[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[SENAT]
[Pages 1807-1810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.J. Res. 2

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order, notwithstanding the passage of H.J. Res. 2, in the engrossment 
of the joint resolution, Senate amendments Nos. 139, 166, 172, and 186 
be further modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as a brief explanation for the necessity 
for these modifications, in the case of amendment No. 139, the 
instruction line needed to be corrected. For amendment No. 166, in the 
version the Senate adopted, two pages were missing. With respect to 
amendment No. 172, there is a word change. And, finally, with respect 
to amendment No. 186, language which was supposed to be stricken was 
not in the version adopted by the Senate. These modifications are 
solely to correct these inadvertent errors.
  The amendments, as further modified, are as follows:


                 amendment no. 139, as further modified

 (Purpose: To direct the Corps of Engineers to construct a portion of 
      the modified water delivery project in the State of Florida)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY PROJECT IN THE STATE OF 
                   FLORIDA.

       The Corps of Engineers, using funds made available for 
     modifications authorized by section 104 of the Everglades 
     National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 
     410r-8), may immediately carry out alternative 6D (including 
     paying 100 percent of the cost of acquiring land or an 
     interest in land) for the purpose of providing a flood 
     protection system for the 8.5 square mile area described in 
     the report entitled ``Central and South Florida Project, 
     Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, 
     Florida, 8.5 Square Mile Area, General Reevaluation Report 
     and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'' and 
     dated July 2000.


                 amendment no. 166 as further modified

(Purpose: To rename the United States-China Security Review Commission 
as the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 713, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     page 714, line 3, and insert the following:

[[Page 1808]]



     SEC. 209. UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Appropriations.--There are appropriated, out of any 
     funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,800,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to the United States-
     China Economic and Security Review Commission.
       (b) Name Change.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002) 
     is amended--
       (A) In the section heading by inserting ``ECONOMIC AND'' 
     before ``SECURITY'';
       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Economic 
     and'' before ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``Economic and'' before ``Security''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (II), by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears; and
       (D) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (II) in the second sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security'';
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' and
       (v) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears.
       (2) References.--Any reference in any Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or relating to the United 
     States-China Security Review Commission shall be deemed to 
     refer to the United States-China Economic and Security Review 
     Commission.
       (c) Membership Responsibilities, and Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spencer 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(F) each appointing authority referred to under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) appoint 3 members to the Commission;
       ``(ii) make the appointments on a staggered term basis, 
     such that--
       ``(I) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2003;
       ``(II) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2001; and
       ``(III) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2005;
       ``(iii) make all subsequent appointments on an approximate 
     2-year term basis to expire on December 31 of the applicable 
     year; and
       ``(iv) make appointments not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which each new Congress convenes;'',
       (2) Responsibilities of the commission.--The U.S.-China 
     Commission shall focus on the following nine areas when 
     conducting its work during fiscal year 2003 and beyond:
       (A) Proliferation practices.--The Commission shall analyze 
     and assess the Chinese role in the proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction and other weapons (including dual use 
     technologies) to terrorist-sponsoring states, and suggest 
     possible steps which the U.S. might take, including economic 
     sanctions, to encourage the Chinese to stop such practices.
       (B) Economic reforms and united states economic 
     transfers.--The Commission shall analyze and assess the 
     qualitative and quantitative nature of the shift of United 
     States production activities to China, including the 
     relocation of high-technology, manufacturing, and R&D 
     facilities; the impact of these transfers on United States 
     national security, including political influence by the 
     Chinese Government over American firms, dependence of the 
     United States national security industrial base on Chinese 
     imports, the adequacy of United States export control laws, 
     and the effect of these transfers on U.S. economic security, 
     employment, and the standard of living of the American 
     people; analyze China's national budget and assess China's 
     fiscal strength to address internal instability problems and 
     assess the likelihood of externalization of such problems.
       (C) Energy.--The Commission shall evaluate and assess how 
     China's large and growing economy will impact upon world 
     energy supplies and the role the U.S. can play, including 
     joint R&D efforts and technological assistance, in 
     influencing China's energy policy.
       (D) United states capital markets.--The Commission shall 
     evaluate the extent of Chinese access to, and use of, United 
     States capital markets, and whether the existing disclosure 
     and transparency rules are adequate to identify Chinese 
     companies which are active in United States markets and are 
     also engaged in proliferation activities.
       (E) Corporate reporting.--The Commission shall assess 
     United States trade and investment relationship with China, 
     including the need for corporate reporting on United States 
     investments in China and incentives that China may be 
     offering to United States corporation to relocate production 
     and R&D to China.
       (F) Regional economic and security impacts.--The Commission 
     shall assess the extent of China's ``hollowing-out'' of Asian 
     manufacturing economies, and the impact on United States 
     economic and security interests in the region; review the 
     triangular economic and security relationship among the 
     United States, Taipei and Beijing, including Beijing's 
     military modernization and force deployments aimed at Taipei, 
     and the adequacy of United States executive branch 
     coordination and consultation with Congress on United States 
     arms sales and defense relationship with Taipei.
       (G) United states-china bilateral programs.--The Commission 
     shall assess science and technology programs to evaluate if 
     the United States is developing an adequate coordinating 
     mechanism with appropriate review by the intelligence 
     community with Congress; assess the degree of non-compliance 
     by China and United States-China agreements on prison labor 
     imports and intellectual property rights; evaluate U.S. 
     enforcement policies; and recommend what new measures the 
     United States Government might take to strengthen our laws 
     and enforcement activities and to encourage compliance by the 
     Chinese.
       (H) World trade organization compliance.--The Commission 
     shall review China's record of compliance to date with its 
     accession agreement to the WTO, and explore what incentives 
     and policy initiatives should be pursued to promote further 
     compliance by China.
       (I) Media control.--The Commission shall evaluate Chinese 
     government efforts to influence and control perceptions of 
     the United States and its policies through the internet, the 
     Chinese print and electronic media, and Chinese internal 
     propaganda.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                 amendment no. 172 as further modified

   (Purpose: To provide for the protection of the rights of women in 
  Afghanistan, and to improve the conditions for women in Afghanistan)

       On page 397, line 12, delete all after ``Fund'','' through 
     ``opportunities'' on line 17, and insert in lieu thereof: not 
     less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for programs to 
     support women's development in Afghanistan, including girl's 
     and women's education, health, legal and social rights, 
     economic opportunities, and political participation: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided in the previous proviso, 
     $5,000,000 shall be made available to support activities 
     directed by the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs including 
     the establishment of women's resource centers in Afghanistan, 
     and not less than $1,500,000 should be made available to 
     support activities of the National Human Rights Commission of 
     Afghanistan: Provided further, That one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit 
     a report to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     details women's development programs in Afghanistan supported 
     by the United States Government, and barriers that impede 
     women's development in Afghanistan.


                           amendment no. 186

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to impose on the Corps of Engineers certain 
              requirements relating to the Missouri River)

       On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . MISSOURI RIVER.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the member states and 
     tribes of the Missouri River Basin Association are strongly 
     encouraged to reach agreement on a flow schedule for the 
     Missouri River as soon as practicable for 2003.


                             s-chip program

  Mr. CHAFEE. I have been working for the last several months with a 
bipartisan group of Members from both the House and Senate to protect 
funding for the S-CHIP program, which provides critical health care to 
millions of our children. In my State, over 12,000 children participate 
in this program. There is strong, bipartisan support for a 2-year S-
CHIP proposal developed last fall that would preserve $2.7 billion in 
Federal S-CHIP funds that either expired at the end of fiscal year 2002 
or will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Our proposal also 
establishes a redistribution formula for the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services to use to quickly redistribute unspent fiscal year 
2000 funds to those States that have exhausted their allotments and 
need additional funds.

[[Page 1809]]

  Under Federal law, CMS is required to redistribute all unspent 2000 
funds this year, but there is no Federal requirement on what formula it 
is to use. CMS is currently holding off redistributing unspent 2000 
funds because it is awaiting congressional action. However, a few 
States, including my own State of Rhode Island, need the redistribution 
of 2000 funds as soon as possible so they have sufficient funds for the 
rest of the year to maintain services to the children currently on S-
CHIP.
  This S-CHIP issue is very time sensitive. State are beginning to plan 
their upcoming budgets for fiscal year 2004, which starts July 1 in 
most States. We do not want to distort State S-CHIP spending decisions 
by making it impossible for States to plan, in determining how much in 
Federal S-CHIP funds they will have and for how long those funds will 
be available. Some States may unnecessarily scale back S-CHIP 
eligibility as a result because they will assume they will have far 
less in Federal funds available than previously expected.
  It now appears that we cannot address this issue in the omnibus 
appropriations bill. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman of 
the Finance and Budget Committees, Senators Grassley and Nickles, to 
work with me and the other Senators involved to address this issue in 
both the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution and then to move this 
legislation quickly in the Finance Committee.
  Having said this, I think it is imperative for us to work with CMS so 
that they can move forward to begin to distribute some of the unspent 
2000 funds to States like mine that are facing a serious S-CHIP funding 
problem.
  There is a way to move forward to address the immediate 
redistribution issue of the unexpended fiscal year 2000 funds. CMS can 
redistribute some of the unexpended fiscal year 2000 funds immediately 
to those States that face shortfalls in the coming months. This can be 
done administratively. We certainly want CMS to begin to redistribute 
at least some part of these funds to those States that are relying on 
this redistribution to maintain their child caseloads. For example, CMS 
could redistribute 100 percent of half of the unexpended funds now 
leaving the rest to be redistributed once Congress has acted on this 
legislation. As we in Congress move ahead to complete action on this 
full proposal, CMS should move forward on the immediate redistribution 
issue.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am pleased to join my colleagues today in 
highlighting the need for timely congressional action to secure funding 
necessary to protect children on the S-CHIP health program. Nearly 
21,000 children benefit from this program in my State of West Virginia. 
The S-CHIP program was created in 1997 with a bipartisan group of 
members to provide $40 billion over a 10-year period to extend health 
insurance to some uninsured children.
  Senator Chafee and I, along with other Senators, worked last year to 
develop a proposal that would address the long-term funding shortfall 
confronting the S-CHIP program over the next several years. While this 
was not considered last year, in the end, we were able to develop this 
2-year compromise with the authorizers in both the House and Senate as 
a first step towards a long-term solution for S-CHIP's funding issues. 
The compromise is a very reasonable one, providing assistance both to 
those States that have spent their allocations and need additional 
resources to serve their S-CHIP children as well as States that need a 
bit more time to utilize their S-CHIP allocations.
  I share my colleagues' concerns that this issue is a very timely one, 
and demands fast action on our part. I recognize that the first step is 
to include the necessary funds for this bipartisan 2-year proposal in 
the fiscal year 04 budget resolution, and then to consider the specific 
legislation in the Finance Committee. I would hope that Chairman 
Grassley and Senator Baucus would work to schedule a markup of this 
proposal as quickly as possible after the budget resolution is 
approved. We cannot wait to act on this until later this year when it 
is expected that we would consider broader health care measures. 
Contrary to what some have said, this is an emergency for our States 
and uninsured children. I look forward to working with my chairman on 
the Finance Committee, who deserves credit along with Senator Baucus 
for developing this 2-year approach, to move this proposal through the 
Congress as quickly as possible.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would like to thank my colleagues for their willingness 
to work with me on restoring funding to the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program that is essential to ensuring continued health care 
coverage for America's children.
  For the past week, I have worked with my colleagues to secure this 
agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired--or soon to 
expire--S-CHIP funding. This compromise that has been endorsed by our 
Nation's Governors would ensure that this funding remains in the 
program and continues to provide children with access to the care that 
is vital to their healthy development.
  I appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance 
Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to 
work with us in developing this agreement. Because of their commitment 
to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important 
policy.
  I believe this agreement is the most appropriate way to restore the 
S-CHIP funding. Because the budget resolution adopted by the House of 
Representatives does not include adequate budget authority to restore 
this funding, the floor amendment that I filed to the omnibus 
appropriations bill would be subject to a budget point of order in the 
House. Given that this point of order would lie against the provision, 
the likelihood that the House would strip this during conference is 
great. In light of these circumstances, I believe this agreement is the 
most appropriate way to ensure that this funding is restored.
  The agreement that was struck would--in exchange for withdrawing the 
amendments that my colleagues and I filed to the omnibus appropriations 
bill to restore S-CHIP funding--provide the support of the majority 
leader and Chairmen Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes that 
will remove the budget hurdles that have prevented this legislation 
from being enacted.
  Specifically, Senator Nickles has provided his commitment to 
reallocate through the fiscal year 04 budget process additional budget 
authority for S-CHIP in fiscal year 03 and fiscal year 04. Senator 
Nickles, I am confident that under your leadership, the budget process 
will move smoothly and expeditiously and that we will be able to speed 
the adoption of this proposal in both the Senate and House of 
Representatives.
  Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed to move this policy through his 
committee as soon as the necessary changes are made to the budget 
allocations. Again, under his strong leadership I am confident that we 
will get this done.
  Finally, Majority Leader Frist has agreed to place the legislation on 
the Senate Calendar as soon as it is reported from the Finance 
Committee.
  I might add that while I am aware that this agreement was forged in 
the Senate, the underlying policy proposal was developed through a 
bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and Baucus last 
fall. I hope the House of Representatives will work with us to make the 
necessary changes to the fiscal year 03 and fiscal year 04 budget 
allocations and to see this vital policy enacted in a timely manner.
  Since 1977, States have made historic progress in their effort to 
insure low-income children under S-CHIP. In fact, the National Center 
for Health Statistics just released data this month showing that the 
percentage of children 17 years of age and younger with health 
insurance has increased from 86.1 percent in 1997 to 91.2 percent 
during the first half of 2002. During this same period of time, 
statistics show the percentage of children insured by Government 
programs, such as S-CHIP, also increased to 27.2 percent.

[[Page 1810]]

While these statistics are encouraging, a great deal of work remains if 
we are to address the critical issues of affordability and 
accessibility of health insurance, especially as they relate to health 
care for our children.
  These compelling statistics reinforce the necessity that Congress 
must act to restore the expiring S-CHIP funds. If we delay, we could 
jeopardize the substantial progress that has been made since 1997 in 
increasing the number of insured children in America. It is estimated 
that without restoration of this funding, almost 1 million children 
could lose health insurance coverage.
  How it works is this--once passed, the policy would restore $2.7 
billion in S-CHIP funding that has either reverted to the Treasury or 
is scheduled to revert to HHS for redistribution. On October 1, 2002, 
$1.2 billion reverted to the Treasury in unspent S-CHIP funding from 
1998 and 1999. If we do not recapture this funding, it will be lost to 
the program. Our agreement allows the States to reclaim this unspent 
money and provides until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it on 
health insurance provided by S-CHIP.
  It also strikes a compromise between States that have spent all of 
their 2000 and 2001 allotments, and those that have not, by dividing 
the funding evenly between them. Those States that have not spent all 
of their allocations would be able to retain half of their funding, 
while the remaining States would receive additional allotments from the 
redistributed funding.
  It also rewards those States that used Medicaid to expand access to 
health care for low-income children prior to the creation of S-CHIP, by 
allowing them to access some of their S-CHIP funding to serve this 
population. This compromise has the endorsement of the National 
Governors Association and children's health advocates from across the 
country.
  In my home State of Maine this proposal would allow the State to keep 
$13.24 million in S-CHIP funding and would provide until the end of 
Fiscal Year 04 to spend it. I don't know about your State, but in Maine 
$13.24 million will help provide health care assistance to a lot of 
children--children who otherwise would not have access to 
immunizations, well-baby visits, and yearly checkups.
  While my colleagues and I have agreed to forgo the appropriations 
process as the vehicle to move this package, we certainly have not 
abandoned our effort to restore the funding. In fact, we are more 
committed than ever to seeing the S-CHIP funding restored and have 
added the support of the majority leader and chairs of the Finance and 
Budget Committees. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which 
already has garnered strong bipartisan support, will help to speed its 
passage.
  In closing, I would like to highlight a quote from Secretary Thompson 
when his agency released the positive new data I referenced earlier 
regarding the level of health insurance for children in our country. He 
said, ``More and more children are getting the health care they need, 
thanks in large measure to our success in working with States to expand 
health coverage through the S-CHIP program. We are giving Governors the 
flexibility they need to continue to expand coverage to more children, 
and our strategy is paying off for children and parents alike.''
  This strong endorsement of S-CHIP should act as an impetus to getting 
this policy enacted and ensuring that we do so in a timely fashion. 
Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to 
working with you as we move forward to enact this policy.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this 
important children's care policy. They are correct that something must 
be done to address the funds that have and will revert to the Treasury 
in the near future. They are also correct to the constraints within the 
omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program. It is a program that provides health care for over 16,000 low-
income children in my State.
  Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a 
necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I 
worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator 
Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a 
bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP 
funds.
  The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP 
funding taking into account that some States are spending through their 
existing allotments and other States are ramping up their programs and 
will need additional funding in the years to come.
  This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair 
approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I cannot 
support including this policy at this time. The omnibus is a poor 
vehicle for this necessary maintenance.
  I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is 
neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and 
the House have an agreement with the administration to keep the omnibus 
appropriations bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over 
$1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature 
would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I 
appreciate the willingness of Senators Snowe, Chafee, and Rockefeller 
to accept this reality.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future 
to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as 
chairman of the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that Senator 
Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a 
regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside 
in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP.
  With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this 
issue is to work with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP 
proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also 
continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so 
the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the Budget 
Resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation 
quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, 
bicameral 2-year agreement on S-CHIP.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank Chairman Grassley for bringing this issue to the 
attention of Senators today. I appreciate the work of Senator Snowe, 
Senator Chafee, and Senator Rockefeller to resolve this, however I 
agree that the omnibus appropriations bill is not the appropriate 
vehicle to address the issue of the S-CHIP redistribution system. The 
legislation does affect spending for the next fiscal year and, as such 
must be addressed within the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. I have 
spoken with Senator Snowe and would be happy to work with her to 
address this issue. I will work closely with Senator Grassley and 
others as we craft that resolution to secure the funds necessary for 
the Finance Committee to consider this S-CHIP proposal.

                          ____________________