a large volume 
of fall-related injuries among our Nation's senior citizens. Direct 
costs to the Medicaid and Medicare programs alone will exceed an 
estimated $32 billion in the year 2020.
  The Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003 takes a three-pronged approach 
to this problem. It will direct the Department of Health and Human 
Services to develop public education on fall prevention for the 
elderly, family members, caregivers, and others involved with the 
elderly. It further calls for an expansion of research on effective 
approaches to fall prevention and treatment. Finally, the Elder Fall 
Prevention Act requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on the 
costs of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the potential for reducing 
those costs through education, prevention and early intervention.
  A wide variety of groups support this legislation, including the 
National Safety Council, the Emergency Nurses

[[Page 14095]]

Association, the Assisted Living Federation of America, the American 
Geriatrics Society, the Brain Injury Association, the American Health 
Care Association, and many more. All of these groups should and will be 
partners in this comprehensive effort to address one of the leading 
causes of death and disability in the elderly.
  The largest generation in our Nation's history is rapidly approaching 
retirement. Passing this bill into law will mean a better quality of 
life for them and for all our Nation's elderly. It will also help us 
reduce the cost of the Medicaid and Medicare programs for all 
Americans.
  I am looking forward to working on this bill in Committee and sending 
it on to the Senate floor for a vote. The sooner we act the sooner we 
can begin to work to prevent falls and help our Nation's elderly live 
safely and in better health.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in 
introducing the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003. Falls are a serious 
public health problem that affect millions of seniors each year. This 
bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors 
safe and in their own homes longer.
  The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 
65 falls every year. In 2000, over 10,200 seniors died and 
approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a 
result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among 
seniors, accounting for 64,000 traumatic brain injuries and 340,000 hip 
fractures each year. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, 
and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. 
By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more 
than $32 billion.
  These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for 
seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Kay Graham was 
the victim of a fall. Many of us have friends or relatives who have 
fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, 
emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on 
her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would 
likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent 
chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result 
of her injuries.
  Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Aging on the 
problem of elder falls. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Lillie 
Marie Struchen, a 91-year-old woman who had recently fallen in her 
bathroom when she slipped on the tile. Lillie Marie could not reach the 
panic button in her apartment, and it took her some time before she 
could get to her feet and call for help. Lillie Marie was lucky. She 
recovered from her fall and returned to her normal routines. She shared 
with the Subcommittee some steps that she and her family had taken to 
prevent future falls, knowing that she may not be so lucky next time.
  These falls, like the ones that Lillie Marie and thousands of others 
suffer from each year, can be prevented. With some help, there are 
simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make 
a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the 
bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones 
that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well-trained 
pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not 
interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance.
  That's what this legislation is about--getting behind our Nation's 
seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill 
creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and 
health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research 
on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve 
the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This 
legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on 
Medicare and Medicaid, to look at potentially reducing costs by 
expanding coverage to include fall-related services.
  Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, 
healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of 
the National Safety Council and has been supported in the past by over 
30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to 
working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

                          ____________________