[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14774-14783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Allard, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1245. A bill to provide for homeland security grant coordination 
and simplification, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and 
strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first 
responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number 
of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, 
Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.
  Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland 
Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the 
Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland 
security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions 
the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a 
result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates 
billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from 
the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on 
how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be 
allocated for another day. Today is that day.
  Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders 
of State and local officials across America, especially our first 
responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on 
the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with 
constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also 
listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland 
Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at 
the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the 
legislation we introduce today.
  At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our 
firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical 
technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our 
communities.
  Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the 
Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received 
little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also 
underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many 
law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, 
ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations 
about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of 
coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.
  Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the 
ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, 
communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to 
help first responders get the resources they need.
  Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way 
the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs 
are organized within the Department, and the way the Department 
distributes these grants.
  The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who 
expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and 
simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.

[[Page 14775]]

  Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of 
homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may 
be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of 
forms and planning documents.
  Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, 
outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the 
Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can 
access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six 
different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two 
Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, 
FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State 
homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these 
grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under 
no requirement to coordinate their efforts.
  While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate 
programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick 
and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and 
localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or 
directly to the local level.
  I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on 
this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local 
organizations including the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which 
have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through 
States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the 
local level.
  Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our 
front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate 
duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to 
apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide 
homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to 
homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the 
approach we have taken.
  The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of 
coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and 
localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well-
marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that 
enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to 
emergencies.
  Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland 
security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security 
funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse 
to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing 
homeland security grant information and other resources within the new 
department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security 
grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability 
and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security 
best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security 
equipment purchased with Federal funds.
  The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on 
existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides 
funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a 
competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to 
continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate 
its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make 
sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE 
Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of 
communications equipment.
  The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by 
simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland 
security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.
  The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State 
and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step 
odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant 
program. And this program is just one of several homeland security 
grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department 
can apply.
  The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from 
twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency 
responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that 
outlines vulner-
abilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to 
meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development 
of measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of 
local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. 
Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, 
which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.
  This legislation would ensure that local government officials and 
first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning 
process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an 
efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these 
resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant 
allocation.
  When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about 
the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the 
area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland 
security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's 
firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at 
the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the 
overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at 
the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.
  Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be 
used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but 
also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.
  Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have 
critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This 
legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total 
funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. 
While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct 
funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this 
legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness 
Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency 
management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under 
this program.
  While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our 
Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant 
program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security 
assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not 
based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments 
undertaken for each State.
  Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland 
security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. 
Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities 
answering the same question six different ways.
  That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by 
requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards 
to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.
  When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, 
they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant 
programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure 
communities across our State.
  In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's 
homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each 
State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus 
leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In 
allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that

[[Page 14776]]

Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security 
dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus 
funds from one category to another to meet their needs.
  As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland 
Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula 
used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all 
States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland 
security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this 
legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that 
have already been appropriated but remain unspent.
  The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. 
Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of 
dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and 
with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of 
cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight 
path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the 
mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line 
defenders.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to 
build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months 
and years ahead.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, 
Ms. Collins, in introducing the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act 
of 2003, legislation that greatly improves the method currently used to 
distribute much-needed first responder aid.
  When my colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee worked 
last year under Senator Lieberman's leadership to create the Department 
of Homeland Security, we all hoped that what we were setting up would 
help the Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to 
terrorist attacks. As of March 1st of this year, we have in place the 
skeleton of an organization that aims to pull together under one roof 
information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to 
improve security and prepare first responders.
  As I've pointed out a number of times, however, no matter how well 
Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal level, we will not be much 
safer than we were on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders 
are better prepared to do their work on the local level. While homeland 
security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally 
important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each 
State and its first responders with the assistance necessary to ensure 
that the citizens they serve are adequately protected. The Homeland 
Security Grant Enhancement Act is an important step toward making this 
happen.
  Today, States, localities and first responders can receive Federal 
assistance from a number of different aid programs administered by 
several different agencies. All of the programs serve different 
purposes and require different applications. The Homeland Security 
Grant Enhancement Act sets up a process to streamline these programs to 
allow them to work well together and avoid imposing redundant or 
duplicative requirements on applicants. The aim is not to eliminate 
programs, but to ensure that existing homeland security and homeland 
security-related grant programs are well coordinated and impose as 
small an administrative burden on applicants as possible.
  The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also creates a ``one-stop 
shop'' for grant information within the Department of Homeland Security 
by moving the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, the agency within 
the Department of Homeland Security charged with administering the 
current state homeland security grant program, from the Directorate for 
Border and Transportation Security to the Office for State and Local 
Government Coordination. In its new location, ODP will operate a 
``clearinghouse'' for grant information that would offer services such 
as a toll-free hotline and a list of recommended first responder 
equipment. ODP will also maintain a compilation of ``best practices'' 
made up of successful homeland security programs from across the 
country and offer states technical assistance in developing the 
terrorism risk assessments that will be a part of the new State grant 
program.
  Most importantly, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also 
makes key improvements to the formula for distributing first responder 
aid among the States. The new formula maintains the requirement that 
all money go to State governments and that 80 percent of that money be 
passed through to cities and localities. It also maintains the current 
small state minimum in which each State receives an equal share of 40 
percent of funds made available for state grants. It makes a major 
improvement, however, by dividing the remaining 60 percent of the money 
among the states according to an analysis of potential threats in each 
State.
  The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the 
fact that Delaware, though small in population, is located in the 
Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the fact 
that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical 
plants. It ignores the fact that Delaware every day hosts scores of 
ships, trains and trucks on their way to destinations up and down the 
East Coast. It also ignores the fact that Delaware is home to the Dover 
Air Force Base, a facility that played a crucial role in the recent 
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with 
densely populated urban areas, enough resources to protect their larger 
populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors 
simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government 
should be working to bring every state and locality to the point where 
they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. I 
am concerned that the current formula, based mostly on population does 
not prepare all States adequately.
  The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act still requires that 
population be taken into account when distributing first responder aid. 
However, it adds the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security also account for threats and risk to critical infrastructure 
identified in State risk assessments that would be submitted to the 
department as part of the grant application process. The bill also 
ensures that all localities within States get their fair share of money 
by requiring that local leaders be included in the planning and 
application process in each state and that the distribution method a 
given state will use once it receives its money is approved by the 
department before a check is cut.
  Finally, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act gives states new 
flexibility in spending their first responder aid by incorporating 
provisions from S. 838, legislation Ms. Collins and I introduced in 
April. That bill allows States to apply for a waiver from the 
Department of Homeland Security so that they can move their first 
responder aid around between the four categories--equipment, training, 
exercises and planning--in which it is sent to them. This change will 
allow States to better meet needs identified in their State terrorism 
response plans.
  I applaud the Senator from Maine for her leadership on these 
important issues. I look forward to working with her and all of my 
colleagues in getting this important legislation passed and signed into 
law as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bond, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Levin, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Corzine, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, 
        Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1247. A bill to increase the amount to be reserved during fiscal 
year 2003

[[Page 14777]]

for sustainability grants under section 29(1) of the Small Business 
Act; considered and passed.
  Ms. SNOWE. 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. 1247

       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 ``Women's Business Centers 
     Preservation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS FOR WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

       Section 29(k)(4)(A)(iv) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 656(k)(4)(A)(iv)) is amended by striking ``30.2 
     percent'' and inserting ``36 percent''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1248. A bill to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003.
  In the past, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, 
bills received bipartisan votes at the end of a long, divisive and 
arduous process. What makes today's introduction of a bipartisan IDEA 
bill so unique is that it is bipartisan in its inception.
  The reason this is a bipartisan bill is because it strikes the 
appropriate balance between protecting the educational rights of 
children with disabilities while simultaneously making IDEA less 
litigious and compliance based. Above all, the bill is designed to 
ensure that IDEA resources are directed to help children with 
disabilities obtain the same opportunity to succeed as all other 
students.
  The bill streamlines State and local requirements to ensure that 
paperwork focuses on improved results for children with disabilities. 
By eliminating the need for an 800+ procedural checklist, these 
amendments favor the improvement of educational and functional results 
for children with disabilities over burdensome bureaucratic rules.
  The bill responds to concerns that we've heard from both parents and 
school administrators alike on how the law has evolved into a full 
employment government program for lawyers. Over and over again, we hear 
of fights about past procedural issues and technical errors instead of 
making sure that the children are being well served in the here and 
now.
  The bill includes many common sense provisions to alleviate the 
stress in disagreements between schools and parents and encourages them 
to seek out mediation to address their concerns before they move to 
formal hearings. The bill restores trust by; providing parents with 
better access to information and resources to understand their rights 
and work through conflicts; making clear that parents can request an 
initial evaluation of a child for IDEA services and making it easier 
for parents to make changes to their child's individual education plan; 
requiring complaints of either the school or parents to be clear and 
specific before going to due process; and requiring hearing officers to 
make decisions based upon substantive grounds not technical issues that 
have no bearing on a child's education.
  This bill currently does not specifically address the issue of full 
funding, because Senator Kennedy and I decided at the very outset to 
postpone that issue to the floor, since that is an issue that merits 
the attention and active participation of the entire Senate. However, 
in addition to simplifying funding formulas so that both States and 
local school districts have a better indication of the funding 
available, the bill includes 2 key provisions that will provide 
additional fiscal relief for school districts than what is provided to 
them under current law.
  First, we allow school districts to treat 8 percent of their IDEA 
funds as local funds. This will allow school districts to better align 
funding among programs based on local priorities. Second, we require 
States to reserve 2 percent of their overall IDEA Part B grant to 
establish risk pool accounts to provide new resources to assist local 
school districts and charter schools in addressing the costs of 
providing services to high-need children and unanticipated enrollment 
of students with disabilities.
  Finally, the bill addresses the discipline provisions in current law 
that schools and parents have found to be confusing, hard to 
administer, and have resulted in outcomes that were not always fair to 
every child. The bill simplifies the framework for schools to 
administer the law, while ensuring the rights and the safety of all 
children.
  Importantly, the bill will require schools to consider whether a 
child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering 
disciplinary action, and ensure that individualized education plans 
contain positive behavioral interventions and supports when a child's 
behavior impedes his or her own learning, or that of others.
  Senator Kennedy and I were determined to make this a bipartisan 
process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we're confident 
will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and 
most importantly by parents, the disabled community and the school 
community.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator 
Gregg to introduce the reauthorization of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act. Our goal is a quality education for every disabled 
child.
  We know that education opens the golden door of opportunity for every 
child, and it is especially important for children with disabilities. 
Since it was first enacted, IDEA has opened that door and helped 
millions of children with disabilities to lead independent and 
productive lives. For them, IDEA has been the difference between 
dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive 
careers.
  The need for IDEA is greater now than ever. Over 6 million children 
with disabilities rely on the Act to obtain the same learning 
opportunities as their non-disabled fellow students.
  We know that schools need Federal help to make IDEA work. Over the 
last two years we have listened to students, parents, teachers, and 
school administrators. We have weighed thousands of comments on the 
most effective ways to live up to the great promise of this law.
  They told us they needed stronger enforcement of IDEA. This bill 
provides it, by giving the Secretary of Education and State education 
agencies greater power and new ways to measure compliance and impose 
sanctions when schools fail to live up to the standards we've set.
  They told us they needed stronger accountability. This bill provides 
it, by requiring schools to meet strict benchmarks for student 
achievement, by providing better delivery of transition services, and 
by dealing with the over-representation of minorities in IDEA.
  They told us they wanted a stronger and more flexible Individualized 
Education Program. This bill provides it, by requiring that every 
student's plan contain positive ways to support the child and to 
increase parental involvement.
  They told us they wanted to protect students from being expelled from 
school because of their disability. This bill provides it, by requiring 
schools to determine whether a child's behavior is the result of the 
disability, or the lack of other supports that should have been 
provided.
  They told us they wanted better teachers in the classroom--as well-
trained as other teachers. This bill provides it, by requiring all 
special education teachers to be highly qualified by 2007, and by 
designating 100 percent of State improvement grants to support 
professional development of teachers.
  They told us they wanted more help for their children in the 
transition from school to college or to work. This bill provides it, by 
giving greater access to the vocational rehabilitation system and 
taking other steps to assist

[[Page 14778]]

the child in meeting post-secondary goals.
  The debate over how best to fund these reforms goes on. Schools 
urgently need the resources to make the IDEA a reality. It is not 
enough to provide only some of the promised federal aid. We must find a 
way to fully fund IDEA, because every dollar lost is another child that 
slips through the cracks.
  We will have an opportunity to debate this issue and others in our 
committee and in the Senate in the weeks ahead. I look forward to these 
debates and to working with Senator Gregg and all our colleagues to 
make this bill even stronger.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 1249. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
waive the part B late enrollment penalty for military retirees who 
enroll December 31, 2004, and to provide a special part B enrollment 
period for such retirees; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
``The TRICARE Retirees Opportunity Act of 2003'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1249

       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 ``The TRICARE Retirees 
     Opportunity Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF MEDICARE PART B LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY FOR 
                   CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES; SPECIAL ENROLLMENT 
                   PERIOD.

       (a) Waiver of Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1839(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395r(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``No increase in the premium shall be 
     effected for a month in the case of an individual who is 65 
     years of age or older, who enrolls under this part during 
     2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 and who demonstrates to the 
     Secretary before December 31, 2004, that the individual is a 
     covered beneficiary (as defined in section 1072(5) of title 
     10, United States Code). The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall consult with the Secretary of Defense in 
     identifying individuals described in the previous 
     sentence.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to premiums for months beginning with January 
     2001. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     establish a method for providing rebates of premium penalties 
     paid for months on or after January 2001 for which a penalty 
     does not apply under such amendment but for which a penalty 
     was previously collected.
       (b) Medicare Part B Special Enrollment Period.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of any individual who, as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, is 65 years of age or 
     older, is eligible to enroll but is not enrolled under part B 
     of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and is a covered 
     beneficiary (as defined in section 1072(5) of title 10, 
     United States Code), the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall provide for a special enrollment period during 
     which the individual may enroll under such part. Such period 
     shall begin as soon as possible after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall end on December 31, 2004.
       (2) Coverage period.--In the case of an individual who 
     enrolls during the special enrollment period provided under 
     paragraph (1), the coverage period under part B of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act shall begin on the first day 
     of the month following the month in which the individual 
     enrolls.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1250. A bill to improve, enhance, and promote the Nation's 
homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency 
response capabilities through the use of enhanced 911 services, to 
further upgrade Public Safety Answering Point capabilities and related 
functions in receiving E-911 calls, and to support the construction and 
operation of a ubiquitous and reliable citizen activated system and 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. 1250

       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 ``Enhanced 911 Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) for the sake of our Nation's homeland security and 
     public safety, a universal emergency telephone number (911) 
     that is enhanced with the most modern and state-of-the-art 
     telecommunications capabilities possible should be available 
     to all citizens in all regions of the Nation;
       (2) enhanced emergency communications require Federal, 
     State, and local government resources and coordination;
       (3) any funds that are collected from fees imposed on 
     consumer bills for the purposes of funding 911 services or 
     enhanced 911 should go only for the purposes for which the 
     funds are collected; and
       (4) enhanced 911 is a high national priority and it 
     requires Federal leadership, working in cooperation with 
     State and local governments and with the numerous 
     organizations dedicated to delivering emergency 
     communications services.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to coordinate emergency communications systems, 
     including 911 services and E-911 services, at the Federal, 
     State, and local levels;
       (2) to provide stability and resources to State and local 
     Public Safety Answering Points, to facilitate the prompt 
     deployment of enhanced 911 services throughout the United 
     States in a ubiquitous and reliable infrastructure; and
       (3) to ensure that funds collected on telecommunications 
     bills for enhancing emergency 911 services are used only for 
     the purposes for which the funds are being collected.

     SEC. 4. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION.

       (a) In General.--Part C of title I of the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

       ``(a) Establishment of Task Force.--The Assistant Secretary 
     shall establish an Emergency Communications Task Force to 
     facilitate coordination between Federal, State, and local 
     emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, and 
     public safety organizations. The task force shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) Representatives from Federal agencies, including--
       ``(A) the Department of Justice;
       ``(B) the Department of Homeland Security;
       ``(C) the Department of Defense;
       ``(D) the Department of the Interior;
       ``(E) the Department of Transportation; and
       ``(F) the Federal Communications Commission;
       ``(2) State and local first responder agencies;
       ``(3) national 911 and emergency communications leadership 
     organizations;
       ``(4) telecommunications industry representatives; and
       ``(5) other individuals designated by the Assistant 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Purpose of Task Force.--The task force shall provide 
     advice and recommendations with respect to methods to improve 
     coordination and communications between agencies and 
     organizations involved in emergency communications, including 
     911 services to enhance homeland security and public safety.
       ``(c) Reports.--The Assistant Secretary shall provide an 
     annual report to Congress by the first day of October of each 
     year on the task force activities and make recommendations on 
     how Federal, State, and local governments and emergency 
     communications organizations can improve coordination and 
     communications.
       ``(d) Miscellaneous Provisions.--Members of the task force 
     shall serve without special compensation with respect to 
     their activities on behalf of the task force.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR E-911 ENHANCEMENT.

       Part C of title I of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901), 
     as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end:

     ``SEC. 159. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS.

       ``(a) Matching Grants.--The Assistant Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall 
     provide grants to State and local governments and tribal 
     organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l))) for the purposes of enhancing emergency 
     communications services through planning, infrastructure 
     improvements, equipment purchases, and personnel training and 
     acquisition.
       ``(b) Matching Requirement.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of a project eligible for a grant under this section shall 
     not exceed 50 percent. The non-Federal share of the cost 
     shall be provided from non-Federal sources.
       ``(c) Preference.--In providing grants under subsection 
     (a), the Assistant Secretary shall give preference to 
     applicants who--

[[Page 14779]]

       ``(1) coordinate their applications with the needs of their 
     public safety answering points; and
       ``(2) integrate public and commercial communications 
     services involved in the construction, delivery, and 
     improvement of emergency communications, including 911 
     services.
       ``(d) Criteria.--The Assistant Secretary shall issue 
     regulations within 180 days of the enactment of the Enhanced 
     E-911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003, after a public 
     comment period of not less than 60 days, prescribing the 
     criteria for selection for grants under this section and 
     shall update such regulations as necessary.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary not 
     more than $500,000,000 for each fiscal year for grants under 
     this section.''.

     SECTION 6. STATE AND LOCAL 911 PRACTICES.

       (a) Certification.--Part IV of title VI of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 642. DIVERSION OF 911 FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Assessment and audit.--The Commission shall review, 
     no less frequently than twice a year--
       ``(A) the imposition of taxes, fees, or other charges 
     imposed by States or political subdivisions of States that--
       ``(i) appear on telecommunications services customers' 
     bills; and
       ``(ii) are designated or presented as dedicated to improve 
     emergency communications services, including 911 services or 
     enhanced 911 services, or related to emergency communications 
     services operations or improvements; and
       ``(B) the use of revenues derived from such taxes, fees, or 
     charges.
       ``(2) Certification.--Each State shall certify annually to 
     the Commission that no portion of the revenues derived from 
     such taxes, fees, or charges have been obligated or expended 
     for any purpose other than the purposes for which such taxes, 
     fees, or charges are designated or presented.
       ``(b) Notification of Congress and the Public.--If the 
     Commission fails to receive the certification described in 
     subsection (a)(2), then, within 30 days after the date on 
     which such certification was due, the Commission shall cause 
     to be published in the Federal Register, and notify the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     of--
       ``(1) the identity of each State or political subdivision 
     that failed to make the certification; and
       ``(2) the amount of revenues obligated or expended by that 
     State or political subdivision for any purpose other than the 
     purposes for which such taxes, fees, or charges were 
     designated or presented.
       ``(c) Withholding of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Assistant Secretary shall withhold any 
     Federal grant funds that would otherwise be made available 
     under section 159 of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act to a State or 
     political subdivision identified by the Commission under 
     subsection (b)(1) in an amount not to exceed twice the amount 
     described in subsection (b)(2). In lieu of withholding grant 
     funds under this subsection, the Secretary may require a 
     State or political subdivision to repay to the Secretary the 
     appropriate amount of funds already disbursed to that State 
     or political subdivision.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1253. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a minimum credit of $200 per month for stay-at-home parents, to allow 
the dependent care credit to be taken against the minimum tax, and to 
allow a carryforward of any unused dependent care credit; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to 
introduce legislation that will help many young families in America 
meet the financial challenges associated with raising children. The 
legislation I am introducing attempts to alleviate some of the 
financial costs incurred by the more than one out of three families 
when one of the parents decides to leave the work force to raise 
children at home.
  Current tax law recognizes that when both parents remain in the work 
force, they incur additional child care costs because, in order to keep 
their jobs, they have to pay for day care services. Current tax law 
provides a sliding scale tax credit that allows parents to claim a tax 
credit of up to 35 percent to offset as much as $3,000 of day care 
costs for one child, $6,000 for two or more children. The maximum 
$1,050 tax credit, $2,100 for two or more children, phases down as 
income rises. The minimum, 20 percent credit, applies to families with 
incomes above $43,000.
  I strongly support this dependent care tax credit because it makes it 
easier for husbands and wives to maintain their careers and provide for 
their families. However, there are many families that have made the 
decision that one of the parents will give up a job in order to raise 
their children. In fact, this is a growing trend. In 2001, 37.7 percent 
of families had one parent at home raising the child; that's up from 
35.3 percent in 1995. And the stay-at-home parent is, overwhelmingly, 
the mother. Barely 3.6 percent of stay-at-home parents are husbands.
  When a working woman makes the decision to interrupt her career to 
raise her child, the family incurs an immediate financial penalty. And 
more often than not, the career interruption may damage the woman's 
future earnings potential, what some have referred to as the ``Mommy 
Track.''
  The immediate loss of income when a parent leaves the workforce 
significantly changes the family's lifestyle. For example, consider a 
childless couple where the husband earns $35,000 and the wife earns 
$27,000. After paying Federal income and payroll taxes, the family 
retains slightly more than $50,000 in disposable income. If the family 
has a child, and both parents continue their careers, after taxes they 
still will keep more than $49,000 of their earnings, even if they incur 
child care expenses of $3,000. However, in this example, if the father 
gives up his job, the family's disposable income drops by nearly 40 
percent to less than $32,000. Put another way, the family's monthly 
income drops from $4,100 to $2,700. That's a difficult adjustment for 
any family, especially one that has to incur the additional costs of a 
newborn.
  I respect the parents who choose to maintain their careers while 
raising a family and the parents who make the financial sacrifice to 
give up their careers to raise a family. But I believe the tax code 
should treat both equally.
  My legislation attempts to alleviate the current inequity in the code 
by giving stay-at-home moms or dads a $200 a month tax credit. This 
credit would be indexed for inflation. The credit would apply until the 
child reaches the age of 6. While this credit could never make up the 
financial loss that families face when one of the parents stops 
working, it will provide some important financial relief to these 
families. In the example I cited earlier, if the father did not work 
for a full year, the $2,400 tax credit would completely eliminate the 
family's $1,500 Federal tax bill, giving the family that much more to 
spend on their living expenses.
  In addition, under this proposal, any unused tax credits could be 
carried forward indefinitely. Many parents who leave the work force to 
raise their children return to work when their kids enter school. By 
allowing the carry forward of unused credits, the parent who re-enters 
the work force will be able to keep more of his or her earnings to make 
up for the financial sacrifice made when choosing to stay home with the 
family. I think it is only fair that society recognize the financial 
sacrifice these parents have made.
  Congress recently acted to eliminate the marriage penalty. We should 
now act to eliminate the penalty imposed on families when a parent 
leaves the workforce to raise a child at home. It makes sense for our 
families and it is good tax policy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1253

       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 ``Stay-At-Home Parents' Tax 
     Credit Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer 
     with

[[Page 14780]]

     1 or more qualifying individuals described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) under the age of 6 at any time during the taxable 
     year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have employment-
     related expenses with respect to such qualifying individuals 
     in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred 
     for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year 
     (determined under this section without regard to this 
     paragraph), or
       ``(B) $200 for each month in such taxable year during which 
     such qualifying individual is under the age of 6.''.
       (b) Credit Allowed Against Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 21(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``The amount of'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Dollar limit.--The amount of'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Limitation based on amount of tax.--The credit 
     allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not 
     exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of credits allowable under this subpart 
     (other than this section and sections 23, 24, and 25B) and 
     section 27 for the taxable year.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading of section 21(c) of such Code is amended to 
     read ``Limitations.--''.
       (B) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``21,'' after ``sections''.
       (c) Carryforward of Credit.--Section 21 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for household and 
     dependent care services necessary for gainful employment) is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and 
     by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit 
     allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds 
     the limitation imposed by subsection (c)(4) for such taxable 
     year, such excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable 
     year and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) 
     for such taxable year.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1254. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a 
vocational and technical entrepreneurship development program; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to introduce the 
Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2003, 
which is the companion bill to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and 
was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Robert Brady of 
Pennsylvania earlier this year.
  I want to commend Representative Brady for his hard work on behalf of 
small businesses not just from his home State of Pennsylvania but for 
every trades industry entrepreneur that has ever attempted to open his 
or her own business.
  Often Americans who work in the trade sector--construction, plumbing, 
electrical work etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day 
starting a business; however many of these aspiring business owners who 
partake in career training or vocational training in certain trades, 
unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education in the successful 
growth and development of their newly formed business. This initiative 
would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry 
to move toward starting a new business.
  The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship 
Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will 
encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation 
passed the House last Congress on October 2, 2001 and was subsequently 
taken up and passed by this Committee last Congress, but was not taken 
up by the full Senate.
  The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a 
``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,'' 
under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business 
Development Centers program, to provide technical assistance to high 
school and technical career institutes, Vo-Tech schools, to promote 
small business ownership in their curriculum.
  The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling, 
training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business 
management and is the ideal candidate to provide such a program. Each 
grant awarded under this program will be worth over $200,000--which, in 
today's environment where Vo-Tech programs get short-changed in 
government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a 
worker-strapped trades industry.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support Vocational and Technical 
Entrepreneurship Development Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Miller, Mr. Craig, and 
        Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1255. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a pilot 
program to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small business 
concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business 
and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished 
colleague from Nevada, Senator John Ensign, and the cosponsors of our 
legislation in reintroducing the National Small Business Regulatory 
Assistance Act.
  The bill we are reintroducing today is the same Cleland-Kerry 
legislation that was introduced last Congress, and it is the companion 
to Congressman Sweeney's bill, H.R. 205, which bears the same name as 
our legislation. The Sweeney bill recently passed the House 
overwhelmingly, 417-4, with the strong support of the House Committee 
on Small Business, as it did in the 107th. Our Senate version, which is 
nearly identical to the Sweeney bill, passed the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship last year but was not taken up by the 
full Senate. Because Senator Ensign and I are fully committed to 
helping small business owners understand and navigate complicated 
government regulations, we are reintroducing this legislation, the 
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.
  Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few 
employees, often face an overwhelming task when seeking advice on how 
to comply with Federal regulations, especially when implementation 
varies for different regions of the country, or from state to state. 
Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor 
and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, 
but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to 
comply. Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from 
Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.
  One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal 
regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside 
of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory 
agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business 
Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this 
type of assistance.
  Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to 
20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these 
SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. 
The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and 
$300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.
  Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with 
Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training 
activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small 
business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those 
who receive compliance assistance, which is integral to the reaching 
out to as many small businesses as possible. This privacy provision has 
also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance 
from their local SBDC.

[[Page 14781]]

  The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and 
will serve to complement current small business development assistance 
as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this 
legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.
  Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal 
regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The 
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way 
toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with 
Federal regulations.
  I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association 
of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely 
with us since January of last year to draft the Senate version of this 
legislation, as well as support from National Small Business United, 
the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.
  I want to express my sincere thanks to Senator Ensign for his hard 
work and continued support on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar);
  S. 1256. A bill to protect the critical aquifers and watersheds that 
serve as a principal water supply for Puerto Rico, to protect the 
tropical forests of the Karst Region, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, along with 
Senator Lugar, the Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003.
  This very important bill will provide protection for Puerto Rico's 
karst region by helping to maintain biodiversity within the tropical 
forest ecosystem and to protect its valuable aquifers and watersheds. 
The area is threatened by development which, if unabated, could cause 
permanent damage to its outstanding natural and environmental assets.
  Karst is permeable and soluble limestone that originated millions of 
years ago. The land identified in the bill contains the last remnants 
of tropical forests that once covered the island. This area, including 
the habitats of many endangered and threatened species and tropical 
birds, is home to over 1,300 species of plants and animals.
  The area also provides drinking water through subterranean aquifers 
to many of the island's citizens. Sixty-four percent of Puerto Rico's 
aquifer area is contained within the northern karst belt. This aquifer 
area discharges approximately 120 million gallons of water per day, of 
which the citizens of Puerto Rico consume 52 million gallons per day. 
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the mainstays of Puerto Rico's 
economy and it is dependent on the area's fresh water supplies as well.
  An August 2001 U.S. Forest Service report, Puerto Rican Karst: A 
Vital Resource, documents the ecologically unique and scientifically 
valuable karst region, stating ``the northern limestone contains Puerto 
Rico's most extensive freshwater aquifer, largest continuous expanse of 
mature forest, and largest coastal wetlands, estuary,and underground 
cave system. The karst belt is extremely diverse, and its multiple land 
forms, concentrated in such a small area, make it unique in the 
world.'' It should come as no surprise, then, that Forest Service Chief 
dale Bosworth has expressed his strong support for the protection of 
the karst.
  The Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003 authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to carry out land acquisition by using funds 
from a Conservation Fund created by the Act, and from the Forest Legacy 
Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other sources. The 
legislation also authorizes the Secretary to make grants to and enter 
into agreements with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, other federal 
agencies, organizations, and corporations for the acquisition, 
protection, and management of land in the region. In addition, the bill 
makes this region eligible for inclusion under the Forest Legacy 
Program.
  I want to thank Senator Lugar for co-sponsoring the Puerto Rico Karst 
Conservation Act of 2003. His strong support for this legislation and 
his steadfast commitment to tropical forest conservation is invaluable. 
It is also important to note that Representative Acevedo-Vila and 
Representative Duncan have just introduced this measure in the House of 
Representatives where, I'm told, it has strong bi-partisan support.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1256

       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 ``Puerto Rico Karst 
     Conservation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in the Karst Region of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
     there are--
       (A) some of the largest areas of tropical forests in Puerto 
     Rico, with a higher density of tree species than any other 
     area in the Commonwealth; and
       (B) unique geological formations that are critical to the 
     maintenance of aquifers and watersheds that constitute a 
     principal water supply for much of the Commonwealth;
       (2) the Karst Region is threatened by development that, if 
     unchecked, could permanently damage the aquifers and cause 
     irreparable damage to natural and environmental assets that 
     are unique to the United States;
       (3) the Commonwealth has 1 of the highest population 
     densities in the United States, which makes the protection of 
     the Karst Region imperative for the maintenance of the public 
     health and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth;
       (4) the Karst Region--
       (A) possesses extraordinary ecological diversity, including 
     the habitats of several endangered and threatened species and 
     tropical migrants; and
       (B) is an area of critical value to research in tropical 
     forest management; and
       (5) coordinated efforts at land protection by the Federal 
     Government and the Commonwealth are necessary to conserve the 
     environmentally critical Karst Region.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to authorize and support conservation efforts to 
     acquire, manage, and protect the tropical forest areas of the 
     Karst Region, with particular emphasis on water quality and 
     the protection of the aquifers that are vital to the health 
     and wellbeing of the citizens of the Commonwealth; and
       (2) to promote cooperation among the Commonwealth, Federal 
     agencies, corporations, organizations, and individuals in 
     those conservation efforts.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commonwealth.--The term ``Commonwealth'' means the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (2) Forest legacy program.--The term ``Forest Legacy 
     Program'' means the program established under section 7 of 
     the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2103c).
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Puerto Rico Karst 
     Conservation Fund established by section 5.
       (4) Karst region.--The term ``Karst Region'' means the 
     areas in the Commonwealth generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Karst Region Conservation Area'' and dated March 
     2001, which shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in--
       (A) the Office of the Secretary, Puerto Rico Department of 
     Natural and Environmental Resources; and
       (B) the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service.
       (5) Land.--The term ``land'' includes land, water, and an 
     interest in land or water.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 4. CONSERVATION OF THE KARST REGION.

       (a) Federal Cooperation and Assistance.--In furtherance of 
     the acquisition, protection, and management of land in and 
     adjacent to the Karst Region and in implementing related 
     natural resource conservation strategies, the Secretary may--
       (1) make grants to and enter into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with the Commonwealth, other Federal agencies, 
     organizations, corporations, and individuals; and
       (2) use all authorities available to the Secretary, 
     including--
       (A) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.);
       (B) section 1472 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318); 
     and

[[Page 14782]]

       (C) section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a).
       (b) Funding Sources.--The activities authorized by this 
     section may be carried out using--
       (1) amounts in the Fund;
       (2) amounts in the fund established by section 4(b) of the 
     Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 1643(b));
       (3) funds appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund;
       (4) funds appropriated for the Forest Legacy Program; and
       (5) any other funds made available for those activities.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--Land acquired under this Act shall be 
     managed, in accordance with the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1641 et 
     seq.), in a manner to protect and conserve the water quality 
     and aquifers and the geological, ecological, fish and 
     wildlife, and other natural values of the Karst Region.
       (2) Failure to manage as required.--In any deed, grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement implementing this Act and 
     the Forest Legacy Program in the Commonwealth, the Secretary 
     may require that, if land acquired by the Commonwealth or 
     other cooperating entity under this Act is sold or conveyed 
     in whole or part, or is not managed in conformity with 
     paragraph (1), title to the land shall, at the discretion of 
     the Secretary, vest in the United States.
       (d) Willing Sellers.--Any land acquired by the Secretary in 
     the Karst Region shall be acquired only from a willing 
     seller.
       (e) Relation to Other Authorities.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) diminishes any other authority that the Secretary may 
     have to acquire, protect, and manage land and natural 
     resources in the Commonwealth; or
       (2) exempts the Federal Government from Commonwealth water 
     laws.

     SEC. 5. PUERTO RICO KARST CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury an 
     interest bearing account to be known as the ``Puerto Rico 
     Karst Conservation Fund''.
       (b) Credits to Funds.--There shall be credited to the 
     Fund--
       (1) amounts appropriated to the Fund;
       (2) all amounts donated to the Fund;
       (3) all amounts generated from the Caribbean National 
     Forest that would, but for this paragraph, be deposited as 
     miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States, 
     but not including amounts authorized by law for payments to 
     the Commonwealth or authorized by law for retention by the 
     Secretary for any purpose;
       (4) all amounts received by the Administrator of General 
     Services from the disposal of surplus real property in the 
     Commonwealth under subtitle I of title 40, United States 
     Code; and
       (5) interest derived from amounts in the Fund.
       (c) Use of Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available to 
     the Secretary until expended, without further appropriation, 
     to carry out section 4.

     SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Donations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may accept donations, 
     including land and money, made by public and private 
     agencies, corporations, organizations, and individuals in 
     furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Conflicts of interest.--The Secretary may accept 
     donations even if the donor conducts business with or is 
     regulated by the Department of Agriculture or any other 
     Federal agency.
       (3) Applicable law.--Public Law 95-442 (7 U.S.C. 2269) 
     shall apply to donations accepted by the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       (b) Relation to Forest Legacy Program.--
       (1) In general.--All land in the Karst Region shall be 
     eligible for inclusion in the Forest Legacy Program.
       (2) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may credit donations made 
     under subsection (a) to satisfy any cost-sharing requirements 
     of the Forest Legacy Program.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN
  S. 1257. A bill to conduct statewide demonstration projects to 
improve health care quality and to reduce costs under the medicare 
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act and to conduct a 
study on payment incentives and performance under the Medicare+Choice 
program under such title; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill I introduce today to improve health care quality and reduce 
costs under the Medicare program be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1257

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Payment for Quality 
     and Value Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE QUALITY 
                   AND REDUCE COSTS UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means a demonstration project established by the 
     Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Low-cost high-quality state.--The term ``low-cost high-
     quality State'' means a State in the top quartile of cost and 
     quality efficiency as measured by the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services using 1999 program data.
       (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare 
     beneficiary'' means an individual who is entitled to (or 
     enrolled for) benefits under part A of the medicare program, 
     enrolled for benefits under part B of the medicare program, 
     or both (including an individual who is enrolled in a 
     Medicare+Choice plan under part C of the medicare program).
       (4) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means 
     the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Demonstration Projects to Improve Health Care Quality 
     and Reduce Costs Under Medicare.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a demonstration 
     program under which the Secretary shall establish 
     demonstration projects in accordance with the provisions of 
     this section for the purpose of improving the quality of 
     care--
       (A) provided to medicare beneficiaries with high-volume and 
     high-cost conditions; and
       (B) for which payment is made under the medicare program.
       (2) Rewarding quality care.--Under the demonstration 
     projects, the Secretary shall increase payments under the 
     medicare program by an amount determined by the Secretary for 
     purposes of the demonstration projects to health care 
     providers (as defined by the Secretary) in low-cost high-
     quality States that demonstrate adherence to quality 
     standards identified by the Secretary for purposes of the 
     demonstration projects.
       (c) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) Demonstration areas.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration 
     projects in low-cost high-quality States selected on the 
     basis of proposals submitted under subparagraph (B). Each 
     demonstration project shall be conducted on a statewide 
     basis.
       (B) Proposals.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to 
     establish the demonstration projects from entities that 
     demonstrate an intent to include multiple public and private 
     payers and a majority of practicing physicians in a low-cost 
     high-quality State.
       (2) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     demonstration projects by the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the first demonstration project is implemented.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than the date that is 6 
     months after the date on which the demonstration projects 
     end, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     demonstration projects together with such recommendations for 
     legislation or administrative action as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate.
       (e) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     waive compliance with such requirements of the medicare 
     program to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds 
     necessary to conduct the demonstration projects.
       (f) Funding.--
       (1) Demonstration projects.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall provide for the transfer from the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i) and Federal 
     Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841 of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t), in such proportion as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, of such funds as are necessary for 
     the costs of carrying out the demonstration projects under 
     this section.
       (B) Limitation.--In conducting the demonstration projects 
     under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     aggregate payments made by the Secretary under the medicare 
     program do not exceed the amount which the Secretary would 
     have paid under the medicare program if the demonstration 
     projects under this section were not implemented.
       (2) Evaluation and report.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as are necessary for the purpose of 
     developing and submitting the report to Congress under 
     subsection (d).

[[Page 14783]]



     SEC. 3. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE REPORT ON PAYMENT INCENTIVES 
                   AND PERFORMANCE UNDER THE MEDICARE+CHOICE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into an arrangement with the Institute of 
     Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences under which the 
     Institute shall conduct a study on clinical outcomes, 
     performance, and quality of care under the Medicare+Choice 
     program under part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act.
       (b) Matters Studied.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Institute shall review and evaluate the public and 
     private sector experience related to the establishment of 
     performance measures and payment incentives. The review shall 
     include an evaluation of the success, efficiency, and utility 
     of structural process and performance measurements, and 
     different methodologies that link performance to payment 
     incentives. The review shall include the use of incentives--
       (A) aimed at plans and their enrollees;
       (B) aimed at providers and their patients;
       (C) to encourage consumers to purchase based on quality and 
     value; and
       (D) to encourage multiple purchasers, providers, 
     beneficiaries, and plans within a community to work together 
     to improve performance.
       (2) Identification of options.--As part of the study, the 
     Institute shall identify options for providing incentives and 
     rewarding performance, improve quality, outcomes, and 
     efficiency in the delivery of programs and services under the 
     Medicare+Choice program, including--
       (A) periodic updates of performance measurements to 
     continue rewarding outstanding performance and encourage 
     improvements;
       (B) payments that vary by type of plan, such as preferred 
     provider organization plans and MSA plans;
       (C) extension of incentives in the Medicare+Choice program 
     to the fee for service program under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act; and
       (D) performance measures needed to implement alternative 
     methodologies to align payments with performance.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit to Congress 
     and the Secretary a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

                          ____________________