[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2497-2534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 301. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for 
charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation 
today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for 
volunteers.
  Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable 
purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for 
their donated

[[Page 2498]]

services without triggering a tax consequence for either the 
organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization 
reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information 
return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the 
amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the 
mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36 
cents per mile.
  At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer 
organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential 
services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on 
charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from 
a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this 
reimbursement limit.
  At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the 
Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important 
volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors 
in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54 
volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to 
medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The 
Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and 
drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered 
meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles 
per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers 
donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the 
rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other 
benefits.
  As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the 
most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and 
ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be 
taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. 
Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has 
stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local 
programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging 
federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, 
increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage 
County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer 
their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be 
found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a 
provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come 
directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other 
services.
  By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage 
reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works 
for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means 
that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers 
for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount 
permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.
  This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer 
reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents 
per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not 
increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents 
per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I 
introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer 
mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is 
essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax 
bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time 
of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated 
that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 
million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue 
loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by 
year basis.
  Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything 
we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have 
included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make 
it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty 
of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial 
transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in 
the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure 
charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that 
play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will 
simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers 
themselves.
  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. 301

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

     SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS 
                   EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     after section 139 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139A. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not 
     include amounts received, from an organization described in 
     section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with 
     respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of 
     such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to 
     the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under 
     this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
       ``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate 
     established under such section, and
       ``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an 
     organization not described in section 170(c).
       ``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a 
     deduction or credit for such expenses under any other 
     provision of this title.
       ``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 
     shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from 
     income under subsection (a).''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 139 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 139A. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for 
              charity.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. PENALTY ON FAILURE TO REPORT INTERESTS IN FOREIGN 
                   FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5321(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Foreign financial agency transaction violation.--
       ``(A) Penalty authorized.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may impose a civil money penalty on any person who violates, 
     or causes any violation of, any provision of section 5314.
       ``(B) Amount of penalty.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the amount of any civil penalty imposed under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed $5,000.
       ``(ii) Reasonable cause exception.--No penalty shall be 
     imposed under subparagraph (A) with respect to any violation 
     if--

       ``(I) such violation was due to reasonable cause, and
       ``(II) the amount of the transaction or the balance in the 
     account at the time of the transaction was properly reported.

       ``(C) Willful violations.--In the case of any person 
     willfully violating, or willfully causing any violation of, 
     any provision of section 5314--
       ``(i) the maximum penalty under subparagraph (B)(i) shall 
     be increased to the greater of--

       ``(I) $25,000, or
       ``(II) the amount (not exceeding $100,000) determined under 
     subparagraph (D), and

       ``(ii) subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not apply.
       ``(D) Amount.--The amount determined under this 
     subparagraph is--
       ``(i) in the case of a violation involving a transaction, 
     the amount of the transaction, or
       ``(ii) in the case of a violation involving a failure to 
     report the existence of an account or any identifying 
     information required to be provided with respect to an 
     account, the balance in the account at the time of the 
     violation.''

[[Page 2499]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 302. A bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area in the State of California, to restore and extend the 
term of the advisory commission for the recreation area, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this 
legislation today with Senator Boxer to allow the National Park Service 
to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas. Last 
year, this bill was successfully passed out of the Senate, but was not 
passed by the House before the 107th Congress adjourned.
  This bill meets two distinct needs in California by adding 4,700 
acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Golden 
Gate Recreation Area, GGNRA, and by extending the Golden Gate National 
Recreational Area, GGNRA, Advisory Commission for ten more years.
  A key component of this legislation is that about half of the total 
cost of purchasing these lands will be donated by the local community. 
This legislation specifically provides that all land transactions 
involve a willing seller and willing buyer.
  Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of the local 
environmental and preservation groups, the Point Reyes National 
Seashore Advisory Commission, and the National Park Service. I know of 
no opposition to this bill.
  The three Marin County properties lie in the Marin headlands. 
Preservation of these lands will protect habitat, ridge-top trails and 
scenic views of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
  The city of San Francisco would like to donate to the Federal 
Government the San Francisco land along the Pacific coastline, and has 
authorized $100,000 for the restoration of the site.
  The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will protect 
sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich 
farmland, several miles of public trails, and an incredible array of 
wildlife and vegetation. All or part of four watersheds, and several 
endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin 
butterfly, San Francisco garter snake and the red-legged grog. 
Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude 
changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the 
world.
  The second component of this bill extends the advisory commission of 
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for ten more years.
  This commission has an active committee that represents a wide range 
of user groups from bicyclists to bird watchers to outdoor enthusiasts. 
It provides a vital communications link between the Park Service and 
the surrounding communities that enjoy the attractions that this 
national site has to offer. Without this commission, the Park Service 
would be hard pressed to provide the same level of service and 
attention to the broad interests and diverse communities that it 
serves.
  I continue to be a strong advocate for public involvement in Park 
Service decisions. I believe that this commission has been essential in 
ensuring that the Park Service upholds its commitment to allow 
community participation in its decision making process, particularly 
when it comes to contentious issues.
  California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that 
this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to 
enjoy unique national habitats and open spaces. This legislation 
continues the legacy that enables the Park Service and the community to 
work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the 
interests of the nearby communities.
  This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I 
hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, 
as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce 
companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his 
leadership on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 302

       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 ``Rancho Corral de Tierra 
     Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Boundary Adjustment.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 92-589 
     (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The recreation area shall comprise'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Initial lands.--The recreation area shall comprise''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``The following additional lands are also'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end of the 
     subsection and inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Additional lands.--In addition to the lands described 
     in paragraph (1), the recreation area shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) The parcels numbered by the Assessor of Marin County, 
     California, 119-040-04, 119-040-05, 119-040-18, 166-202-03, 
     166-010-06, 166-010-07, 166-010-24, 166-010-25, 119-240-19, 
     166-010-10, 166-010-22, 119-240-03, 119-240-51, 119-240-52, 
     119-240-54, 166-010-12, 166-010-13, and 119-235-10.
       ``(B) Lands and waters in San Mateo County generally 
     depicted on the map entitled `Sweeney Ridge Addition, Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area', numbered NRA GG-80,000-A, and 
     dated May 1980.
       ``(C) Lands acquired under the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area Addition Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1 note; 
     Public Law 102-299).
       ``(D) Lands generally depicted on the map entitled 
     `Additions to Golden Gate National Recreation Area', numbered 
     NPS-80-076, and dated July 2000/PWR-PLRPC.
       ``(E) Lands generally depicted on the map entitled `Rancho 
     Corral de Tierra Additions to the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,079C and dated January 
     2003, except that lands and interests in lands constituting 
     the Devil's Slide Tunnel alternative are not included in the 
     recreation area. The Secretary shall modify the boundary map 
     referred to in this subparagraph to reflect the exclusion of 
     such lands and interests in lands.
       ``(3) Acquisition limitation.--The Secretary may acquire 
     land described in paragraph (2)(E) only from a willing 
     seller.''.
       (b) Extension of Term of Advisory Commission.--Effective as 
     of October 26, 2002, section 5(g) of Public Law 92-589 (16 
     U.S.C. 460bb-4(g)) is amended by striking ``cease to exist 
     thirty years after the enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``terminate at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of the Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, 
        and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 304. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
expand the scope of the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Corzine, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Mikulski, to introduce the Family and 
Medical Leave Expansion Act. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the 
enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark 
legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, a decade 
after enactment, more than 35 million Americans have taken leave under 
FMLA.
  Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has 
helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have 
to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of 
Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, 
too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot 
afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave 
Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these 
problems.
  The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope

[[Page 2500]]

and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the State level 
to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that 
employees do not have to choose between job and family.
  Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. 
While only 27 percent of mothers with infants were in the labor force 
in 1960, by 1999 that percentage rose to nearly 60 percent. Even as 
employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities 
remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According 
to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one fifth of US 
workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and 
about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered 
leave within the next five years.
  According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for 
one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or 
parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. 
Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own 
serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by 
young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption.
  The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private 
employers of 50 or more employees provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid 
leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 
77 percent of employees, in the private and public sector, currently 
work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are 
actually eligible for leave.
  However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered 
under FMLA. Individuals working for small private employers deserve the 
same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward 
expanding protection to all hard-working Americans, this bill would 
extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more 
employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 
13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act, roughly 
240,000 in my own State of Connecticut.
  Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have the same family 
responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether 
they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a small 
private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more 
employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality.
  The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic 
violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to 
include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a 
daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence.
  Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many 
Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of 
Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but, without 
wage replacement, could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of 
those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford 
unpaid leave. Others cut their leave short, with the average duration 
of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes 
above $30,000.
  While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave 
can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and 
accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on 
public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of 
female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These 
individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are 
trying to balance work with family, often during a crisis, too often 
with inadequate means to get by.
  Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more 
family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family 
caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected 
maternity leave, with sixteen weeks the average basic paid leave. In 
1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European 
Union mandated a paid fourteen week maternity leave as a health and 
safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, OECD, countries, the average childbirth-related leave is 
44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks.
  Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far 
behind in efforts to promote worker welfare and productivity. The 
``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to 
provide pilot programs for States and the Federal Government to provide 
for partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks. At a minimum, this 
will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking 
family and medical leave.
  When we talk about a more compassionate America, no where is that 
more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have 
to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave 
when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing 
their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family 
integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace. Instead, we must 
actively work to reduce workplace barriers.
  We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite 
studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's 
life. This is our chance to offer more parents the opportunity to spend 
more time with their families, to help fulfill the call to provide a 
more compassionate America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave 
Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and ensure the welfare and 
health of hard-working Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the summary of the Family and 
Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record.

               The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act


                             Brief Summary

       Background: Since enactment in 1993, more than 35 million 
     employees have taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave 
     Act. Under current law, an employee is eligible for 12 weeks 
     of unpaid leave if she or he has worked for an employer for 
     at least 12 months; has worked for 1,250 hours over the 12 
     months before leave is needed; and works at a location with 
     50 or more employees within 75 miles. About 11 percent of 
     private sector businesses are covered under FMLA; 77 percent 
     of employees work in these covered businesses (although about 
     62 percent of employees are eligible for FMLA).
       According to the most recent data, 52 percent of leave-
     takers have taken time off to care for their own serious 
     illness; 26 percent of leave-takers have taken time off to 
     care for a new child or for maternity disability reasons; 13 
     percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill 
     parent; 12 percent have taken time off to care for a 
     seriously ill child; and 6 percent have taken time off to 
     care for a seriously ill spouse. About 42 percent of leave 
     takers are men; about 58 percent of leave-takers are women. 
     The median length of leave is 10 days; 80% of leaves are for 
     40 days or fewer. About 73 percent of leave-takers earn 
     $30,000 or more.
       The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would expand the 
     scope and coverage of FMLA to ensure that even more American 
     workers do not have to choose between job and family. Too 
     many eligible individuals simply cannot afford unpaid leave. 
     Many forgo leave or take the shortest amount of time possible 
     because the current FMLA law requires only unpaid leave. The 
     Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would:
       Establish a pilot program to allocate grants to states to 
     provide paid leave for 6 weeks to eligible employees 
     responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or 
     adoption of a child or family illness. States may provide for 
     wage replacement directly or through an insurance program, 
     such as a state temporary disability program or a state 
     unemployment compensation program, or other mechanism. Such 
     paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks 
     of leave under FMLA.
       Expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA by 
     covering employers with 25 or more employees (to enable 13 
     million more Americans to take FMLA).
       Expand the reasons for leave to include eligible employees 
     addressing domestic violence and its effects, which make the 
     employee unable to perform the functions of the position of 
     such employee or, to care for the son, daughter, or parent of 
     the employee, if such individual is addressing domestic 
     violence and its effects.
       Establish a pilot program within the federal government for 
     the Office of Personnel

[[Page 2501]]

     Management (OPM) to administer a partial or full wage 
     replacement for 6 weeks to eligible employees responding to 
     caregiving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a 
     child or other family caregiving needs. Such paid leave shall 
     count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under 
     FMLA.
       Allows employees to use a total of 24 hours during any 12 
     month period to participate in a school activity of a son or 
     daughter, such as parent-teacher conference, or to 
     participate in literacy training under a family literacy 
     program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, 
        and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 306. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to consolidate and restate the Federal laws relating to the social 
health maintenance organization projects, to make such projects 
permanent, to require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to 
conduct a study on ways to expand such projects, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
make Medicare's Social Health Maintenance Organization, SHMO, 
demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare+Choice program. In this 
effort, I am joined by my colleagues from Oregon, New York, Arizona, 
California, and Washington.
  The Social HMO demonstration was authorized 18 years ago to test 
models for improving health care for frail seniors, expanding access to 
social and supportive services, and integrating these expanded benefits 
with medical services better. My colleagues and I feel that an 
eighteen-year test is long enough, it is time for this successful 
program to become a permanent choice for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Close to 80 percent of national health care expenditures are for 
people with chronic conditions. Medicare beneficiaries are 
disproportionately affected by chronic illness. About 85 percent of 
people who are 65 and older have one chronic condition, and two thirds 
have two or more. Fully a third of Medicare beneficiaries have four or 
more chronic conditions. This group accounts for more than three 
quarters of all Medicare spending. Yet, despite the predominance of 
chronic illness among seniors, Medicare continues to operate as an 
acute care model. So many of the services that are central to the 
health care needs of seniors are not covered by Medicare, including a 
number of preventive services, care coordination and disease management 
services, and home and community-based support services.
  Social HMOs provide the care coordination and disease management 
services so critically important to frail and at-risk seniors with 
multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs. Social HMOs are 
required to provide expanded care benefits such as prescription drugs, 
ancillary services such as eyeglasses and hearing aids, and community-
based services such as personal care, homemaker services, adult day 
care, meals, and transportation. These services meet the chronic health 
care needs of seniors, helping them remain independent, while reducing 
Medicaid expenditures by avoiding or delaying nursing home placement.
  Several recent studies have shown that Social HMO members are 40 
percent to 50 percent less likely to have long-term nursing home 
placements than similar seniors. Further, in a recent survey of Social 
HMO beneficiaries, over three-quarters of respondents indicated that 
the special services offered by their Social HMO were critical in 
allowing them to continue living at home. Enhanced Social HMO services, 
such as early detection of illness, development of coordinated care 
plans to address problems identified during routine assessments, 
screening, and ongoing monitoring of care, has paid off in improved 
health outcomes for beneficiaries. One study submitted to CMS by the 
University of California at San Francisco and the University of 
Minnesota showed that the Social HMO chronic care interventions 
decreased inpatient hospital and emergency room use up to 57 percent 
and 47 percent, respectively, while improving beneficiaries' functional 
capacity.
  Last year, Medicaid spending increased by over 13 percent. More than 
half of this growth was in programs serving the elderly and disabled. 
At a time when the Federal deficit is increasing and States are facing 
unprecedented budget shortfalls, it is incumbent upon us to take 
measures to reduce, not increase, the Medicaid burden, which 
constitutes a major component of State expenditures.
  My legislation provides a critical opportunity to address the States' 
large and growing fiscal crises. In the short-term we can prevent an 
exacerbation of States' budget woes by making the Social HMOs 
permanent. Preliminary estimates of first year costs for terminating 
the Social HMO program range from about $100 to $300 million for 
increased nursing home and home care expenditures under Medicaid. 
Remember that these estimates relate to only four existing plans 
serving about 110,000 beneficiaries and do not even include 
prescription drugs and other ancillary services provided by the plans. 
Long-term cost savings associated with reduced health care expenditures 
and keeping enrollees from spending down to Medicaid would be even more 
significant--especially if the MedPAC study required by our bill 
validates that these programs are cost-effective and recommends to 
Congress that we expand this option. For states facing huge shortfalls, 
the cost to absorb these SHMO beneficiaries if the program were to 
terminate would be substantial.
  I am fortunate that one of the four original Social HMOs is in 
Oregon. Senior Advantage II, offered by Kaiser Permanente's Northwest 
Division, currently serves about 4,300 Medicare beneficiaries from 
Salem, OR to Longview, Washington, with its primary service area in 
Portland, OR. Since Kaiser opened its Social HMO program, it has served 
close to 15,000 beneficiaries with its enhanced benefits and special 
geriatric programs, which have led to fewer overall nursing home care 
days and a more consumer-oriented approach to care for frail or ill 
seniors.
  The legislation I am introducing with my distinguished colleagues 
today would make permanent the existing Social HMO plans, like Kaiser, 
and would lay the ground work for evaluating whether to expand and 
replicate this model. Our bill requires the Secretary to conduct a 
comparative study of beneficiary and family member satisfaction to see 
how Social HMOs compare to Medicare + Choice and fee-for-service 
Medicare. It also requires MedPAC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 
Social HMOs with respect to reduced nursing home admissions, reduced 
incidence of Medicaid spend-down, and other aspects of the model that 
represent potential cost-savings. If MedPAC finds that Social HMOs are 
cost-effective, it must make recommendations to Congress on expanding 
and replicating this model.
  To ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive the value added they 
have come to enjoy under this program, the Social HMOs must continue to 
provide the expanded benefit package currently offered under this 
legislation. Further, this benefit could not be changed by the 
Secretary without notification of Congress. Finally, to ensure that 
Social HMOs can continue to finance a high level of benefits, any 
changes in plans' existing payments would need to go through a formal 
rulemaking process.
  The Social HMO demonstration project has been re-validated by six 
acts of Congress since its creation. It is time to make this program 
permanent and lend a measure of stability to the plans and 
beneficiaries served by this innovative model. This program represents 
a fiscally sound approach to helping manage the chronic health care 
needs of our nation's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join 
with me and the rest of this bill's cosponsors in support of this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 307. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States 
courthouse

[[Page 2502]]

located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall 
Federal Building and United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and 
colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, to introduce a bill to 
name the Federal building and United States courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, 
after Congressman Tony Hall.
  This bill is a fitting tribute to Tony Hall, a tireless and dedicated 
public servant, who we greatly miss since his retirement from the 
United States Congress. He is continuing his commitment to public 
service as our U.S. Ambassador to the UN's food and agriculture 
agencies.
  The people of Ohio and the American people can be proud of and 
thankful for the many years Tony Hall has served in the United States 
Congress. I've had the privilege of working closely with him since my 
early days in the House nearly 20 years ago. He has been a valuable 
legislator and a real statesman. Over the years, he has worked 
tirelessly on behalf of the people of Montgomery County and throughout 
Ohio.
  Tony Hall comes from a family rich in devotion to public service and 
dedication to Ohio. His father, in fact, once served as Dayton's 
Republican Mayor. A graduate of Fairmont High School in Kettering and 
Denison University in Granville, where he was an all-star tailback on 
the football team, Tony served in the Ohio House from 1969-1972, in the 
Ohio Senate from 1973-1978, and as Dayton's Congressman since January 
1979.
  A devoted husband to his wife, Janet, and a dedicated father to Jyl 
and Matt, the entire Hall family struggled valiantly alongside Matt as 
he fought an unsuccessful battle against leukemia that ended in 1996.
  My wife, Fran, and I are proud to have worked over two decades with 
Tony and Janet on humanitarian efforts and other causes that bridge 
across the political aisle. Tony, who served in the Peace Corps in 1966 
and 1967, has been an unmatched advocate for the needy, the poor, the 
hungry, and the oppressed across Ohio, our Nation, and the world.
  Tony has been singularly responsible for much of the world's 
continued, focused attention on the serious hunger issues worldwide. 
His involvement in a 22-day hunger strike in 1989, forced the 
Department of Agriculture and the World Bank to call conferences on 
hunger, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Congressional 
Hunger Center. I'm proud to have worked with Tony on several 
humanitarian initiatives through the years from Africa Seeds of Hope to 
the Global Food for Education Act to the Microenterprise for Self-
Reliance Act to the Clean Diamond Act of 2001.
  We also share a commitment to the yet unborn. A staunch pro-life 
Democrat, Congressman Hall was responsible for language in the 
Democratic National Committee platform respecting the beliefs of those 
within his party who wished to protect the sanctity of life.
  I also have had the pleasure of working with Tony Hall on several 
projects important to the Miami Valley area of Ohio. We share a passion 
for the aviation heritage of the Wright Brothers in Dayton and have 
worked together to protect and preserve the monuments to the Wright 
Brothers legacy. And, we've also worked together on issues to help 
build the unique resources of Wright Patterson Air Force base.
  Today, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to join Senator 
Voinovich to honor Tony Hall's many legislative efforts and 
achievements and to thank him for his commitment to the people of Ohio 
and this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor our 
good friend and statesman, Tony Hall.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT:
  S. 308. A bill to impose greater accountability on the Tennessee 
Valley Authority with respect to capital investment decisions and 
financing operations by increasing Congressional and Executive Branch 
oversight; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long 
served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country 
and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power 
that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of 
those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its 
legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the 
Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether 
TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with 
the realities of today's marketplace.
  The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United 
States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have 
provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of 
the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The 
TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing 
generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and 
obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating 
capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the 
United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the 
financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges.
  The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political 
imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing 
strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and 
utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short-
term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by 
the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt.
  Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt 
corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason 
to believe that TVA has been involved in any such practices, I believe 
we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and 
disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is 
being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing 
facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate 
management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and 
rewards associated with these strategies.
  The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the 
TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business 
outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and 
financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and 
risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is 
responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to 
cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any 
arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or 
replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period 
the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and 
House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or 
refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the 
necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and 
fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this 
Congressional mandate.
  I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the 
economic health of several States in the southeastern United States, 
including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the 
infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. 
It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be 
positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of 
this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.
  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:

[[Page 2503]]



                                 S. 308

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

     SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors 
     of the Authority.
       (3) Committee leader.--The term ``Committee leader'' means 
     the chairman and ranking member of each of the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on the Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
       (4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (5) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Ten-Year Business 
     Outlook and Strategic Plan submitted under subsection (b).
       (b) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the effective date 
     of this section, the Authority shall submit to the Director 
     and each of the Committee leaders, for their concurrence, a 
     Ten-Year Business Outlook and Strategic Plan for the 
     Authority that includes, at a minimum--
       (1) estimates of--
       (A) the power demand in the service area of the Authority 
     during the 10-year period following the date of the plan;
       (B) the assets that the Authority anticipates will be 
     available to meet that demand; and
       (C) capital expenditures that will be required to meet that 
     demand;
       (2) a strategy and criteria for the development and 
     financing of new nuclear and nonnuclear power supply sources, 
     including a strategy for competitive sourcing and partnering 
     with the private sector for the development and financing of 
     new nuclear and nonnuclear power facilities; and
       (3) a strategy for managing the financing, refinancing, and 
     repayment of the existing indebtedness of the Authority, 
     including a specific debt repayment schedule to which the 
     Board is specifically committed.
       (c) Financing Strategies.--The provisions of the Plan 
     relating to financing strategies under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall include a recitation of the policies of the Board with 
     respect to--
       (1) the use of short-term and long-term debt;
       (2) the use of derivative or other financing instruments; 
     and
       (3) risk management strategies.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--The Authority shall not, until the date, 
     if any, on which the Director and each of the Committee 
     leaders issue a written concurrence to the Plan--
       (A) expend any internally generated capital or otherwise 
     undertake any investment in, or enter into any arrangement 
     that would result in the development or financing of, new, 
     additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity; or
       (B) without the written concurrence of the Director and 
     each of the Committee leaders, undertake any financing of 
     additional indebtedness or refinancing of debt of the 
     Authority in any public or private market.
       (2) Effect.--This subsection does not preclude the 
     Authority from expending available funds, in the exercise of 
     the independent judgment of the Authority, for the repair, 
     maintenance, or necessary renovation to preserve the 
     operating capacity and efficiency of existing units and 
     related facilities.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on January 
     31, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 309. A bill to enable the United States to maintain its leadership 
in aeronautics and aviation by instituting an initiative to develop 
technologies that will significantly lower noise, emissions, and fuel 
consumption, to reinvigorate basic and applied research in aeronautics 
and aviation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am most pleased to be joined by our 
esteemed colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, to introduce the 
Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act. This 
legislation is the foundation for ensuring that the United States 
remains the preeminent Nation in the design, engineering and production 
of military and civilian aircraft.
  The last 5 years have seen the NASA budget for aeronautics research 
and development literally cut in half from $1 billion to its current 
level of $500 million. In making these cuts, the United States has been 
rendered more vulnerable to foreign competition in the field of 
aeronautics. The nations of Europe have moved in the exact opposite 
direction--dramatically increasing such funding in an effort to control 
the world's aviation market. A recent article in the Wall Street 
Journal documents the rise of Airbus as the largest producer of 
civilian aircraft in the world. If forecasts for this year hold true, 
Airbus will deliver more aircraft than Boeing for the first time. In 
light of these disturbing developments it is obvious that the U.S. is 
in grave danger of losing its position as the world leader in 
aeronautics and aviation.
  It is important to note that throughout the history of aeronautics 
and aviation that this country has been at the forefront of discovery 
and innovation. It began with the First Flight of the Wright Brothers 
on December 17, 1903 in Kitty Hawk, NC, followed by the historic flight 
of Charles Lindbergh from New York to Paris in May of 1927. U.S. 
companies have led the aviation and aeronautics industry from the 
propeller era into the jet engine era. The research and innovation of 
the U.S. has been the primary reason the world enjoys the convenience 
and safety of air travel today.
  Our military has seen the benefits from the progress made in 
aeronautics research. The significant improvements made from World War 
I to World War II directly impacted the Allies ability to establish air 
superiority. The numerous advances made in U.S. aircraft design greatly 
increased the top speed and altitude of bombers and fighters during 
crucial years of the war. Since then, our country's aeronautics 
research has made it the dominant air power in the world, with 
technologies years in advance of its closest pursuers. As a result of 
these advancements, U.S. troops are placed in far less harm and more 
precise strikes against enemy targets can be made while avoiding non-
targeted civilians.
  Fortunately NASA has recognized the emergence of international 
competition and the need for the U.S. to re-assert itself as the lead 
nation in aeronautics research technology and innovation. The recently 
published ``The NASA Aeronautics Blueprint--Toward a Bold Era of 
Aviation'' is an excellent report on the problems facing American 
aviation and aeronautics. It also provides an exciting vision of what 
can be achieved by investing in aeronautics research and development. 
However NASA has not provided a program or plan for how to achieve this 
vision nor funding levels that would be required to attain the goals 
laid out in the Blueprint. Thus without a plan or funding, it is 
unlikely this report would ever be acted upon.
  In an effort to tackle the major initiatives of the NASA Blueprint 
head-on, we are introducing the Aeronautics Research and Development 
Revitalization Act. The legislation will provide aggressive funding 
authorizations to provide the NASA aeronautics program with the 
resources it needs to keep the United States on the cutting edge of all 
aspects of aeronautics and aviation. Our complacency must change now to 
prevent further damage to our competitiveness in aviation. The U.S. 
aviation industry is the largest contributor to the U.S. balance of 
trade and directly accounts for $343 billion to the U.S. economy and 
4.2 million positions to our job market.
  First, consider the impact of aviation on our communities. As air 
travel becomes more commonplace, increased aircraft noise will place a 
strain on both the citizens and businesses living and operating in the 
areas surrounding our nation's airports. The effect on property values 
and quality of life can be enormous, so it will be important to pursue 
technologies that reduce the level of noise emitted from aircraft. We 
also must acknowledge the rising emissions levels that are the result 
of increased air travel as well as the fuel consumption required to 
meet the growing number of planes in the air. The instability of oil 
prices and the growing effect of fuel emission on our atmosphere make 
it necessary to find improvement in fuel efficiency. These 
environmental factors must be addressed, or the American people will 
certainly face fewer choices and higher prices. To meet these needs, 
our legislation provides significant funding to be used for research, 
much of which will be designated for universities, industrial research 
facilities and not-for-profit research entities. The impacts of

[[Page 2504]]

aviation are beginning to negatively impact the lives of many 
Americans; this initiative will make aircraft more environmentally 
friendly.
  Additionally, strides also need to be made in rotorcraft technology. 
This legislation authorizes funding for, and tasks NASA with, improving 
the noise and vibration levels of helicopters, as well as improving the 
predicted accident rate to make it equivalent to that of fixed-wing 
aircraft. Helicopters are indispensable for our military and provide 
great convenience for the civilians. Making them safer and quieter is a 
worthwhile effort that should be pursued.
  The promise of civil supersonic travel has been on the horizon for 
some time. However it has been difficult to perfect the technology for 
a civilian supersonic aircraft and the costs associated with such a 
program are high. The legislation we have introduced would required 
NASA to develop a road map for achieving the flight of a supersonic 
civil transport aircraft that can reach a speed of Mach 1.6, travel at 
least 4,000 nautical miles, and carry one hundred fifty passengers. If 
these goals can be met over the next twenty years, the U.S. aviation 
industry will be revolutionized. Achieving such speeds would change 
business and personal travel as it is known today. To bring this 
initiative forward, this legislation would authorize $110 million for 
the next five years. This should provide a good start in the effort to 
bring civilian air travel into the twenty-first century.
  At the core of U.S. aeronautics and aviation superiority are men and 
women performing the research and development necessary for 
technological breakthroughs. The U.S. has seen a disturbing decline in 
the number of aeronautical engineers graduating from its universities. 
It is important to encourage American students to consider these 
fields. We need to make sure the best and the brightest are properly 
trained so they can make their creative ideas and theories a reality. 
This current trend is a leading reason the U.S. is losing ground in 
aeronautics research. To combat the dearth of aeronautics engineers, 
this legislation would authorize NASA to establish a generous 
scholarship program for those students seeking a Masters Degree in the 
field of aeronautics.
  As air travel becomes more prevalent, it becomes more important that 
air traffic management and control are operating in the most effective 
and safe manner. This bill includes a measure that requires the 
Administrator of NASA to work with the Federal Aviation Association 
Administrator to develop a national initiative with the objective of 
defining and developing an air traffic management system designed to 
meet the national long-term aviation security needs, along with safety, 
security and capacity needs. These provisions will hopefully result in 
a new, more streamlined method for directing air traffic around our 
busiest airports and cities.
  The measures and funding authorizations in this legislation are 
aggressive. However when considering the state of both the aeronautics 
and aviation industries. I believe it is time to take decisive action 
to ensure the long-term competitive supremacy of both our military and 
civilization aviation programs.
  The majority of military aircraft technology was developed to some 
degree by NASA's aeronautics program. To make sure those risking their 
lives in the service of the country are afforded the best possible 
equipment in performing their duties, the U.S. government has the 
responsibility to make the necessary investments in research and 
development. In recent years we have seen a drastic cuts in the 
programs designed for this purpose. Technology and innovation are 
always moving forward, the government needs to expend the resources to 
keep the U.S. at the forefront of those efforts.
  The civilian airline and aeronautics industry has largely been 
dominated by the United States since its beginning. Recent news reports 
have shown however that this phenomenon is changing. Countries around 
the world are making great progress in building larger, more efficient 
commuter airlines at a cheaper price. This new competition has 
jeopardized the jobs of thousands of highly trained engineers and works 
in this country. Keeping pace with the competition and working to 
maintain the lead over other aircraft providers is essential if we want 
to keep this important segment of the work force employed. Losing 
global contracts means job cuts. To turn this trend around we must 
commit to the research and development that leads to innovation in 
commercial aviation. Only then will we secure the existing jobs in this 
country and build the need for more jobs.
  To make this legislation law we will have to make some difficult 
choices and priorities. Current economic conditions dictate that we 
cannot fund every desirable program. However, even in the face of the 
circumstances, I feel strongly that we can no longer complacently wait 
to make the changes outlined in this legislation. Making the United 
States the unquestioned leader in aeronautics research and development 
is in the best interest of our military, our civilian airline industry, 
quality jobs and balance of trade. The aviation industry affects the 
lives of almost all Americans. For these reasons, we ask our colleagues 
to carefully review the current condition of U.S. aeronautics and the 
implications of its continued decline. I am confident they will concur 
that this legislation is needed now without delay. Our security, 
competitive position, jobs and future are sitting on the runway needing 
our fuel for the aeronautics industry to take off into the future.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 309

       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 ``Aeronautics Research and 
     Development Revitalization Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is in the national interest to maintain leadership 
     in aeronautics and aviation.
       (2) The United States is in danger of losing its leadership 
     in aeronautics and aviation to international competitors.
       (3) Past Federal investments in aeronautics research and 
     development have benefited the economy and national security 
     of the United States and the quality of life of its citizens.
       (4) Future growth in aviation increasingly will be 
     constrained by concerns related to aircraft noise, emissions, 
     fuel consumption, and air transportation system congestion.
       (5) Current and projected levels of Federal investment in 
     aeronautics research and development are not sufficient to 
     address concerns related to the growth of aviation.
       (6) International competitors have recognized the 
     importance of noise, emissions, fuel consumption, and air 
     transportation system congestion in limiting the future 
     growth of aviation and have established aggressive agendas 
     for addressing each of these concerns.
       (7) An aggressive initiative by the Federal Government to 
     develop technologies that would significantly reduce aircraft 
     noise, harmful emissions, and fuel consumption would benefit 
     the United States by--
       (A) improving the competitiveness of the United States 
     aviation industry through the development of new markets for 
     aviation services and the development of superior aircraft 
     for existing markets;
       (B) improving the quality of life for our citizens by 
     drastically reducing the level of noise due to aircraft 
     operations;
       (C) reducing the congestion of the air transportation 
     system by allowing departures and arrivals at currently under 
     utilized airports through the use of environmentally 
     compatible aircraft;
       (D) reducing the rate at which fossil fuels are consumed;
       (E) reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases and other 
     harmful gases and particulates are added to the atmosphere by 
     aircraft; and
       (F) reinvigorating the human capital needed to maintain 
     international leadership in aeronautics and aviation by 
     providing a set of extremely challenging and socially 
     beneficial goals to the next generation of engineers and 
     scientists.
       (8) Long-term progress in aeronautics and aviation will 
     require continued Federal investment in fundamental 
     aeronautical research.
       (9) The European competitors of United States aircraft 
     companies have invested heavily in new wind tunnels. These 
     new tunnels are better than their older United

[[Page 2505]]

     States counterparts and give European aircraft manufacturers 
     an advantage over United States aircraft manufacturers in the 
     highly competitive civil aircraft sales business. As a 
     result, United States aircraft companies are forced to 
     perform tests in Europe's superior wind tunnels. The security 
     of United States data obtained in these and other foreign 
     test facilities can easily be compromised. New and upgraded 
     United States aeronautical test facilities are needed to 
     support a revitalized aeronautics research and development 
     program, and should be a high national priority.
       (10) Continued research is needed into the flight crew and 
     controller training needed to accommodate new aircraft and 
     air transportation system technologies and procedures.
       (11) It is in the interest of the United States to maintain 
     a vigorous capability in basic and applied research and 
     development of technologies related to rotorcraft.
       (12) Maintenance of United States leadership in aeronautics 
     and aviation will require the productive collaboration of 
     NASA, the Department of Defense, the FAA, the aviation 
     industry, and the Nation's universities.
       (13) Improvements to our understanding of convective 
     weather phenomena and of aircraft wake turbulence would 
     significantly improve the performance of the Nation's air 
     transportation system.
       (14) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have 
     imposed new requirements for research on aviation security. 
     NASA's aviation safety research must be expanded to include 
     methods that provide for an air transportation system that is 
     both safe and secure from terrorist attacks.
       (15) It is important for NASA to continue at a healthy 
     level its cooperative research efforts with the Department of 
     Defense regarding military aviation technologies. These 
     efforts have been all but eliminated in recent years and must 
     be restored. The Nation must take advantage of the synergy 
     between civil and military aviation research.
       (16) The report entitled ``The NASA Aeronautics Blueprint--
     Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation'' provides an excellent 
     statement of the problems facing aviation today, and presents 
     an exciting vision of what can be achieved by investments in 
     aeronautics research and technology. It does not, however, 
     provide a program plan to actually achieve the vision, nor 
     does it address the huge mismatch between current NASA 
     aeronautics funding and what is required to realize the 
     vision.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) FAA.--The term ``FAA'' means the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.
       (2) FAA administrator.--The term ``FAA Administrator'' 
     means the Administrator of the FAA.
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001).
       (4) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration.
       (5) NASA administrator.--The term ``NASA Administrator'' 
     means the Administrator of NASA.

           TITLE I--NASA AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 101. ENVIRONMENTAL AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   INITIATIVE.

       (a) Objective.--Not later than 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop 
     and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies that 
     result in the following commercial aircraft performance 
     characteristics:
       (1) Noise.--Noise levels on takeoff and on airport approach 
     and landing that do not exceed ambient noise levels in the 
     absence of flight operations in the vicinity of airports from 
     which such commercial aircraft would normally operate.
       (2) Fuel efficiency.--A 10 percent improvement in fuel 
     efficiency, compared to aircraft in commercial service as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, in each of the following:
       (A) Specific fuel consumption.
       (B) Lift to drag ratio.
       (C) Structural weight fraction.
       (3) Emissions.--Nitrogen oxides at less than 5 grams per 
     kilogram of fuel burned.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall 
     provide to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a plan for the implementation of 
     the initiative described in subsection (a). Such 
     implementation plan shall include--
       (1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the 
     performance characteristics specified in subsection (a);
       (2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to 
     achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
       (3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the 
     estimated costs and benefits of each technological option 
     selected for development beyond the initial concept 
     definition phase; and
       (4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry, 
     including the identification of requirements for prototype 
     demonstrations, as appropriate.
       (c) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall enter 
     into an arrangement with the National Research Council to 
     review the adequacy of the implementation plan provided under 
     subsection (b) to achieve the objective described in 
     subsection (a). In addition, the NASA Administrator shall 
     enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council 
     for the review, every 3 years after the initial review under 
     this subsection, of NASA's progress in achieving the 
     objective described in subsection (a), including 
     recommendations for changes to NASA's research and 
     development program. The results of each review shall be 
     provided to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate within 30 days after the review 
     is completed.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 107, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the NASA Administrator to carry out this 
     section--
       (A) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (B) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (C) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (E) $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Amounts to certain entities.--Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated in paragraph (1), the percentage of the 
     annual appropriation that shall be used to fund research and 
     development conducted at universities, industrial research 
     entities, and not-for-profit research consortia is--
       (A) 20 percent for fiscal year 2004;
       (B) 30 percent for fiscal year 2005;
       (C) 40 percent for fiscal year 2006; and
       (D) 50 percent for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

     SEC. 102. ROTORCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       (a) Objective.--Not later than 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop 
     and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies that 
     result in rotorcraft with the following improvements compared 
     to rotorcraft operating on the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) 80 percent reduction in noise levels on takeoff and on 
     approach and landing as perceived by a human observer.
       (2) Factor of 10 percent reduction in vibration.
       (3) 30 percent reduction in empty weight.
       (4) Predicted accident rate equivalent to that of fixed-
     wing aircraft in commercial service.
       (5) Capability for zero-ceiling, zero-visibility 
     operations.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall 
     provide a plan to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate for the implementation of 
     the initiative described in subsection (a). The 
     implementation plan shall include--
       (1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the 
     improvements specified in subsection (a);
       (2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to 
     achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
       (3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the 
     estimated costs and benefits of each technological option 
     selected for development beyond the initial concept 
     definition phase; and
       (4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry, 
     including the identification of requirements for prototype 
     demonstrations, as appropriate.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (5) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 103. CIVIL SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   INITIATIVE.

       (a) Objective.--Not later than 20 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall develop 
     and demonstrate, in a relevant environment, technologies to 
     enable overland flight of supersonic civil transport aircraft 
     with at least the following performance characteristics:
       (1) Mach number of at least 1.6.
       (2) Range of at least 4,000 nautical miles.
       (3) Payload of at least 150 passengers.
       (4) Lift to drag ratio of at least 9.0.
       (5) Noise levels on takeoff and on airport approach and 
     landing that meet community noise standards in place at 
     airports from which such commercial supersonic aircraft would 
     normally operate at the time the aircraft would enter 
     commercial service.
       (6) Shaped signature sonic boom overpressure of less than 
     1.0 pounds per square foot.
       (7) Nitrogen oxide emissions of less than 15 grams per 
     kilogram of fuel burned.
       (8) Water vapor emissions for stratospheric flight of no 
     greater than 1,400 grams per kilogram of fuel burned.

[[Page 2506]]

       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall 
     provide to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a plan for the 
     implementation of the initiative described in subsection (a). 
     Such implementation plan shall include--
       (1) technological roadmaps for achieving each of the 
     performance characteristics specified in subsection (a);
       (2) an estimate of the 10-year funding profile required to 
     achieve the objective specified in subsection (a);
       (3) a plan for carrying out a formal quantification of the 
     estimated costs and benefits of each technological option 
     selected for development beyond the initial concept 
     definition phase;
       (4) a plan for transferring the technologies to industry, 
     including the identification of requirements for prototype 
     demonstrations, as appropriate;
       (5) a plan for research to quantify, within 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the limits on sonic boom 
     parameters, such as overpressure and rise time, that would be 
     acceptable to the general public; and
       (6) a plan for adjusting the noise reduction research and 
     development activities as needed to accommodate changes in 
     community noise standards that may occur over the lifetime of 
     the initiative.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (4) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (5) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 104. NASA AERONAUTICS SCHOLARSHIPS.

       (a) Objective.--The NASA Administrator shall establish a 
     program of scholarships for full-time graduate students who 
     are United States citizens and are enrolled in, or have been 
     accepted by and have indicated their intention to enroll in, 
     accredited Masters degree programs in aeronautical 
     engineering at institutions of higher education. Each such 
     scholarship shall cover the costs of room, board, tuition, 
     and fees, and may be provided for a maximum of 2 years.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the NASA Administrator shall 
     publish regulations governing the scholarship program.
       (c) Cooperative Training Opportunities.--Students who have 
     been awarded a scholarship under this section shall have the 
     opportunity for paid employment at one of the NASA Centers 
     engaged in aeronautics research and development during the 
     summer prior to the first year of the student's Masters 
     program, and between the first and second year, if 
     applicable.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 107, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $750,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (3) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 105. AVIATION WEATHER RESEARCH.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the NASA 
     Administrator $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008 for collaborative research with the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on convective weather 
     events, with the goal of improving the reliability of 2- to 
     6-hour aviation weather forecasts to a level of at least 
     0.75.

     SEC. 106. AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   INITIATIVE.

       (a) Objective.--The FAA Administrator and the NASA 
     Administrator shall participate in a national initiative with 
     the objective of defining and developing an air traffic 
     management system designed to meet national long-term 
     aviation security, safety, and capacity needs. The initiative 
     should result in a multiagency blueprint for acquisition and 
     implementation of an air traffic management system that 
     would--
       (1) build upon current air traffic management and 
     infrastructure initiatives;
       (2) improve the security, safety, quality, and 
     affordability of aviation services;
       (3) utilize a system of systems approach;
       (4) develop a highly integrated, secure common information 
     network to enable common situational awareness for all 
     appropriate system users; and
       (5) ensure seamless global operations for system users.
       (b) Implementation.--In implementing subsection (a), the 
     FAA Administrator and the NASA Administrator shall work with 
     other appropriate Government agencies and industry to--
       (1) develop system performance requirements;
       (2) determine an optimal operational concept and system 
     architecture to meet such requirements;
       (3) utilize new modeling, simulation, and analysis tools to 
     quantify and validate system performance and benefits;
       (4) ensure the readiness of enabling technologies; and
       (5) develop a transition plan for successful implementation 
     into the National Airspace System.
       (c) Authorization.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 107--
       (1) there are authorized to be appropriated to the NASA 
     Aerospace Technology Program to carry out this section--
       (A) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
       (B) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
       (C) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
       (D) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and
       (E) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2008; and
       (2) there are authorized to be appropriated to the FAA 
     Research, Engineering, and Development account to carry out 
     this section--
       (A) $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
       (B) $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
       (C) $40,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
       (D) $40,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and
       (E) $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization.--The total amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for aeronautics research, development, and 
     demonstration activities at NASA, including the amounts 
     authorized by sections 101 through 106 of this Act, are--
       (1) $675,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (3) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (4) $1,050,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (5) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (b) Limitation.--All amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by this title are for research and development activities and 
     do not include amounts required to support the labor, travel, 
     environmental compliance, and nonprogrammatic construction of 
     facilities activities of the Office of Aeronautics.

   TITLE II--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 201. UNIVERSITY-BASED CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON AVIATION 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 44921. Grants for university-based centers for 
       research on aviation training

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall award grants to institutions of 
     higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish 1 or 
     more Centers for Research on Aviation Training.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Centers for Research on 
     Aviation Training shall be to investigate the impact of new 
     technologies and procedures, particularly those related to 
     the aircraft flight deck and to the air traffic management 
     functions, on training requirements for pilots and air 
     traffic controllers.
       ``(c) Application.--An institution of higher education (or 
     a consortium of such institutions) seeking funding under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Administrator 
     may require, including, at a minimum, a 5-year research plan.
       ``(d) Award Duration.--An award made by the Administrator 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration under this section 
     shall be for a period of 5 years and may be renewed on the 
     basis of--
       ``(1) satisfactory performance in meeting the goals of the 
     research plan proposed by the Center for Research on Aviation 
     Training in its application under subsection (c); and
       ``(2) other requirements as specified by the Administrator.
       ``(e) Institution of Higher Education.--In this section, 
     the term `institution of higher education' has the meaning 
     given that term by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).''.
       (b) Chapter 449 Table of Sections.--The table of sections 
     at the beginning of subchapter I of chapter 449 of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``44921.  Grants for university-based centers for research on aviation 
              training.''.

       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the FAA Administrator to carry out this 
     section $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.

     SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Amounts Authorized.--Section 48102(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) for fiscal year 2004, $366,100,000, including--
       ``(A) $25,500,000 for weather projects and activities;
       ``(B) $81,600,000 for aircraft safety technology projects 
     and activities;
       ``(C) $27,300,000 for human factors and aviation medicine 
     projects and activities; and
       ``(D) $30,000,000 for environment and energy projects and 
     activities;
       ``(10) for fiscal year 2005, $410,000,000, including--

[[Page 2507]]

       ``(A) $30,600,000 for weather projects and activities;
       ``(B) $90,100,000 for aircraft safety technology projects 
     and activities;
       ``(C) $30,200,000 for human factors and aviation medicine 
     projects and activities; and
       ``(D) $37,500,000 for environment and energy projects and 
     activities;
       ``(11) for fiscal year 2006, $462,000,000, including--
       ``(A) $37,000,000 for weather projects and activities;
       ``(B) $99,800,000 for aircraft safety technology projects 
     and activities;
       ``(C) $33,500,000 for human factors and aviation medicine 
     projects and activities; and
       ``(D) $47,000,000 for environment and energy projects and 
     activities;
       ``(12) for fiscal year 2007, $520,000,000; and
       ``(13) for fiscal year 2008, $550,000,000.''.
       (b) Research Priorities.--Section 48102(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(9)--
       ``(A) $2,000,000 shall be made available for wake 
     turbulence research; and
       ``(B) $10,000,000 shall be made available for information 
     security research.
       ``(5) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(10)--
       ``(A) $3,000,000 shall be made available for wake 
     turbulence research; and
       ``(B) $12,000,000 shall be made available for information 
     security research.
       ``(6) Of the amount authorized under subsection (a)(11)--
       ``(A) $4,000,000 shall be made available for wake 
     turbulence research; and
       ``(B) $13,200,000 shall be made available for information 
     security research.
       ``(7) The Administrator is authorized to use amounts 
     authorized under subsection (a), regardless of the 
     appropriations account through which the amounts may be 
     provided, for making grant awards for support of research and 
     development activities.''.

                           TITLE III--STUDIES

     SEC. 301. STUDY OF MARKETS ENABLED BY ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Objective.--The NASA Administrator shall conduct a 
     study to identify and quantify new markets that would be 
     created, as well as existing markets that would be expanded, 
     by the incorporation of the technologies developed pursuant 
     to section 101 into future commercial aircraft. As part of 
     the study, the NASA Administrator shall identify whether any 
     of the performance characteristics specified in section 
     101(a) would need to be made more stringent in order to 
     create new markets or expand existing markets. The NASA 
     Administrator shall seek input from at least the aircraft 
     manufacturing industry, academia, and the airlines in 
     carrying out the study.
       (b) Report.--A report containing the results of the study 
     shall be provided to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate within 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator $500,000 to 
     carry out this section.

     SEC. 302. ASSESSMENT OF WAKE TURBULENCE RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Assessment.--The FAA Administrator shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Research Council for an 
     assessment of the FAA's proposed wake turbulence research and 
     development program. The assessment shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of the research and development goals and 
     objectives of the program;
       (2) a listing of any additional research and development 
     objectives should be included in the program;
       (3) any modifications that will be necessary for the 
     program to achieve the program's goals and objectives on 
     schedule and within the proposed level of resources; and
       (4) an evaluation of the roles, if any, that should be 
     played by other Federal agencies, such as NASA and the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in wake 
     turbulence research and development, and how those efforts 
     could be coordinated.
       (b) Report.--A report containing the results of the 
     assessment shall be provided to the Committee on Science of 
     the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the FAA Administrator for fiscal year 
     2004, $500,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 303. ASSESSMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH 
                   CAPABILITIES.

       (a) Assessment.--In order to ensure that the Nation retains 
     needed capabilities in fundamental aerodynamics and other 
     areas of fundamental aeronautics research, the NASA 
     Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with the 
     National Research Council for an assessment of the Nation's 
     future requirements for fundamental aeronautics research and 
     the Nation's needs for a skilled research workforce and 
     research facilities commensurate with the requirements. The 
     assessment shall include an identification of any projected 
     gaps and recommendations for what steps should be taken by 
     the Federal Government to eliminate those gaps.
       (b) Report.--The NASA Administrator shall transmit the 
     assessment described in subsection (a), along with NASA's 
     response to the assessment, to the Committee on Science of 
     the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later 
     than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the NASA Administrator $500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004 to carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 310. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for the coverage of marriage and family therapist services and 
mental health counselor services under part B of the Medicare program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' with my 
distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the 
``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' permits mental 
health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare 
for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased 
choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability 
to access mental health services in their communities.
  This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often 
forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental 
health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural 
communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, 
especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental 
health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental 
health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-
compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical 
psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists 
are able to bill Medicare for their services.
  It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of 
mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as 
the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. 
These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum 
of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare 
program.
  Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have 
disproportionately higher rates of depression and suicide than other 
populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated 
Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas 
and one-fifth of all rural counties have ``no'' mental health services 
of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 
percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a 
psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite 
obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering 
statistics. providing mental health counselors and marriage and family 
therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key 
part of the solution.
  Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional 
shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming 
has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers 
for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment 
of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001'' will 
more than double the number of mental health providers available to 
seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors 
and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the state.
  I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and 
well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my 
colleagues to become a cosponsor.

[[Page 2508]]

  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. 310

       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 ``Seniors Mental Health Access 
     Improvement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES 
                   AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES UNDER PART 
                   B OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Coverage of Services.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (V)(iii), by inserting ``and'' after 
     the semicolon at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(W) marriage and family therapist services (as defined in 
     subsection (ww)(1)) and mental health counselor services (as 
     defined in subsection (ww)(3));''.
       (2) Definitions.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:

     ``Marriage and Family Therapist Services; Marriage and Family 
  Therapist; Mental Health Counselor Services; Mental Health Counselor

       ``(ww)(1) The term `marriage and family therapist services' 
     means services performed by a marriage and family therapist 
     (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the diagnosis and treatment 
     of mental illnesses, which the marriage and family therapist 
     is legally authorized to perform under State law (or the 
     State regulatory mechanism provided by State law) of the 
     State in which such services are performed, as would 
     otherwise be covered if furnished by a physician or as an 
     incident to a physician's professional service, but only if 
     no facility or other provider charges or is paid any amounts 
     with respect to the furnishing of such services.
       ``(2) The term `marriage and family therapist' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) possesses a master's or doctoral degree which 
     qualifies for licensure or certification as a marriage and 
     family therapist pursuant to State law;
       ``(B) after obtaining such degree has performed at least 2 
     years of clinical supervised experience in marriage and 
     family therapy; and
       ``(C) in the case of an individual performing services in a 
     State that provides for licensure or certification of 
     marriage and family therapists, is licensed or certified as a 
     marriage and family therapist in such State.
       ``(3) The term `mental health counselor services' means 
     services performed by a mental health counselor (as defined 
     in paragraph (4)) for the diagnosis and treatment of mental 
     illnesses which the mental health counselor is legally 
     authorized to perform under State law (or the State 
     regulatory mechanism provided by the State law) of the State 
     in which such services are performed, as would otherwise be 
     covered if furnished by a physician or as incident to a 
     physician's professional service, but only if no facility or 
     other provider charges or is paid any amounts with respect to 
     the furnishing of such services.
       ``(4) The term `mental health counselor' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) possesses a master's or doctor's degree in mental 
     health counseling or a related field;
       ``(B) after obtaining such a degree has performed at least 
     2 years of supervised mental health counselor practice; and
       ``(C) in the case of an individual performing services in a 
     State that provides for licensure or certification of mental 
     health counselors or professional counselors, is licensed or 
     certified as a mental health counselor or professional 
     counselor in such State.''.
       (3) Provision for payment under part b.--Section 
     1832(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(v) marriage and family therapist services and mental 
     health counselor services;''.
       (4) Amount of payment.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and (U)'' and inserting ``(U)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (V) with respect to marriage and family 
     therapist services and mental health counselor services under 
     section 1861(s)(2)(W), the amounts paid shall be 80 percent 
     of the lesser of the actual charge for the services or 75 
     percent of the amount determined for payment of a 
     psychologist under subparagraph (L)''.
       (5) Exclusion of marriage and family therapist services and 
     mental health counselor services from skilled nursing 
     facility prospective payment system.--Section 
     1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)), as amended in section 301(a), is 
     amended by inserting ``marriage and family therapist services 
     (as defined in subsection (ww)(1)), mental health counselor 
     services (as defined in section 1861(ww)(3)),'' after 
     ``qualified psychologist services,''.
       (6) Inclusion of marriage and family therapists and mental 
     health counselors as practitioners for assignment of 
     claims.--Section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clauses:
       ``(vii) A marriage and family therapist (as defined in 
     section 1861(ww)(2)).
       ``(viii) A mental health counselor (as defined in section 
     1861(ww)(4)).''.
       (b) Coverage of Certain Mental Health Services Provided in 
     Certain Settings.--
       (1) Rural health clinics and federally qualified health 
     centers.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``or by a 
     clinical social worker (as defined in subsection (hh)(1)),,'' 
     and inserting ``, by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     subsection (hh)(1)), by a marriage and family therapist (as 
     defined in subsection (ww)(2)), or by a mental health 
     counselor (as defined in subsection (ww)(4)),''.
       (2) Hospice programs.--Section 1861(dd)(2)(B)(i)(III) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 
     is amended by inserting ``or a marriage and family therapist 
     (as defined in subsection (ww)(2))'' after ``social worker''.
       (c) Authorization of Marriage and Family Therapists To 
     Develop Discharge Plans for Post-Hospital Services.--Section 
     1861(ee)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(ee)(2)(G)) is amended by inserting ``marriage and 
     family therapist (as defined in subsection (ww)(2)),'' after 
     ``social worker,''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2004.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Craig Thomas today in introducing the ``Seniors Mental Health 
Access Improvement Act of 2003.''
  This bill would expand Medicare coverage to Licensed Professional 
Counselors and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists. One result of 
this expanded coverage will be to increase seniors' access to mental 
health services, especially in rural and underserved areas.
  Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapist 
are currently excluded from Medicare coverage even though they meet the 
same education, training, and examination requirements that clinical 
social workers do. The only difference is that clinical social workers 
have been covered under Medicare for over a decade.
  Why do we need this legislation? The mental health needs of older 
Americans are not being met. Although the rate of suicide among older 
Americans is higher than for any other age group, less than three 
percent of older Americans report seeing mental health professionals 
for treatment. And going to their primary care physician is simply not 
enough. Research shows that most primary care providers receive 
inadequate mental health training, particularly in geriatrics.
  Lack of access to mental health providers is one of the primary 
reasons why older Americans don't get the mental health treatment they 
need. Not surprisingly, this problem is exacerbated in rural and 
underserved areas.
  Licensed Professional Counselors are often the only mental health 
specialists available in rural and underserved communities. This is 
true in my home state of Arkansas, where 91 percent of Arkansans reside 
in a mental health professional shortage area.
  Since there are more Licensed Professional Counselors practicing in 
my state than any other mental health professional, this legislation 
will significantly increase the number of Medicare-eligible mental 
health providers in Arkansas. Licensed Professional Counselors are 
already serving patients who have private insurance or Medicaid. It is 
time for Medicare patients to also have access to these professionals.
  The bill we are introducing today is an important first step in 
expanding access to good mental health. By including Licensed 
Professional Counselors and licensed Marriage and Family Therapists 
among the list of providers who deliver mental health services to 
Medicare beneficiaries, we will

[[Page 2509]]

help ensure that all seniors, no matter where they live, have the 
opportunity to receive mental health treatment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 311. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
regulations requiring turbojet aircraft of air carriers to be equipped 
with missile defense systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could 
have a significant impact on reducing the threat of terrorism towards 
our commercial airlines.
  Last November, two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an 
Israeli airliner as it took off from a Kenyan airport. While these 
missiles missed their target, they are a clear example of an ever-
growing threat to all air travel. A similar incident occurred last May 
when a U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia was believed to be fired 
upon, also with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities later found an empty 
launch tube near an airbase used by American aircraft. In both cases, 
al Qaeda remains the primary suspect.
  This is a very real and recognized threat. It is estimated that 
thousands of shoulder-fired missiles are in the hands of non-state 
actors, rebel groups, terrorists, and other armed non-military 
factions. Last May, the FBI warned that given al Qaeda's targeting of 
the U.S. airline industry and its access to these weapons, airlines and 
law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of 
shoulder-fired missiles against commercial aircraft in the United 
States.
  We all know that terrorists will continue to try to attack us at our 
weakest points. As we continue to increase the screening and security 
processes for those boarding our airplanes, it is becoming clear that 
terrorists will need to find another avenue to attack us. These 
shoulder-fired missiles may be that next avenue.
  The bill I am introducing today would equip all turbojet aircraft 
used by American aircarriers with missile defense systems. These 
devices involve a series of sensors that identify an incoming missile 
and a laser or lamp to fool the missile's guidance system. The work 
automatically without any action by the pilot.
  The U.S. government would pay for the devices for the current 
turbojet fleet, approximately 6,800 aircraft, at an estimated cost of 
$1 million per plane.
  In the meantime, the bill directs the President to use the National 
Guard and Coast Guard to patrol areas surrounding airports in order to 
prevent attacks by shoulder-fired missiles. Because these are heat-
seeking missiles, aircraft are most vulnerable at lower levels and when 
their engines are hottest.
  Aircraft missile defense systems work. Countermeasures are already in 
place on many U.S. military aircraft, where they have proven effective.
  Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat to our airlines, our 
economy, and the personal safety of every American airline passenger. 
With a relatively small investment in proven technology to counter that 
threat, we can provide further protection to air travellers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 311

       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 ``Commercial Airline Missile 
     Defense Act''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS REQUIRING MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue regulations that require all turbojet aircraft used by 
     an air carrier for scheduled air service to be equipped with 
     a missile defense system.
       (b) Schedule for Installation.--The regulations shall 
     establish a schedule for the purchase and installation of 
     such systems on turbojet aircraft currently in service and 
     turbojet aircraft contracted for before the date of issuance 
     of the regulations.
       (c) New Aircraft.--The regulations shall also require that 
     all turbojet aircraft contracted for on or after the date of 
     issuance of the regulations by an air carrier for scheduled 
     air service be equipped with a missile defense system.
       (d) Deadlines for Commencement of Installation.--The 
     regulations shall require that installation and operation of 
     missile defense systems under the regulations begin no later 
     than December 31, 2003.

     SEC. 3. PURCHASE OF MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS BY THE SECRETARY.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall purchase and make 
     available to an air carrier such missile defense systems as 
     may be necessary for the air carrier to comply with the 
     regulations issued under section 2 (other than subsection 
     (c)) with respect to turbojet aircraft used by the air 
     carrier for scheduled air service.

     SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF AIR CARRIER.

       Under the regulations issued under section 2, an air 
     carrier shall be responsible for installing and operating a 
     missile defense system purchased and made available by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under section 3.

     SEC. 5. PROGRESS REPORTS.

       Not later than January 1, 2004, and each July 1 and January 
     1 thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit 
     to Congress a report on the progress being made in 
     implementation of this Act, including the regulations issued 
     to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 6. INTERIM SECURITY MEASURES

       (a) In General.--In order to provide interim security 
     before the deployment of missile defense systems for turbojet 
     aircraft required under section 2, the President shall--
       (1) exercise the President's authority under title 32, 
     United States Code, to elevate National Guard units to 
     Federal status for the purpose of patrolling areas 
     surrounding airports to protect against the threat posed by 
     missiles and other ordnance to commercial aircraft; and
       (2) deploy units of the United States Coast Guard, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, for the purpose of patrolling 
     areas surrounding airports to protect against the threat 
     posed by missiles and other ordnance to commercial aircraft.
       (b) Progress Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the progress being made to implement 
     this section.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Aircraft and air carrier.--The terms ``aircraft'' and 
     ``air carrier'' have the meaning such terms have under 
     section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Missile defense system.--The term ``missile defense 
     system'' means an appropriate (as certified by the Secretary 
     of Transportation) electronic system that would 
     automatically--
       (A) identify when the aircraft is threatened by an incoming 
     missile or other ordnance;
       (B) detect the source of the threat; and
       (C) disrupt the guidance system of the incoming missile or 
     other ordnance, which is intended to result in the incoming 
     missile or other ordnance being diverted off course and 
     missing the aircraft.
                                 ______
                                 

  By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, 
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Grassley Mr. Corzine, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. 
Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bayh, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 312. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 
2001 under the State Children's Health Insurance Program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would promote the health and well- being of America's children by 
restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as 
CHIP. CHIP has been an unqualified success, helping millions of 
children. The program has the potential to help millions more. However, 
it is only as effective as we make it.
  In 1997, I was joined by Senator Chafee in introducing the Children's 
Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. At that 
time, 10 million children were uninsured. Today, 4.6 million have 
coverage; this includes over 21,000 children in the State of West 
Virginia. I believe the families touched by this program would agree it 
serves its purpose well.
  Unfortunately, this purpose may be seriously undermined. On September 
30, 2002, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP

[[Page 2510]]

funds reverted back to the national treasury because of a budget 
compromise. On September 30, 2003, an additional $1.5 billion will be 
returned to the treasury. This combined $2.7 billion loss will serve a 
huge blow to the program. As a result of it, States may be forced to 
stop accepting new children and may have to cut current participants 
from their rolls. In the meanwhile, money intended for the care of 
children will be spent on other initiatives. Healthy kids will go 
without preventative care, and sick kids will go without treatment or 
medicine.
  However, such a tragedy is preventable. Today, I am joined by 
Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Snowe, and others in introducing a bill that 
would restore full CHIP funding over 2 years and allow the program to 
continue its enormously important work without cutting the benefits of 
a single child.
  I am pleased to tell you that our legislation enjoys bicameral, 
bipartisan support and is endorsed by the National Governors 
Association, NGA. Though it is not a permanent solution to the problems 
faced by CHIP, this proposal would go far in addressing them. Most 
notably, it would provide real relief to States struggling to cover 
beneficiaries under Medicaid and would allow them to offer the care 
that every child needs and deserves.
  In order to achieve this, we must provide States with the resources 
they need. Today, we have introduced a bill which will do just that. 
However, this body must make its enactment a priority. The children we 
serve deserve nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 312

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF SCHIP ALLOTMENTS FOR 
                   FISCAL YEARS 1998 THROUGH 2001.

       (a) Extending Availability of SCHIP Allotments for Fiscal 
     Years 1998 Through 2001.--
       (1) Retained and redistributed allotments for fiscal years 
     1998 and 1999.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(ii) of 
     section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(g)) are each amended by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' 
     and inserting ``fiscal year 2004''.
       (2) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed 
     allotments for fiscal year 2000.--
       (A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal 
     year 2000 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g) 
     is amended--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting 
     ``through 2000''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Fiscal year 2000 allotment.--Of the amounts 
     allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 
     2000 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal 
     year 2002, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available 
     for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 
     2004.''.
       (B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such 
     section 2104(g) is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year 
     2000 by the end of fiscal year 2002,'' after ``fiscal year 
     2001,'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1998 or 1999'' and 
     inserting ``1998, 1999, or 2000'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--

       (I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
       (II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(III) the fiscal year 2000 allotment, the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (C)(i) (less the total of the 
     amounts under clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied 
     by the ratio of the amount specified in subparagraph (C)(ii) 
     for the State to the amount specified in subparagraph 
     (C)(iii).'';

       (iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 1999'' and 
     inserting ``, 1999, or 2000'';
       (v) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``with respect to 
     fiscal year 1998 or 1999'';
       (vi) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--

       (I) by inserting ``with respect to fiscal year 1998, 1999, 
     or 2000,'' after ``subsection (e),''; and
       (II) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''; and

       (vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal 
     year 2000.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(III)--
       ``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2000, 
     less the total amount remaining available pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii);
       ``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is 
     the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title 
     in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 exceed the State's 
     allotment for fiscal year 2000 under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for 
     all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph 
     (A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2000, of the amounts 
     specified in clause (ii).''.
       (C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further 
     amended--
       (i) in its heading, by striking ``and 1999'' and inserting 
     ``, 1999, and 2000''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``or fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``, 
     fiscal year 1999, or fiscal year 2000''; and
       (II) by striking ``or November 30, 2001'' and inserting 
     ``November 30, 2001, or November 30, 2002'', respectively.

       (3) Extension and revision of retained and redistributed 
     allotments for fiscal year 2001.--
       (A) Permitting and extending retention of portion of fiscal 
     year 2001 allotment.--Paragraph (2) of such section 2104(g), 
     as amended in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), is further amended--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``2000'' and inserting 
     ``2001''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the 
     following:
       ``(iv) Fiscal year 2001 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted 
     to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that 
     were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year 
     2003, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 
     2005.''.
       (B) Redistributed allotments.--Paragraph (1) of such 
     section 2104(g), as amended in paragraph (2)(B), is further 
     amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or for fiscal year 
     2001 by the end of fiscal year 2003,'' after ``fiscal year 
     2002,'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999, or 2000'' and 
     inserting ``1999, 2000, or 2001'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (A)(i)--

       (I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II),
       (II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (III) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(IV) the fiscal year 2001 allotment, the amount specified 
     in subparagraph (D)(i) (less the total of the amounts under 
     clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(ii) for the State to 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (D)(iii).'';

       (iv) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or 2000'' and 
     inserting ``2000, or 2001'';
       (v) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (II) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (III) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:

       ``(iii) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to 
     fiscal year 2001, shall remain available for expenditure by 
     the State through the end of fiscal year 2005; and''; and
       (vi) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal 
     year 2001.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(IV)--
       ``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2001, 
     less the total amount remaining available pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iv);
       ``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is 
     the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title 
     in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 exceed the State's 
     allotment for fiscal year 2001 under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for 
     all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph 
     (A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2001, of the amounts 
     specified in clause (ii).''.
       (C) Conforming amendments.--Such section 2104(g) is further 
     amended--
       (i) in its heading, by striking ``and 2000'' and inserting 
     ``2000, and 2001''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``or fiscal year 2000'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal year 2000, or fiscal year 2001''; and
       (II) by striking ``or November 30, 2002,'' and inserting 
     ``November 30, 2002, or November 30, 2003,'', respectively.

       (4) Effective date.--This subsection, and the amendments 
     made by this subsection, shall be effective as if this 
     subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002, and 
     amounts under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397aa et seq.) from allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 
     2000 are available for expenditure on and after October 1, 
     2002, under the amendments made by this subsection as if this 
     subsection had been enacted on September 30, 2002.
       (b) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Portion of SCHIP 
     Funds for Medicaid Expenditures.--Section 2105 of the Social

[[Page 2511]]

     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g) Authority for Qualifying States To Use Certain Funds 
     for Medicaid Expenditures.--
       ``(1) State option.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, with respect to allotments for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, for fiscal years in which such allotments are 
     available under subsections (e) and (g) of section 2104, a 
     qualifying State (as defined in paragraph (2)) may elect to 
     use not more than 20 percent of such allotments (instead of 
     for expenditures under this title) for payments for such 
     fiscal year under title XIX in accordance with subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(B) Payments to states.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a qualifying State that 
     has elected the option described in subparagraph (A), subject 
     to the total amount of funds described with respect to the 
     State in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall pay the State 
     an amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that 
     would have been paid to the State under title XIX for 
     expenditures of the State for the fiscal year described in 
     clause (ii) if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under 
     subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)) of such 
     expenditures.
       ``(ii) Expenditures described.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the expenditures described in this clause are expenditures 
     for such fiscal years for providing medical assistance under 
     title XIX to individuals who have not attained age 19 and 
     whose family income exceeds 150 percent of the poverty line.
       ``(iii) No impact on determination of budget neutrality for 
     waivers.--In the case of a qualifying State that uses amounts 
     paid under this subsection for expenditures described in 
     clause (ii) that are incurred under a waiver approved for the 
     State, any budget neutrality determinations with respect to 
     such waiver shall be determined without regard to such 
     amounts paid.
       ``(2) Qualifying state.--In this subsection, the term 
     `qualifying State' means a State that--
       ``(A) as of April 15, 1997, has an income eligibility 
     standard with respect to any 1 or more categories of children 
     (other than infants) who are eligible for medical assistance 
     under section 1902(a)(10)(A) or under a waiver under section 
     1115 implemented on January 1, 1994, that is up to 185 
     percent of the poverty line or above; and
       ``(B) satisfies the requirements described in paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(3) Requirements.--The requirements described in this 
     paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) SCHIP income eligibility.--The State has a State 
     child health plan that (whether implemented under title XIX 
     or this title)--
       ``(i) as of January 1, 2001, has an income eligibility 
     standard that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line or 
     has an income eligibility standard that exceeds 200 percent 
     of the poverty line under a waiver under section 1115 that is 
     based on a child's lack of health insurance;
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the 
     acceptance of applications for children; and
       ``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who 
     apply for and meet eligibility standards on a statewide 
     basis.
       ``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children 
     whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty 
     line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation, 
     waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of 
     such children for child health assistance under such State 
     plan.
       ``(C) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented 
     at least 3 of the following policies and procedures (relating 
     to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):
       ``(i) Uniform, simplified application form.--With respect 
     to children who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State uses the same uniform, 
     simplified application form (including, if applicable, 
     permitting application other than in person) for purposes of 
     establishing eligibility for benefits under title XIX and 
     this title.
       ``(ii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply 
     any asset test for eligibility under section 1902(l) or this 
     title with respect to children.
       ``(iii) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The 
     State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly 
     redetermined more often than once every year under this title 
     or for children described in section 1902(a)(10)(A).
       ``(iv) Same verification and redetermination policies; 
     automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to 
     children who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial 
     eligibility determinations and redeterminations of 
     eligibility using the same verification policies (including 
     with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and 
     frequency as the State uses for such purposes under this 
     title, and, as part of such redeterminations, provides for 
     the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of such 
     children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
       ``(v) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides 
     for the receipt and initial processing of applications for 
     benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at 
     facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under 
     section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers 
     described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section 
     1902(a)(55).''.
  Mr. CHAFFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller 
and others today in introducing a bipartisan compromise proposal to 
extend expiring State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, 
funds. I am pleased that we recently secured the commitment of Budget 
Chairman Nickles to include funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution for this important proposal, as well as the commitment of 
Finance Chairman Grassley to address this issue quickly in the Finance 
Committee.
  This legislation will allow States to continue using $1.2 billion in 
funds through fiscal year 2004 that were originally allocated for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and that reverted to the Federal Treasury 
on September 30, 2002. This provision extends for one additional year 
the availability of $1.5 billion in SCHIP funds that are scheduled to 
expire by the end of fiscal year 2003. This legislation also applies a 
redistribution formula to the unspent fiscal year 2000 and 2001 
allotments, allowing 50 percent of each year's unspent money to be 
retained by states that have not used their entire allotment, with the 
remaining 50 percent of unspent money being redistributed to states 
that have spent all of the respective year's allotment.
  This compromise will prevent States from losing their unexpended 
SCHIP allotments and will allow other States, such as Rhode Island, to 
receive redistributed funds they need to continue providing health 
insurance to children. Without this compromise, the result could be a 
reduction of up to $2.7 billion for children's health programs 
throughout the United States. This would undermine the overwhelming 
success of state SCHIP programs in providing quality health coverage to 
millions of uninsured children. Starting this year, States would have 
no choice but to begin imposing severe enrollment cutbacks; eligible 
children who are not yet enrolled in the program would continue to go 
without health insurance.
  Preserving the expiring funds is essential to guaranteeing that 
nearly one million children will not lose their health insurance. The 
Office of Management and Budget recently projected that the number of 
children insured through SCHIP will fall by 900,000 between Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2006 unless appropriate congressional action is taken to 
restore the expiring funds.
  At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 
40 million, it makes little sense to take away Federal funding from 
States that are desperately trying to find and enroll needy children. 
This legislation is crucial to many States, including my state of Rhode 
Island. Without this remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of SCHIP 
funds by fiscal year 2004. At 4.5 percent, Rhode Island currently has 
the lowest uninsured rate of any State in the Nation for children. This 
bill will enable Rhode Island to continue offering health coverage to 
this vulnerable population.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting 
this important legislation. It is a crucial step toward ensuring that 
our Nation's children will have long-term access to quality health 
insurance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing a bipartisan bill to extend the availability of the 
unused funds in the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that 
hundreds of thousands of children can retain their health coverage, and 
so that the CHIP program can continue to grow.
  We recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the CHIP program. 
Over its relatively short life, the program has served children across 
America, providing health coverage for those who would be otherwise 
uninsured. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health 
insurance through CHIP or through Medicaid expansions under CHIP, 
including 105,000 children in Massachusetts. Health insurance provides 
children with a healthy start in

[[Page 2512]]

life, and CHIP is important in providing that healthy start for 
millions of children in moderate-income working families.
  Unfortunately, because of a technical provision in the law, $1.2 
billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted to the Treasury last October. 
Another $1.5 billion will revert to the Treasury this October if 
Congress fails to act. We know that 20 States are projected to run out 
of CHIP funds soon, including 5 States--Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, New 
Jersey, and Rhode Island--that are projected to run out of money as 
early as next year.
  It makes no sense to allow funds to revert to the Treasury when there 
is so much unmet need. Some States have not been able to use all their 
CHIP funds within the allotted period in current law. Yet some of these 
same States will run short of funds in the very near future, forcing 
them to drop children from their programs. One of our Nation's most 
fundamental principles should be to give every child the opportunity to 
succeed in life. But that principle rings hollow if children must fact 
a lifetime of disability and illness because they did not have needed 
health care in their early years.
  That is why this bill we introduce today is so important. It enables 
States to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets States keep 
a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It 
reallocates the rest of the funds to States that have already used 
their original allocation to enroll children in their program and are 
ready, willing, and able to enroll even more children. This 
reallocation is vital to enrolling the highest possible number of 
children in CHIP. The retention and reallocation of these funds will 
prevent an unacceptable loss of coverage for the Nation's children.
  Our legislation moves us one step closer to fulfilling the promise 
that all children should have adequate health insurance coverage. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, so that we 
can give the Nation's children the healthy start they deserve.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
today in introducing our legislation restoring funding for the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I would like to thank my 
colleagues for their willingness to work with me to secure the deal 
that has led to the introduction of this legislation and ultimately its 
signature into law. SCHIP is essential to ensuring continued health 
care coverage for America's children.
  During debate over the Omnibus appropriations bill, I worked with my 
colleagues to secure an agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in 
expired, or soon to expire, SCHIP funding. This compromise has the 
support of our Nation's governors and will 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 especially appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, 
Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman 
Nickles to work with us during the omnibus debate to develop the 
agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are 
able to move forward with this important policy, the first step being 
introduction of this bill.
  I believe the agreement that I was able to craft with my colleagues 
is the most appropriate way to restore the SCHIP 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 planned to offer to the omnibus appropriations bill 
would have been subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given 
that this point of order would have laid against the provision, the 
likelihood that the House would have stripped the provision during 
conference was great. In light of those circumstances, I believe that 
the agreement I negotiated is the most appropriate way to ensure that 
this funding is restored.
  The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the 
amendment that filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore 
SCHIP funding, provide the support of the Majority Leader and Chairmen 
Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes to 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 SCHIP in Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04. I am 
confident that under Senator Nickles' 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 and 
Representatives.
  Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed that as soon as the necessary 
budget adjustments are made he will move this bill through his 
committee. 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 contained in this bill was developed 
through a bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and 
Baucus last fall. I hope that 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 legislation enacted into law 
in a timely manner.
  How it works is this, once passed, our legislation will restore $2.7 
billion in SCHIP 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 SCHIP 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 SCHIP.
  The policy contained in this legislation 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 will be able 
to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States will 
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 SCHIP, by 
allowing them to access 20 percent of their SCHIP 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, where we are using SCHIP to insure over 
14,500 children, this proposal will allow the State to keep $13.24 
million in SCHIP funding and will provide until the end of Fiscal Year 
04 to spend it. 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 check-ups.
  While I agreed to forgo the appropriations process to enact this 
policy change, I certainly have not abandoned my effort to restore the 
funding. If in fact, the introduction of this legislation should 
demonstrate that I am more committed than ever to seeing the SCHIP 
funding restored. What's more, the Majority Leader and Chairs of the 
Finance and Budget Committees have provided their support to see this 
important legislation enacted into law. Adding their endorsement to 
this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support, 
certainly will speed its passage.
  Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to 
working together to advance this critical policy.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, we need to address the impending 
crisis that may leave thousands of children in New York and around the 
country without health insurance or access to health care.

[[Page 2513]]

  The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, has been 
remarkably successful in providing for the health of needy children 
whose parents would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance. New 
York has been on the frontlines of this effort, implementing its Child 
Health Plus program even before the Federal Government recognized the 
promise of CHIP and began committing Federal funds. Thanks to those 
Federal funds, New York has been able to expand its program. I'm proud 
to say that as of November 2002, we have been able to enroll 475,000 
children and thereby make a significant dent in the number of uninsured 
children in my State.
  Those accomplishments aside, we still have much work to do. Estimates 
of the number of SCHIP or Medicaid eligible children in New York who 
are not currently enrolled range from 200,000 to 400,000. As the 
economy continues to slip, and more hardworking Americans lose their 
jobs or their benefits, I fear that these numbers will only increase. 
Now more than ever, children across our Nation depend on SCHIP to help 
them obtain the health care they need.
  I had hoped that the recent Senate passed omnibus appropriations bill 
would act to preserve SCHIP. Incredibly, just when the uninsured are 
increasing, SCHIP funding is being cut. Just when State budgets are 
disintegrating, $2.7 billion of previously allocated SCHIP money is 
flowing out of states and back to the Federal treasury. Indeed, the 
Office of Management and Budget projected earlier this year that the 
number of children insured through SCHIP will fall by 900,000 between 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2006 unless appropriate congressional action is 
taken to restore the expiring funds.
  This is why I support the bill introduced by my colleagues, Senator 
Rockefeller and Senator Chafee. Their legislation would sustain SCHIP 
programs throughout the country, and save New York from losing $526 
million in unspent 1998/1999 funds. This bill extends the deadline for 
States set to return funds to the Federal treasury another two years. I 
also support the measure to redistribute the portion of unspent funds 
to States. This year, New York's annual allotment will not cover one-
half of the Federal share of its program expenditures. New York is 
counting on those redistributed funds to make up the shortfall.
  In the last Congress, I had supported measures to fix SCHIP so that 
States could continue to take care of their children. I was proud to 
co-sponor Senate bill 2860, also introduced by Senator Rockefeller. And 
in the waning days of the last session, we were very close to a 
solution. We had a good proposal supported by members of both parties, 
in both houses of Congress, to help States in their efforts to insure 
their children. Unfortunately, because of the objections of a few, we 
were unable to accomplish our goal before the session ended. Without 
changes in the SCHIP program, I fear that many children in New York and 
around the country will be left without adequate health care.
  Our support of SCHIP will make a critical difference in the health of 
our children, and that support must come now. Already, nearly $1.2 
billion in Federal funds have expired and reverted to the treasury on 
September 30. What's more, CMS is delaying redistribution of unspent 
2000 funds because it is unsure of what formula we in Congress will 
ultimately set. State governments are being forced to draft their 
budgets without knowing what Federal funds will be available. The time 
has come to fix this problem, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Additionally, in the long term, we must make a commitment to 
strengthen SCHIP which has already proven so effective in insuring so 
many of our Nation's children. The initial formula that set each 
State's annual allotment has left many States with money that they will 
never spend, while short-changing States that have a higher burden of 
uninsured children. While the redistribution of funds has helped 
mitigate this inequity somewhat, we need to improve the primary 
allocation formula to more accurately account for each State's 
uninsured populations.
  Looking further ahead, as SCHIP enrollment increases, more States 
will exhaust their yearly allotments, as New York does now. This will 
mean smaller amounts of unspent funds to be distributed to a larger 
pool of States. Without significant changes, the long-term health of 
the program is in jeopardy. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the future to address these fundamental issues, but until 
then, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, 
Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to 
restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.
  Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was 
developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for 
uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for 
coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, 
SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In 
fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today 
every State in the country, five territories, and the District of 
Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand 
health coverage to even more children.
  In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was 
developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and 
vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 
uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 
2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to receive 
health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of 
SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began 
covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now 
provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a 
substantial number of eligible children and parents still need 
coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a 
success.
  Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent 
SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The 
bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, 
ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to 
continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new 
and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to 
health care.
  The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and 
continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers 
for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. 
I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation 
to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are 
expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this 
innovative program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 314. A bill to make improvements in the Foundation for the 
National Institutes of Health; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg, 
Senator Frist, and Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to 
improve the role of the Foundation for the National Institutes of 
Health.
  The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act 
that we introduce today makes several improvements in the 1990 law that 
established the Foundation. Most significantly, the bill assures that 
the Foundation will receive $500,000 from the NIH to support its 
administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the 
Foundation to use its resources for the actual support of projects to 
strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. 
In addition, the bill makes clear that the NIH Director and the

[[Page 2514]]

Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the 
Foundation's board of directors.
  Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support 
the research of the NIH. Since its incorporation as a private, 
nonprofit organization in Maryland 7 years ago, for every $1 that the 
Foundation has received in support from the NIH, it has raised $13 in 
private funds to support the work of NIH.
  By last fall, the Foundation was managing 20 programs with multi-year 
revenue and funding goals of over $45 million. For example, the Edmond 
J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus will be completed in the summer 
of 2004 using private funds donated through the Foundation, with 
services and land donated by the NIH. Families of patients receiving 
in-patient cancer treatment at the NIH Clinical Center will have the 
Lodge as a place to stay, at no cost to them.
  In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to 
develop new cancer treatments, to identify biomarkers for 
osteoarthritis, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a 
public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the 
sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting 
private funds to study drugs in children. On January 26, 2003, Bill 
Gates announced a gift to the NIH through the Foundation of $200 
million over the next 10 years to support research on global health 
priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's role with the NIH will grow 
productively in the coming years.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so 
that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and 
mission of the NIH. 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. 314

       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 ``Foundation for the National 
     Institutes of Health Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT AND 
                   DUTIES.

       Section 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     290b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (D)(ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Upon the appointment of the appointed members of the 
     Board under clause (i)(II), the terms of service as members 
     of the Board of the ex officio members of the Board described 
     in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) shall terminate. 
     The ex officio members of the Board described in clauses 
     (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) shall continue to serve as 
     ex officio members of the Board.''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``appointed'' after 
     ``that the number of'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (3)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Any vacancy in the membership of the appointed 
     members of the Board shall be filled in accordance with the 
     bylaws of the Foundation established in accordance with 
     paragraph (6), and shall not affect the power of the 
     remaining appointed members to execute the duties of the 
     Board.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``appointed'' after 
     ``majority of the'';
       (2) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)'' and 
     inserting ``(d)(6)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``of Health.'' and 
     inserting ``of Health and the National Institutes of Health 
     may accept transfers of funds from the Foundation.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (l) and inserting the following:
       ``(l) Funding.--From amounts appropriated to the National 
     Institutes of Health, for each fiscal year, the Director of 
     NIH shall transfer $500,000 to the Foundation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 315. A bill to support first responders to protect homeland 
security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First 
Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003. I thank the Democratic 
Leader, Senator Daschle, and Assistant Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, 
for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation that will 
supply our nation's first responders with the support they so 
desperately need to protect homeland security and prevent and respond 
to acts of terrorism.
  I want to begin by thanking each of our Nation's brave firefighters, 
emergency rescuers, law enforcement officers, and other first responder 
personnel for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day 
out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any 
crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the 
first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic 
firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City. 
These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, 
remind us of how important it is to support our State and local public 
safety partners.
  But while we ask our Nation's first responders to defend us as never 
before on the front lines against the dark menace of domestic 
terrorism, we have failed to supply them with the Federal support they 
need and deserve to protect us, as we expect and need them to protect 
us.
  Since March 12, 2002, the Federal Homeland Security Advisory System 
has kept State and local first responders on Yellow Alert, an 
``elevated'' threat level declared when there is a significant risk of 
terrorist attacks, requiring increased surveillance of critical 
locations. On top of this, from September 10 to September 24 last year, 
Attorney General Ashcroft declared our country at Orange Threat level, 
a ``high'' condition indicating a high probability of a terrorist 
attack and when additional precautions by first responders are 
necessary at public events. Only hours ago, in fact, counterterrorism 
officials warned that the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is 
at a higher level than in previous months due to the possibility of 
impending military action against Iraq. Debate has already begun at the 
new Department of Homeland Defense on whether to put out an alert 
warning or to actually raise the national threat level to Orange again.
  Counties, cities and towns in my home state of Vermont and across the 
U.S. find themselves overwhelmed by increasing homeland security costs 
required by the Federal government. Indeed, the National Governors 
Association estimates that states incurred around $7 billion in 
security costs over the past year alone. As a result, the national 
threat alerts and other Federal homeland security requirements have 
become unfunded Federal mandates on our State and local governments. 
Rutland County Sheriff R.J. Elrick, President of the Vermont Sheriffs' 
Association, recently wrote to me, ``We are in dire need of financial 
support to keep our personnel trained and equipped to meet the 
challenges here at home as we continue our vigilant commitment to fight 
terrorism.''
  I will ask unanimous consent to place after my remarks in the Record 
the letter from the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, as well as letters 
from the Professional Firefighters of Vermont, the Vermont Ambulance 
Association, and the Vermont Association of Police Chiefs, and Chief 
Doug Hoyt of Montpelier, Chief Anthony Bossi of Rutland City, Chief 
David Demag of Essex, and Chief Jeffery Whitesell of Winhall.
  When terrorists strike, first responders are and will always be the 
first people we turn to for help. We place our lives and the lives of 
our families and friends in the hands of these officers, trusting that 
when called upon they will protect and save us.
  Just how, without supplying them with the necessary resources, do we 
expect our Nation's first responders to realistically carry out their 
duties?
  Our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and 
emergency personnel are full partners in preventing, investigating and 
responding to terrorist acts. They need and deserve the full 
collaboration of the Federal government to meet these new national 
responsibilities.
  Washington is buzzing about the literally hundreds of billions of 
additional dollars the President plans to

[[Page 2515]]

ask Congress to provide for our military services to fight the war on 
terrorism abroad. The same cannot be said for helping security here at 
home, which is shamefully overlooked. For a year and a half I have been 
working hard to remedy that, with allies like our distinguished 
Democratic Leader and Assistant Democratic Leader, and New York 
Senators Schumer and Clinton. As former chair and now ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, I have made it a high priority to evaluate and 
meet the needs of our first responders.
  For these reasons, I am proud to introduce the First Responders 
Partnership Grant Act to give our nation's law enforcement officers, 
firefighters and emergency personnel the resources they need to do 
their jobs. Our legislation will establish a grant program at the 
Department of Justice to provide $4 billion nationwide in annual 
Federal funds to support State and local public safety officers in 
their efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond to 
acts of terrorism.
  Similar to the highly successful Department of Justice Community 
Oriented Policing Services and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 
Programs, the First Responder Grants will be made directly to State and 
local government units for overtime, equipment, training and facility 
expenses to support our law enforcement officers, firefighters and 
emergency personnel.
  The First Responder Grants may be used to pay up to 90 percent of the 
cost of the overtime, equipment, training or facility. In cases of 
fiscal hardship, the Justice Department can waive the local match 
requirement of 10 percent to provide federal funds for communities that 
cannot afford the local match.
  In a world shaped by the violent events of September 11, day after 
day we call upon our public safety officers to remain vigilant. We not 
only ask them to put their lives at risk in the line of duty, but also, 
if need be, give their lives to protect us.
  If we take time to listen to our Nation's State and local public 
safety partners, they will tell us that they welcome the challenge to 
join in our national mission to protect our homeland security. But we 
cannot ask our firefighters, emergency personnel, and law enforcement 
officers to assume these new national responsibilities without also 
providing new federal support.
  The First Responders Partnership Grant Program will provide the 
necessary federal support for our state and public safety officers to 
serve as full partners in the fight to protect our homeland security. 
We need our first responders for the security and the life-saving help 
they bring to our communities. All they ask is for the tools they need 
to do their jobs for us. And for the sake of our own security, that is 
not too much to ask.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Rutland County


                                         Sheriff's Department,

                                    Rutland, VT, January 31, 2003.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Leahy: I am responding on behalf of the Vermont 
     Sheriffs' Association, having reviewed your current proposed 
     bill entitled, ``First Responders Partnership Grant 
     Program''.
       The Vermont Sheriffs have unanimously voted to endorse your 
     proposed bill as written. As you know all too well, we are 
     being asked to perform on the front lines at a level never 
     before seen, and with fewer resources at the local level. We 
     are in dire need of financial support to keep our personnel 
     trained and equipped to meet the challenges here at home as 
     we continue our vigilant commitment to fight terrorism.
       Your continued commitment to the men and women in the 
     trenches is applauded and appreciated. We remain supportive 
     of your efforts and look forward to hearing more as the bill 
     progresses in Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                  R.J. Elrick,

                                                          Sheriff,
     President--Vermont Sheriffs' Association.
                                  ____

                                         Professional Firefighters


                                                   of Vermont,

                           White River Jct., VT, January 17, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Federal Building,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my support for 
     the proposed First Responder Partnership Grant Act of 2003.
       As you are well aware it is the local public safety 
     officers who are our Nations first line of defense whenever 
     tragedy strikes. Since we are this vital link in protecting 
     homeland security it is extremely important that we have the 
     resources needed to safely complete this task. The First 
     Responders Grant Act provides the financial assistance that 
     local public safety officers need so greatly.
       In closing I wish to thank you for your efforts, and once 
     again express my support and gratitude for the First 
     Responders Grant Act of 2003. If I can be of any further 
     assistance please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Steven Locke,
     President.
                                  ____



                                Vermont Ambulance Association,

                                    Rutland, VT, January 29, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: The Vermont Ambulance Association and 
     it's membership strongly support The First Responders 
     Partnership Grant Act to be introduced in the United States 
     Senate.
       This legislation will bring much needed dollars into local 
     emergency response systems to be better prepared to respond 
     to acts of terrorism and serve our communities in homeland 
     security. We very much appreciate your support of Emergency 
     Services. Particularly important in this bill is the fact 
     that it recognizes there are multiple types of public and 
     private departments and services that protect and serve 
     communities and they all will be eligible for funding.
       Again, we support and thank you for your commitment to 
     Vermont's Emergency Services and to the safety and security 
     of the citizens we serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James A. Finger,
     President V.A.A.
                                  ____

                                            Vermont Association of


                                             Chiefs of Police,

                                                 January 31, 2003.
     Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy:  Having been informed of ``The Leahy 
     First Responders Partnership Grant Act'', I would like you to 
     know that Vermont Chief's of Police Association 
     wholeheartedly supports the concept. Public safety officials 
     throughout the nation have been required to address a whole 
     new set of issues since September 11, 2001. These issues have 
     required the need for new training, changes in priorities and 
     thoughts towards security and safety of first responders, 
     often without the addition of any new resources. A grant 
     program of this nature will greatly enhance the ability of 
     law enforcement, and other first responders, to continue to 
     pursue their individual missions and to preserve the 
     individual freedom and security that everyone deserves.
       I must add that I feel that it would be beneficial to 
     afford local entities the opportunity to apply directly to 
     the government for these grants due to the fact each entity 
     would have the best knowledge of what their individual needs 
     are.
       If the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police can be of 
     any assistance in this endeavor, please feel free to contact 
     me at anytime.
           Sincerely,
                                              Brett R. Van Noordt,
     President.
                                  ____



                                 Montpelier Police Department,

                                 Montpelier, VT, January 22, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your staff's notification 
     of the First Responder Partnership Grant Program For Public 
     Safety Officers. Jessica has been very helpful in providing 
     details of your introduction of this legislation.
       I know that you are keenly aware of the need for local 
     government to be able to access funding in the area of 
     homeland security. Montpelier as well as select larger 
     communities based on location and function have greater 
     responsibilities in this new age of defense. At the same time 
     the State of Vermont is no different from many other states 
     in the country that are experiencing critical financial 
     decisions to meet the ``normal'' demands of government. 
     Shouldering the burden for national defense only adds to the 
     critical needs.
       The current administration cannot realistically believe 
     that a DOJ funding program that goes to the State of Vermont 
     which result in a trickle of $3,000 to the Montpelier Police 
     Department for a radio actually meets the response needs for 
     government in the Capital City of Vermont.
       In support of this legislative initiative I would encourage 
     your office to advocate strongly for the local units of 
     government to have a larger role and voice in the 
     distribution of these funds. In Vermont, as you well

[[Page 2516]]

     know, the State Government generally controls what occurs on 
     the local level and the temptation with such a large amount 
     of money is too great to have local communities excluded.
       Again, thank you for your efforts and those of your staff 
     on behalf of law enforcement and the City of Montpelier. It 
     is always a pleasure when I call your office. I hope to be in 
     the Washington area between March 29 and April 1 and hope 
     that I will be able to stop and visit and perhaps we can talk 
     about this and other matters important to Montpelier and the 
     State of Vermont.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Douglas S. Hoyt,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____



                                    Rutland Police Department,

                                    Rutland, VT, January 30, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: As the Chief of Police of The City of 
     Rutland, Vermont and the immediate past president of the 
     Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police I am writing this 
     letter to support your efforts to introduce and pass the 
     ``First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003.''
       This grant program will help us at a local level to be able 
     to have the resources we need to do our jobs in protecting 
     the citizens of Rutland and Vermont.
       Thank you for your strong support of Law Enforcement and 
     everything you have done for Rutland Police Department. As 
     always please feel free to contact me if there is anything 
     more I can do to help you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Anthony L. Bossi,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____



                                      Essex Police Department,

                             Essex Junction, VT, January 23, 2003.
     Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Having been informed of ``The Leahy 
     First Responders Partnership Grant Act'', I would like you to 
     know that I wholeheartedly support the concept. Public safety 
     officials throughout the nation have been required to address 
     a whole new set of issues since September 11, 2001. These 
     issues have required the need for new training, changes in 
     priorities and thoughts towards security and safety of first 
     responders, often without the addition of any new resources. 
     A grant program of this nature will greatly enhance the 
     ability of law enforcement, and other first responders, to 
     continue to pursue their individual missions and to preserve 
     the individual freedom and security that everyone deserves.
       I must add that I feel that it would be beneficial to 
     afford local entities the opportunity to apply directly to 
     the government for these grants due to the fact each entity 
     would have the best knowledge of what their individual needs 
     are.
       If I can be of any assistance in the endeavor, please feel 
     free to contact me at anytime.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David E. Demag,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____



                                      Winhall Police & Rescue,

                                  Bondville, VT, January 22, 2003.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I have read and understand the ``Leahy First 
     Responders Partnership Grant Program.'' The legislation as 
     proposed will greatly assist local and state agencies combat 
     terrorism and educate our citizens. I am in support of this 
     legislative initiative. Local first responders are a very 
     valuable entity in this war on terrorism. Thank you for not 
     forgetting us.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jeffery L. Whitesell,
                                         Chief of Police & Rescue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 316. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to include efforts to address barriers to employment as a work activity 
under the temporary assistance to needy families program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored and pleased to introduce 
legislation today that Senator Kennedy and I introduced with Senator 
Wellstone in the 107th Congress. Today, Senator Kennedy and I 
reintroduce the Chance to Succeed Act, legislation that will give TANF 
recipients with barriers to employment the tools they need to address 
these issues and move into employment.
  Studies show that between 44 and 64 percent of TANF recipients have 
multiple barriers to employment. These barriers range from mental 
health issues and substance abuse problems to learning disabilities, 
limited English proficiency and homelessness. We must assist TANF 
families in meeting their work and parenting obligations, while at the 
same time addressing the multiple barriers undermining their economic 
security.
  The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs 
of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by giving States broad 
flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and 
count recipients participating in such activities toward Federal work 
participation rates for at least six months. In addition to providing 
families the time they need to seek services, the legislation would 
assist States in developing a screening, assessment and service 
delivery system. This includes providing funding for State-level 
advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting 
families with barriers to work.
  Additionally, under the Chance to Succeed Act, States would create 
personal responsibility plans, a proposal endorsed by the Senate 
Finance Committee in the 107th Congress, that outline an employment 
goal for moving an individual into stable employment, the obligations 
of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the 
private sector, the individual's long-term career goals and the 
specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them, 
and the services the State will offer based on screening and 
assessment.
  Finally, the Chance to Succeed Act would bar States from 
inappropriately sanctioning families with barriers to work. As many as 
one-half of parents who were sanctioned off of welfare for failure to 
comply with state welfare rules, were unable to comply because of their 
disability, health condition or illness. Under this legislation, states 
would be prohibited from imposing sanctions on individuals for whom the 
appropriate screening, assessment, or services are unavailable.
  Some States, including New Jersey, have already taken many of these 
steps, however, they have done so at their own expense. Last November, 
New Jersey granted an extension of benefits to 900 TANF recipients 
whose benefits were about to expire. Most of these families are too 
sick or disabled to work. Rather than forcing them off assistance, the 
state has recognized that these recipients need help. The Chance to 
Succeed Act will help states like New Jersey to identify these 
recipients and provide them supportive services to give them the tools 
they need to live independently. Ultimately, this will help states move 
this hard-to-serve group one step closer to self-sufficiency. Simply 
ignoring the needs of these families and sanctioning them off 
assistance will neither help them achieve independence, nor will it 
reduce their burden on the states or federal government.
  Thank you, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 316

       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 ``Chance to Succeed Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF EFFORTS TO ADDRESS BARRIERS TO 
                   EMPLOYMENT AS A WORK ACTIVITY UNDER TANF.

       Section 407 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 607) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c), by 
     striking ``or (12)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(12), or (13)'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) subject to subsection (j), 6 months of satisfactory 
     participation (as determined by the State) in services to 
     address barriers that are designed to improve future 
     employment opportunities, including substance abuse 
     treatment, occupational therapy, and physical rehabilitation, 
     mental health, and mental retardation and developmental 
     disabilities services.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) State Option To Extend Period for Participation in 
     Services To Address Barriers.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to an individual, a State 
     may extend the 6-month period referred to in subsection 
     (d)(13) for an

[[Page 2517]]

     additional period determined by the State so long as the 
     State periodically reassesses the appropriateness of the 
     activities referred to in such subsection for the individual.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) or 
     subsection (d)(13) shall be construed to limit the amount of 
     time an individual may require, or a State may provide, 
     services to address barriers that are designed to improve 
     future employment opportunities.''.

     SEC. 3. CREATION OF A SCREENING, ASSESSMENT, AND SERVICES 
                   PROCESS TO ADDRESS BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Assessments.--Section 408(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 608(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Assessment provided for each individual who receives 
     assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State agency responsible for 
     administering the State program funded under this part shall 
     make an initial assessment of each adult individual who 
     receives assistance under the program (and, in the case of a 
     State program that requires an individual who is a caretaker 
     for an individual who receives such assistance to engage in 
     work, an initial assessment of the caretaker individual) to 
     determine whether the individual has any barriers to 
     employment or program compliance.
       ``(B) 2-part process.--The assessment under subparagraph 
     (A) shall consist of the following 2 parts:
       ``(i) Initial screening.--

       ``(I) In general.--An initial screening which shall 
     evaluate an individual's employability, educational capacity, 
     and other related circumstances, such as the child support 
     status, housing needs, and transportation needs of the 
     individual and the individual's family.
       ``(II) Required factors to be assessed.--A trained 
     caseworker shall screen the individual for conditions such as 
     physical or mental impairments, substance abuse, domestic or 
     sexual violence, learning disabilities, limited English 
     proficiency, limited literacy in a primary language, and need 
     to care for a child with a disability or health condition 
     which may interfere with work or other program requirements.
       ``(III) Optional assessment of child care needs.--At the 
     option of the individual, the State shall, before assigning 
     the individual to a work activity under the State program 
     funded under this part, perform an assessment of the 
     individual's child care needs, and guarantee safe, 
     appropriate, affordable quality child care to any such 
     individual who needs child care.
       ``(IV) Optional assessment of job preparation.--At the 
     option of the individual, the State shall, before assigning 
     the individual to a work activity under the State program 
     funded under this part, perform an individual assessment for 
     the preparation that is needed for the individual to obtain 
     and maintain a job at a monthly wage that is at least 200 
     percent of the poverty line applicable to the family of the 
     individual.

       ``(ii) Comprehensive assessment.--If an initial screening 
     under clause (i) suggests the existence of potential barriers 
     to work or program compliance, the individual may elect to 
     participate in a comprehensive assessment conducted by a 
     qualified professional to confirm the existence of the 
     barriers, determine the extent of the barriers, and develop 
     recommendations about appropriate services and activities for 
     the individual.
       ``(C) Family members.--At the discretion of an individual 
     who receives assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part, a member of the individual's family also may be 
     afforded an assessment in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(D) Not considered a program requirement.--Participation 
     by an individual or by a member of the individual's family in 
     an assessment under this paragraph shall not be considered a 
     program requirement for the individual or the individual's 
     family.
       ``(E) Inclusion of caseworkers.--Nothing in subparagraph 
     (B)(ii) shall be construed as prohibiting a caseworker from 
     being a qualified professional for purposes of that 
     subparagraph if the caseworker satisfies the requirements for 
     being considered a qualified professional.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4).
       (b) Review and Conciliation Process.--Section 408(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(12) Review and conciliation process.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall not impose a sanction against an individual 
     or family under the State program funded under this part on 
     the basis of noncompliance by an individual or family with a 
     program requirement, unless the State satisfies the following 
     requirements:
       ``(i) Notice.--The State has attempted, at least twice 
     (using at least 2 different communication methods, 1 of which 
     shall be in writing) to notify the individual or family, in 
     the individual's or family's native language, of--

       ``(I) the impending imposition of the sanction;
       ``(II) the reason for the proposed sanction;
       ``(III) the amount of the sanction;
       ``(IV) the length of time during which the proposed 
     sanction would be in effect; and
       ``(V) the steps required to come into compliance or to show 
     good cause for noncompliance.

       ``(ii) Review.--The State has afforded the individual or 
     family an opportunity to meet with personnel outside the 
     agency that administers the State program funded under this 
     part who the State has contracted with to make a 
     determination regarding why the individual or family did not 
     comply with the program requirement, that is to be the basis 
     on which the sanction is to be imposed, and that includes--

       ``(I) consideration of whether certain barriers to 
     compliance exist that contributed to the noncompliance of the 
     individual or family, such as a physical or mental 
     impairment, including a mental health or substance abuse 
     disorder or mental retardation, a learning disability, 
     domestic or sexual violence, limited proficiency in English, 
     limited literacy, or the need to care for a child with a 
     disability or health condition;
       ``(II) consideration of whether the individual or family 
     has good cause for failing to meet program requirements;
       ``(III) consideration of whether an additional assessment 
     would assist in identifying reasons for noncompliance;
       ``(IV) consideration of whether support services or changes 
     to the program requirements or activities to which the 
     individual or family has been assigned are necessary in order 
     for the individual or family to comply with program 
     requirements; and
       ``(V) ensuring that the State's sanction policies have been 
     applied properly.

       ``(B) Sanction limitations.--
       ``(i) Ban on imposition of sanction if needed screening, 
     assessment, or services were unavailable.--A State may not 
     impose a sanction against an individual or family under the 
     State program funded under this part on the basis of 
     noncompliance by an individual or family with a program 
     requirement if the individual whose conduct is the basis of 
     the sanction is in the process of being screened or assessed 
     for a mental health problem, disability, substance abuse 
     problem, or sexual or domestic violence situation but the 
     screening or assessment has not been completed, or if 
     services outlined in the service plan developed for the 
     individual or family were not offered, available, and 
     accessible to the individual or family at the time of the 
     noncompliance.
       ``(ii) No ban on sanction if individual or family fails to 
     take advantage of assessment or services and does not comply 
     with work requirements.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed as prohibiting a State that has complied with the 
     requirements of this paragraph and section 408(b)(1) from 
     imposing a sanction for noncompliance with work requirements 
     against an individual or family who opts to not take full 
     advantage of the opportunity for assessment or the services 
     and supports made available to ensure that the individual or 
     family can comply with program requirements if such an 
     individual or family is not complying with the State's work 
     requirements.
       ``(C) Sanction follow-up requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a State imposes a sanction on an 
     individual or family for failing to comply with program 
     requirements, the State shall--

       ``(I) provide, at the time the sanction is imposed and 
     periodically thereafter for at least 6 months, notice (in at 
     least 2 different forms) to the individual or family of the 
     reason for the sanction and the steps the individual or 
     family must take to end the sanction;
       ``(II) reinstate the individual's or family's full benefits 
     if the individual or family member who failed to meet the 
     program requirements that led to the sanction complies with 
     program requirements for a reasonable period of time and the 
     individual or family is otherwise eligible; and
       ``(III) if the sanction is time-limited, notify the 
     individual or family at least 10 days before the expiration 
     of the sanction of the date when the individual or family 
     will no longer be in sanction status and inform the 
     individual or family how assistance will be reinstated.

       ``(ii) Outreach to individuals and families sanctioned who 
     have not resumed receiving cash assistance.--If, during the 
     5-year period that ended on the date of enactment of the 
     Chance to Succeed Act of 2003, a State imposed a sanction 
     against an individual or family that resulted in the 
     individual or family losing all cash assistance under the 
     State program funded under this part, and the individual or 
     family did not resume receiving cash assistance at the end of 
     the sanction period, the State shall make reasonable efforts 
     to identify such individuals and families and notify them, 
     using at least 2 methods of communication, 1 of which is 
     written, of the assistance, services, and support they may be 
     eligible to receive.
       ``(D) Confidentiality.--The State, and any individuals or 
     entities acting as agents of the State, shall not disclose 
     any identifying information obtained through any process or 
     procedure instituted pursuant to this paragraph unless 
     required or permitted to do so by law.
       ``(E) Development of standards, procedures, training, and 
     screening tools.--

[[Page 2518]]

     States and local governments shall, in consultation with 
     Federal, State, tribal, or local experts in the different 
     barriers to employment, develop standards, procedures, 
     training, and screening tools for use in carrying out this 
     paragraph.''.
       (c) Plan Requirements for Individual Responsibility 
     Plans.--Section 408(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 608(b)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the assessment described in 
     paragraph (1), the State, in consultation with the individual 
     who is the subject of the assessment, shall develop a 
     personal responsibility plan, that--

       ``(I) sets forth an employment goal to move the individual 
     into stable employment;
       ``(II) sets forth the obligations of the individual that 
     will help the individual become and remain employed in the 
     private sector;
       ``(III) describes the individual's long-term career goals 
     and the specific work experience, education, or training 
     needed to reach them; and
       ``(IV) identifies the services the State will offer the 
     individual's family based upon the assessment and evaluation 
     described in this section.

       ``(ii) Modification.--If the State is unable to provide 
     needed services to the individual or the individual's family, 
     the State shall modify the personal responsibility plan to be 
     consistent with the needs of the individual, the family, and 
     the capacity of the State.''.
       (d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     with Federal, State, and tribal experts and qualified 
     professionals to determine, develop, and disseminate to 
     States, and provide technical assistance with respect to, 
     model practices, standards, and procedures for screening, 
     assessment, addressing barriers, including multiple barriers, 
     in a comprehensive manner, and moving individuals and 
     families with barriers into employment, as well as model 
     training materials for caseworkers.
       (e) State Plan Requirement.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Identify and serve individuals and families with 
     barriers to employment as described in section 408(b)(1).''.
       (f) Coordinating Exemptions From Work Requirements.--
     Section 408(a)(7)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     608(a)(7)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Families exempted from work requirements by reason 
     of barrier to work by family member.--The State shall exempt 
     a family from the application of subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph if the State permits a member of the family (or, in 
     the case of a State that requires a caretaker for an 
     individual who receives assistance to engage in work, a 
     caretaker) to engage in activities to address barriers, 
     pursuant to section 407(d)(13), so long as the State 
     determines that the individual is satisfactorily 
     participating in such activities.''.
       (g) Advisory Panel To Improve State Policies and Procedures 
     for Assisting Individuals and Families With Barriers To 
     Work.--
       (1) Membership; chair.--
       (A) Membership.--Each State that receives a State family 
     assistance grant under section 403(a)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) shall establish an 
     advisory panel consisting of representatives of the 
     following:
       (i) The State agency responsible for administering the 
     temporary assistance to needy families program established 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``TANF program'').
       (ii) Professionals from other State agencies with expertise 
     in barriers that interfere with an individual's or family's 
     ability to work, such as physical or mental impairments, 
     substance abuse, domestic or sexual violence, learning 
     disabilities, limited English proficiency, limited literacy 
     in a primary language, and need to care for a child with a 
     disability or health condition.
       (iii) Organizations representing individuals and families 
     with such barriers.
       (iv) Professionals with expertise in designing and 
     implementing policies and programs to successfully serve 
     individuals and families with such barriers.
       (v) Individuals and families with such barriers who are 
     recipients of cash assistance or support services under the 
     TANF program.
       (B) Chair.--The chief executive officer of the State shall 
     appoint an individual who is not a State employee to serve as 
     chair of the advisory panel.
       (2) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--The advisory panel shall review the 
     efficacy of each program described in subparagraph (B) to 
     determine--
       (i) the amount of funds spent on services under the 
     program;
       (ii) the referral process for participation in the program, 
     including whether individuals and families received referrals 
     and services;
       (iii) the effect services provided under the program had on 
     an individual's and family's economic status; and
       (iv) ways in which the State can improve the effectiveness 
     of its policies and procedures to serve individuals and 
     families with barriers to work or program compliance.
       (B) Programs described.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     a program described in this subparagraph, is a program that--
       (i) is funded under the TANF program;
       (ii) receives funding from amounts made available under the 
     State family assistance grant made under section 403(a)(1) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)); or
       (iii) is funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i))).
       (C) Development of mechanism for review and reports by 
     local units of government.--In the case of a State in which 
     significant policy or spending decisions are made in the 
     State with respect to a program described in subparagraph (B) 
     at the county or other local unit of government, then the 
     advisory panel shall develop a mechanism that requires each 
     county or other local unit of government to--
       (i) review its policies and procedures with respect to that 
     program and file a written report with the advisory panel 
     regarding how the policies and procedures for the program are 
     designed to assist individuals and families with barriers to 
     work; and
       (ii) respond to any other requests for information from the 
     advisory panel regarding the TANF program.
       (D) Additional authority.--In order to carry out the duties 
     described in this paragraph, the advisory panel may hold such 
     meetings (in addition to the regular meetings required under 
     paragraph (3)(C)) and such public hearings, hire such staff, 
     enter into the contract required under paragraph (4)(B), and 
     travel to such locations of programs described in 
     subparagraph (B), as the panel determines to be appropriate.
       (3) Duration; meetings.--
       (A) Duration.--An advisory panel established in accordance 
     with this subsection shall remain in effect for at least 3 
     years from the date of the initial meeting of the panel.
       (B) Deadline for initial meeting.--Not later than the end 
     of the first Federal fiscal year quarter that begins on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the advisory panel 
     shall meet for its initial meeting.
       (C) Regular meetings.--The advisory panel shall meet on a 
     regular basis.
       (4) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--Each advisory panel established in 
     accordance with this subsection shall file the following 
     reports with the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
       (i) Not later than 12 months after the initial meeting of 
     the advisory panel, an interim report identifying areas where 
     improvement is needed with respect to State policies and 
     procedures to serve individuals with barriers to work and the 
     steps the State is taking or plans to take to make those 
     improvements.
       (ii) Not later than 24 months after such initial meeting, a 
     progress report on how the improvements identified in the 
     report required under clause (i) are being made, whether 
     additional improvements are needed, including plans to make 
     those improvements, and that includes the report of the 
     independent evaluation entity required under subparagraph 
     (B).
       (iii) Not later than 36 months after such initial meeting, 
     a final report that describes how the programs described in 
     subparagraph (B) have been improved to assist individuals and 
     families with barriers to work and identifies ongoing work 
     that will be needed to maintain the improvements made.
       (B) Requirements for progress report.--In preparation for 
     the progress report required under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     advisory panel shall hire an independent evaluation entity to 
     assess the State's progress in meeting the goals set forth by 
     the advisory panel. In States described in paragraph (2)(C), 
     the independent evaluation entity shall also assess the 
     progress being made at the county level or appropriate other 
     unit of local government.
       (C) Reports to congress.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall compile the reports submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) and shall submit such compilations to 
     Congress as part of any annual report to Congress on the TANF 
     program.
       (5) Public access.--
       (A) In general.--All materials collected by or provided to 
     the advisory panel and all reports submitted by the advisory 
     panel to the State or the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall be publicly available.
       (B) Opportunity for public comment.--The advisory panel 
     shall create opportunities to secure public comments on a 
     draft of each report to be submitted to the State or the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services and shall submit a 
     summary of such comments with the final draft of the report.
       (6) Funding.--Out of funds made available to carry out this 
     subsection, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     pay each State that establishes an advisory panel in 
     accordance with this subsection, $1,500,000, for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
       (7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed as authorizing an advisory review panel 
     established under this paragraph to resolve complaints filed 
     by individuals or entities related to possible violations of 
     laws protecting civil rights.
       (8) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the

[[Page 2519]]

     Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out this 
     subsection, such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2007.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Corzine 
in introducing the Chance to Succeed Act, which will benefit the most 
vulnerable families across the Nation. I'm concerned that the 
Administration's proposal on welfare reform fails to give States the 
flexibility needed to assist families who face serious barriers to 
employment. The Chance to Succeed Act provides this essential 
flexibility.
  Many of the individuals still remaining on welfare face significant 
and real barriers to finding and keeping jobs. These barriers include 
physical or mental disabilities, substance abuse, domestic or sexual 
violence, learning disabilities, problems with literacy or English 
proficiency, or the need to care for a sick or disabled child. These 
recipients are less likely to find jobs or earn adequate wages, and 
they are more likely to lose public assistance due to sanctions for 
noncompliance.
  It makes sense to assist these families on the road to self-
sufficiency by enabling states to do what is necessary to provide them 
with adequate work supports and needed services. This approach works, 
I've seen it in Massachusetts, which has been highly successful in 
serving its neediest families. In fact, even before the 1996 welfare 
reform, the state had developed a welfare program in which all 
recipients are screened for barriers to employment. We've successfully 
helped families without major barriers to obtain employment, and we've 
reduced our caseload by over 64 percent in five years. We've also been 
able, consistently and effectively, to serve families facing barriers 
and provide educational, rehabilitative, and other services appropriate 
for their situations. We have a socially and fiscally responsible 
welfare policy.
  The Chance to Succeed Act will encourage all states to take such 
steps. It will facilitate the development of screening, assessment, and 
service delivery procedures that enable states to identify these 
individuals and provide appropriate support and services. It will 
provide funding and technical assistance for state advisory panels, 
model practices, and more effective standards and procedures to help 
individuals find employment.
  This bill also helps the many persons who are unable to comply with 
current work requirements because of previously unidentified barriers 
to employment. It will enable each family to develop its own plan that 
includes career goals and private sector employment. It provides 
flexibility to states to design plans that meet families' unique needs. 
Activities essential to reducing and eliminating barriers can be 
counted as work. It will enable states to establish conciliation and 
follow-up procedures to remove barriers and improve compliance, so that 
fewer families are needlessly penalized and left vulnerable.
  Individuals with barriers to employment are an important part of 
genuine welfare reform, and it is long past time for Congress to 
include them. The Chance to Succeed Act is a first step in helping the 
many families who face barriers to become more self-sufficient.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 317. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide to private sector employees the same opportunities for time-
and-a-half compensatory time off, biweekly work programs, and flexible 
credit hour programs as Federal employees currently enjoy to help 
balance the demands and needs for work and family, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that, 
if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of 
working men, women and families in America. Today, along with Senators 
Enzi, and Sessions, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Time and 
Workplace Flexibility Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is 
to give families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and 
balancing the demands of work and family.
  The demand for family time is evident. Let me give you some of the 
latest statistics. Seventy percent of employees don't think there is a 
healthy balance between work and personal life. Seventy percent of 
employees today say that family is their most important priority. This 
compares to 54 percent in 2000. Forty six percent of employees either 
feel overworked, overwhelmed by the quantity of their work, or lack the 
time to step back and reflect on their work. Sixty one percent of 
adults say they would give up some of their pay for more time with 
their family. Employees say that finding time for family is a more 
pressing concern than layoffs, 32 percent vs 22 percent. This compares 
to 25 percent in 1999.
  In light of the cry of America's workers for more family time, and in 
honor of today's 10-year anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, I 
am introducing the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, which 
will build upon the spirit of the FMLA, by updating federal law to 
allow a more flexible workplace. This legislation is not a total 
solution: there are many other provisions under the 64-year-old Fair 
Labor Standards Act that need our attention. But the legislation I am 
introducing today is an important part of the solution. It gives 
working families a choice.
  The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists 
of three main provisions. The first allows employees the option of 
taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the 
option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other 
words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work 
in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. The third 
provision gives employees the option of a ``flexible credit hour 
program,'' under which the employer and employee can agree to allow the 
employee to work excess hours in his schedule in order to accrue hours 
to be taken off at a later time. The flexible credit hour option is for 
employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still 
want a way to build up hours to take off later.
  Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal 
Government since 1978. For over three decades, federal workers have had 
this special privilege. The federal program was so successful in fact, 
that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it 
to parts of the Federal government that had not yet had the benefits of 
the program. The President stated that: ``Broad use of flexible 
arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work 
and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job 
satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' I 
couldn't agree more.
  While Federal employees enjoy the benefits of flexible workplace 
arrangements, members of the private sector do not have such options. 
The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends 
this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but 
do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are 
some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers 
have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less 
than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with 
children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs 
as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate 
love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to 
opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Family Time and 
Workplace Flexibility Act does.
  In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some 
that what working families really need is more money. They need their 
overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill 
does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families 
who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school 
play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The

[[Page 2520]]

point is this the family should have the right to choose. Washington 
should not decide for them which priority is important for their 
family.
  I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in 
their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for 
Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks 
they need. It's time to give working families what Federal employees 
have already--workplace flexibility.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, a bill 
summary, and an article from the Washington Post be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 317

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family Time and Workplace 
     Flexibility Act''.

     SEC. 2. WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS.

       (a) Compensatory Time Off.--Section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(r)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no 
     employee may be required under this subsection to receive 
     compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime 
     compensation. The acceptance of compensatory time off in lieu 
     of monetary overtime compensation may not be a condition of 
     employment or of working overtime.
       ``(B) In a case in which a valid collective bargaining 
     agreement exists between an employer and the labor 
     organization that has been certified or recognized as the 
     representative of the employees of the employer under 
     applicable law, an employee may only be required under this 
     subsection to receive compensatory time off in lieu of 
     monetary overtime compensation in accordance with the 
     agreement.
       ``(2)(A) An employee may receive, in accordance with this 
     subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, 
     compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-
     half hours for each hour of employment for which monetary 
     overtime compensation is required by this section.
       ``(B) In this subsection:
       ``(i) The term `employee' means an individual--
       ``(I) who is an employee (as defined in section 3);
       ``(II) who is not an employee of a public agency; and
       ``(III) to whom subsection (a) applies.
       ``(ii) The term `employer' does not include a public 
     agency.
       ``(3) An employer may provide compensatory time off to 
     employees under paragraph (2)(A) only pursuant to the 
     following:
       ``(A) The compensatory time off may be provided only in 
     accordance with--
       ``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law; or
       ``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by 
     a labor organization described in clause (i), a written 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work involved if the agreement was 
     entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and 
     was not a condition of employment.
       ``(B) The compensatory time off may only be provided to an 
     employee described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee 
     has affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and 
     preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee 
     has chosen to receive compensatory time off in lieu of 
     monetary overtime compensation.
       ``(C) No employee may receive, or agree to receive, the 
     compensatory time off unless the employee has been employed 
     for at least 12 months by the employer, and for at least 
     1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 
     12-month period.
       ``(D) An employee shall be eligible to accrue compensatory 
     time off if such employee has not accrued compensatory time 
     off in excess of the limit applicable to the employee 
     prescribed by paragraph (4).
       ``(4)(A) An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of 
     compensatory time off.
       ``(B) Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the 
     employer of the employee shall provide monetary compensation 
     for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the 
     preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 
     31 of the preceding calendar year at the rate prescribed by 
     paragraph (8). An employer may designate and communicate to 
     the employees of the employer a 12-month period other than 
     the calendar year, in which case the compensation shall be 
     provided not later than 31 days after the end of the 12-month 
     period.
       ``(C) The employer may provide monetary compensation for an 
     employee's unused compensatory time off in excess of 80 hours 
     at any time after providing the employee with at least 30 
     days' written notice. The compensation shall be provided at 
     the rate prescribed by paragraph (8).
       ``(5)(A) An employer that has adopted a policy offering 
     compensatory time off to employees may discontinue the policy 
     for employees described in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) after 
     providing 30 days' written notice to the employees who are 
     subject to an agreement described in paragraph (3)(A)(ii).
       ``(B) An employee may withdraw an agreement described in 
     paragraph (3)(A)(ii) at any time, by submitting a written 
     notice of withdrawal to the employer of the employee. An 
     employee may also request in writing that monetary 
     compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory 
     time off accrued that has not been used. Within 30 days after 
     receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the 
     employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with 
     paragraph (8).
       ``(6)(A)(i) An employer that provides compensatory time off 
     under paragraph (2) to an employee shall not directly or 
     indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to 
     intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any employee for the purpose 
     of--
       ``(I) interfering with the rights of the employee under 
     this subsection to request or not request compensatory time 
     off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for 
     overtime hours;
       ``(II) interfering with the rights of the employee to use 
     accrued compensatory time off in accordance with paragraph 
     (9); or
       ``(III) requiring the employee to use the compensatory time 
     off.
       ``(ii) In clause (i), the term `intimidate, threaten, or 
     coerce' has the meaning given the term in section 13A(d)(2).
       ``(B) An agreement that is entered into by an employee and 
     employer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii) shall permit the employee 
     to elect, for an applicable workweek--
       ``(i) the payment of monetary overtime compensation for the 
     workweek; or
       ``(ii) the accrual of compensatory time off in lieu of the 
     payment of monetary overtime compensation for the 
     workweek.''.
       (b) Remedies and Sanctions.--Section 16 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) In addition to any amount that an employer is 
     liable under subsection (b) for a violation of a provision of 
     section 7, an employer that violates section 7(r)(6)(A) shall 
     be liable to the employee affected in an amount equal to--
       ``(A) the product of--
       ``(i) the rate of compensation (determined in accordance 
     with section 7(r)(8)(A)); and
       ``(ii)(I) the number of hours of compensatory time off 
     involved in the violation that was initially accrued by the 
     employee; minus
       ``(II) the number of such hours used by the employee; and
       ``(B) as liquidated damages, the product of--
       ``(i) such rate of compensation; and
       ``(ii) the number of hours of compensatory time off 
     involved in the violation that was initially accrued by the 
     employee.
       ``(2) The employer shall be subject to such liability in 
     addition to any other remedy available for such violation 
     under this section or section 17, including a criminal 
     penalty under subsection (a) and a civil penalty under 
     subsection (e).''.
       (c) Calculations and Special Rules.--Section 7(r) of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)), as added 
     by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(7) An employee who has accrued compensatory time off 
     authorized to be provided under paragraph (2) shall, upon the 
     voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid 
     for the unused compensatory time off in accordance with 
     paragraph (8).
       ``(8)(A) If compensation is to be paid to an employee for 
     accrued compensatory time off, the compensation shall be paid 
     at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the 
     compensatory time off was earned; or
       ``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee;
     whichever is higher.
       ``(B) Any payment owed to an employee under this subsection 
     for unused compensatory time off shall be considered unpaid 
     monetary overtime compensation.
       ``(9) An employee--
       ``(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to 
     be provided under paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) who has requested the use of the accrued compensatory 
     time off;
     shall be permitted by the employer of the employee to use the 
     accrued compensatory time off within a reasonable period 
     after making the request if the use of the accrued 
     compensatory time off does not unduly disrupt the operations 
     of the employer.
       ``(10) The terms `monetary overtime compensation' and 
     `compensatory time off' shall have the meanings given the 
     terms `overtime compensation' and `compensatory time', 
     respectively, by subsection (o)(7).''.
       (d) Notice to Employees.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     revise the

[[Page 2521]]

     materials the Secretary provides, under regulations contained 
     in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, to 
     employers for purposes of a notice explaining the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) to employees so 
     that the notice reflects the amendments made to the Act by 
     this section.

     SEC. 3. BIWEEKLY WORK PROGRAMS AND FLEXIBLE CREDIT HOUR 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is 
     amended by inserting after section 13 (29 U.S.C. 213) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 13A. BIWEEKLY WORK PROGRAMS AND FLEXIBLE CREDIT HOUR 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Voluntary Participation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     employee may be required to participate in a program 
     described in this section. Participation in a program 
     described in this section may not be a condition of 
     employment.
       ``(2) Collective bargaining agreement.--In a case in which 
     a valid collective bargaining agreement exists between an 
     employer and the labor organization that has been certified 
     or recognized as the representative of the employees of the 
     employer under applicable law, an employee may only be 
     required to participate in such a program in accordance with 
     the agreement.
       ``(b) Biweekly Work Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7, an employer 
     may establish biweekly work programs that allow the use of a 
     biweekly work schedule--
       ``(A) that consists of a basic work requirement of not more 
     than 80 hours, over a 2-week period; and
       ``(B) in which more than 40 hours of the work requirement 
     may occur in a week of the period, except that no more than 
     10 hours may be shifted between the 2 weeks involved.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An employer may carry out a biweekly 
     work program described in paragraph (1) for employees only 
     pursuant to the following:
       ``(A) Agreement.--The program may be carried out only in 
     accordance with--
       ``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law; or
       ``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by 
     a labor organization described in clause (i), a written 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work involved if the agreement was 
     entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and 
     was not a condition of employment.
       ``(B) Statement.--The program shall apply to an employee 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee has 
     affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and 
     preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee 
     has chosen to participate in the program.
       ``(C) Minimum service.--No employee may participate, or 
     agree to participate, in the program unless the employee has 
     been employed for at least 12 months by the employer, and for 
     at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the 
     previous 12-month period.
       ``(3) Compensation for hours in schedule.--Notwithstanding 
     section 7, in the case of an employee participating in such a 
     biweekly work program, the employee shall be compensated for 
     each hour in such a biweekly work schedule at a rate not less 
     than the regular rate at which the employee is employed.
       ``(4) Computation of overtime.--All hours worked by the 
     employee in excess of such a biweekly work schedule or in 
     excess of 80 hours in the 2-week period, that are requested 
     in advance by the employer, shall be overtime hours.
       ``(5) Overtime compensation provision.--The employee shall 
     be compensated for each such overtime hour at a rate not less 
     than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the 
     employee is employed, in accordance with section 7(a)(1), or 
     receive compensatory time off in accordance with section 7(r) 
     for each such overtime hour.
       ``(6) Discontinuance of program or withdrawal.--
       ``(A) Discontinuance of program.--An employer that has 
     established a biweekly work program under paragraph (1) may 
     discontinue the program for employees described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)(ii) after providing 30 days' written notice to the 
     employees who are subject to an agreement described in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
       ``(B) Withdrawal.--An employee may withdraw an agreement 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) at the end of any 2-week 
     period described in paragraph (1)(A), by submitting a written 
     notice of withdrawal to the employer of the employee.
       ``(c) Flexible Credit Hour Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7, an employer 
     may establish flexible credit hour programs, under which, at 
     the election of an employee, the employer and the employee 
     jointly designate hours for the employee to work that are in 
     excess of the basic work requirement of the employee so that 
     the employee can accrue flexible credit hours to reduce the 
     hours worked in a week or a day subsequent to the day on 
     which the flexible credit hours are worked.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An employer may carry out a flexible 
     credit hour program described in paragraph (1) for employees 
     only pursuant to the following:
       ``(A) Agreement.--The program may be carried out only in 
     accordance with--
       ``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law; or
       ``(ii) in the case of an employee who is not represented by 
     a labor organization described in clause (i), a written 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work involved if the agreement was 
     entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and 
     was not a condition of employment.
       ``(B) Statement.--The program shall apply to an employee 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such employee has 
     affirmed, in a written statement that is made, kept, and 
     preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee 
     has chosen to participate in the program.
       ``(C) Minimum service.--No employee may participate, or 
     agree to participate, in the program unless the employee has 
     been employed for at least 12 months by the employer, and for 
     at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the 
     previous 12-month period.
       ``(D) Hours.--An agreement that is entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall provide that, at the election of an 
     employee, the employer and the employee will jointly 
     designate, for an applicable workweek, flexible credit hours 
     for the employee to work.
       ``(E) Limit.--An employee shall be eligible to accrue 
     flexible credit hours if the employee has not accrued 
     flexible credit hours in excess of the limit applicable to 
     the employee prescribed by paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Hour limit.--
       ``(A) Maximum hours.--An employee who is participating in 
     such a flexible credit hour program may accrue not more than 
     50 flexible credit hours.
       ``(B) Compensation date.--Not later than January 31 of each 
     calendar year, the employer of an employee who is 
     participating in such a flexible credit hour program shall 
     provide monetary compensation for any flexible credit hours 
     accrued during the preceding calendar year that were not used 
     prior to December 31 of the preceding calendar year at a rate 
     not less than the regular rate at which the employee is 
     employed on the date the employee receives the compensation. 
     An employer may designate and communicate to the employees of 
     the employer a 12-month period other than the calendar year, 
     in which case the compensation shall be provided not later 
     than 31 days after the end of the 12-month period.
       ``(4) Compensation for flexible credit hours.--
     Notwithstanding section 7, in the case of an employee 
     participating in such a flexible credit hour program, the 
     employee shall be compensated for each flexible credit hour 
     at a rate not less than the regular rate at which the 
     employee is employed.
       ``(5) Computation of overtime.--All hours worked by the 
     employee in excess of 40 hours in a week that are requested 
     in advance by the employer, other than flexible credit hours, 
     shall be overtime hours.
       ``(6) Overtime compensation provision.--The employee shall 
     be compensated for each such overtime hour at a rate not less 
     than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the 
     employee is employed, in accordance with section 7(a)(1), or 
     receive compensatory time off in accordance with section 7(r) 
     for each such overtime hour.
       ``(7) Use of time.--An employee--
       ``(A) who has accrued flexible credit hours; and
       ``(B) who has requested the use of the accrued flexible 
     credit hours,

     shall be permitted by the employer of the employee to use the 
     accrued flexible credit hours within a reasonable period 
     after making the request if the use of the accrued flexible 
     credit hours does not unduly disrupt the operations of the 
     employer.
       ``(8) Discontinuance of program or withdrawal.--
       ``(A) Discontinuance of program.--An employer that has 
     established a flexible credit hour program under paragraph 
     (1) may discontinue the program for employees described in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii) after providing 30 days' written notice 
     to the employees who are subject to an agreement described in 
     paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
       ``(B) Withdrawal.--An employee may withdraw an agreement 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) at any time, by submitting 
     a written notice of withdrawal to the employer of the 
     employee. An employee may also request in writing that 
     monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all 
     flexible credit hours accrued that have not been used. Within 
     30 days after receiving the written request, the employer 
     shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due at a 
     rate not less than the regular rate at which the employee is 
     employed on the date the employee receives the compensation.
       ``(d) Prohibition of Coercion.--
       ``(1) In general.--An employer shall not directly or 
     indirectly intimidate, threaten,

[[Page 2522]]

     or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any 
     employee for the purpose of--
       ``(A) interfering with the rights of the employee under 
     this section to elect or not to elect to work a biweekly work 
     schedule;
       ``(B) interfering with the rights of the employee under 
     this section to elect or not to elect to participate in a 
     flexible credit hour program, or to elect or not to elect to 
     work flexible credit hours (including working flexible credit 
     hours in lieu of overtime hours);
       ``(C) interfering with the rights of the employee under 
     this section to use accrued flexible credit hours in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(7); or
       ``(D) requiring the employee to use the flexible credit 
     hours.
       ``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `intimidate, 
     threaten, or coerce' includes promising to confer or 
     conferring any benefit (such as appointment, promotion, or 
     compensation) or effecting or threatening to effect any 
     reprisal (such as deprivation of appointment, promotion, or 
     compensation).
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Basic work requirement.--The term `basic work 
     requirement' means the number of hours, excluding overtime 
     hours, that an employee is required to work or is required to 
     account for by leave or otherwise.
       ``(2) Collective bargaining.--The term `collective 
     bargaining' means the performance of the mutual obligation of 
     the representative of an employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees of the employer under applicable law to meet 
     at reasonable times and to consult and bargain in a good-
     faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the 
     conditions of employment affecting such employees and to 
     execute, if requested by either party, a written document 
     incorporating any collective bargaining agreement reached, 
     but the obligation referred to in this paragraph shall not 
     compel either party to agree to a proposal or to make a 
     concession.
       ``(3) Collective bargaining agreement.--The term 
     `collective bargaining agreement' means an agreement entered 
     into as a result of collective bargaining.
       ``(4) Election.--The term `at the election of', used with 
     respect to an employee, means at the initiative of, and at 
     the request of, the employee.
       ``(5) Employee.--The term `employee' means an individual--
       ``(A) who is an employee (as defined in section 3);
       ``(B) who is not an employee of a public agency; and
       ``(C) to whom section 7(a) applies.
       ``(6) Employer.--The term `employer' does not include a 
     public agency.
       ``(7) Flexible credit hours.--The term `flexible credit 
     hours' means any hours, within a flexible credit hour program 
     established under subsection (c), that are in excess of the 
     basic work requirement of an employee and that, at the 
     election of the employee, the employer and the employee 
     jointly designate for the employee to work so as to reduce 
     the hours worked in a week on a day subsequent to the day on 
     which the flexible credit hours are worked.
       ``(8) Overtime hours.--The term `overtime hours'--
       ``(A) when used with respect to biweekly work programs 
     under subsection (b), means all hours worked in excess of the 
     biweekly work schedule involved or in excess of 80 hours in 
     the 2-week period involved, that are requested in advance by 
     an employer; or
       ``(B) when used with respect to flexible credit hour 
     programs under subsection (c), means all hours worked in 
     excess of 40 hours in a week that are requested in advance by 
     an employer, but does not include flexible credit hours.
       ``(9) Regular rate.--The term `regular rate' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 7(e).''.
       (b) Remedies.--
       (1) Prohibitions.--Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)'';
       (B) by adding ``or'' after the semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) to violate any of the provisions of section 13A;''.
       (2) Remedies and sanctions.--Section 16 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216), as amended in section 
     2(b), is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in the first sentence--

       (I) by inserting after ``7 of this Act'' the following: ``, 
     or of the appropriate legal or monetary equitable relief 
     owing to any employee or employees under section 13A''; and
       (II) by striking ``wages or unpaid overtime compensation 
     and'' and inserting ``wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or 
     legal or monetary equitable relief, as appropriate, and'';

       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``wages or 
     overtime compensation and'' and inserting ``wages, unpaid 
     overtime compensation, or legal or monetary equitable relief, 
     as appropriate, and''; and
       (iii) in the third sentence--

       (I) by inserting after ``first sentence of such 
     subsection'' the following: ``, or the second sentence of 
     such subsection in the event of a violation of section 
     13A,''; and
       (II) by striking ``wages or unpaid overtime compensation 
     under sections 6 and 7 or'' and inserting ``wages, unpaid 
     overtime compensation, or legal or monetary equitable relief, 
     as appropriate, or'';

       (B) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in the second sentence, by striking ``section 6 or 7'' 
     and inserting ``section 6, 7, or 13A''; and
       (ii) in the fourth sentence, in paragraph (3), by striking 
     ``15(a)(4) or'' and inserting ``15(a)(4), a violation of 
     section 15(a)(3)(B), or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g)(1) In addition to any amount that an employer is 
     liable under the second sentence of subsection (b) for a 
     violation of a provision of section 13A, an employer that 
     violates section 13A(d) shall be liable to the employee 
     affected for an additional sum equal to that amount.
       ``(2) The employer shall be subject to such liability in 
     addition to any other remedy available for such violation 
     under this section or section 17.''.
       (c) Notice to Employees.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     revise the materials the Secretary provides, under 
     regulations contained in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice 
     explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     201 et seq.) to employees so that the notice reflects the 
     amendments made to the Act by this section.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO COMPENSATORY TIME 
                   OFF IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.

       Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``for--'' and inserting the following: ``on 
     the condition that all accrued compensatory time off (as 
     defined in section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 207)) shall be deemed to have been earned within 
     90 days before the date of the filing of the petition or the 
     date of the cessation of the debtor's business, whichever 
     occurs first, for--''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``or the value of unused, accrued compensatory 
     time off (as defined in section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207))''.

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL COVERAGE.

       Section 203 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 
     (2 U.S.C. 1313) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and section 12(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 12(c), and section 13A''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3);
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``The remedy'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the remedy''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Compensatory time.--The remedy for a violation of 
     subsection (a) relating to the requirements of section 7(r) 
     of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)) 
     shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded under 
     subsection (b) or (f) of section 16 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     216).
       ``(3) Biweekly work programs and flexible credit hours 
     programs.--The remedy for a violation of subsection (a) 
     relating to the requirements of section 13A of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 shall be such remedy as would be 
     appropriate if awarded under sections 16 and 17 of such Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 216, 217) for such a violation.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION.

       The authority provided by this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act terminates 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                  ____


                          Legislative Summary


             the family time and workplace flexibility act

                          Section 2, Comp Time

       Gives employers and employees (who have been employed for 
     at least 12 months by the employer, and for at least 1,250 
     hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-
     month period) the option of comp time in lieu of monetary 
     overtime compensation, at the rate of 1 and \1/2\ hours of 
     comp time for each hour of overtime worked.
       Where a collective bargaining agreement is in place, an 
     employer would have to work within that context in shaping 
     any comp time program.
       Where there is no collective bargaining agreement in place, 
     the employer and the individual employee would be allowed to 
     enter into a ``written agreement'' with respect to comp time. 
     Such an agreement must be completely voluntary and must be 
     arrived at before the performance of the work.
       The employer is prohibited from directly or indirectly 
     intimidating, threatening, coercing or attempting to 
     intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee in agreeing to 
     the comp time option nor may acceptance of comp time be a 
     condition of employment or of working overtime.
       Employees may not accrue more than 160 hours of comp time. 
     If unused, such hours

[[Page 2523]]

     must be cashed out at the end of the preceding calendar year 
     or not later than 31 days after the end of an alternative 12-
     month period designated by the employer. An employer may, 
     upon 30 days written notice to the employee, cash-out all 
     hours banked in excess of 80. Employees who terminate their 
     employment either voluntarily or involuntarily must be paid 
     for any unused comp time.
       An employee may withdraw an agreement at any time by 
     submitting a written notice of withdrawal to the employer and 
     an employer must, within 30 days after receiving the written 
     request, provide the employee the monetary compensation due.
       An employer may discontinue offering comp time after 
     providing 30 days' notice.
       Comp time may be used upon request by a worker within a 
     reasonable period after making the request if it does not 
     unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.

      Section 3, Bi-Weekly Work and Flexible Credit Hour Programs

       Gives employers and employees the option of a 2-week 80 
     hour work period during which, without incurring an overtime 
     penalty, up to 10 hours could be ``flexed'' between the two 
     week period. Employees could, if agreed upon by their 
     employers, choose to work 2 weeks of 40 hours each, 50 hours 
     in one week and 30 in another, etc. Employers would not be 
     required to pay overtime rates (time-and-a-half) until 80 
     hours had been worked in 2 calendar weeks. For hours worked 
     in excess of 80 in a 2 week period, a worker would have to be 
     compensated either in cash or in paid comp time (if the 
     employer has agreed to a comp time option)--each at not less 
     than a time-and-a-half-basis.
       Gives employers and employees the option of a ``flexible 
     credit hour program,'' under which the employer and employee 
     can agree to allow the employee to work excess hours in his 
     schedule in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later 
     time. The employee would receive one hour of time off for 
     every excess hour worked.
       The flexible credit hour option is for employees who do not 
     get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to 
     build up hours to take off later.
       Employees may accrue up to 50 flexible credit hours.
       Like comp time, these programs are completely voluntary and 
     may not affect collective bargaining agreements that are in 
     force.
       Discontinuance rules for these programs are similar to 
     rules for comp time.

             Section 4, Protections in Cases of Bankruptcy

       Amends the Federal bankruptcy code to grant third priority 
     (allowed unsecured claims for wages, salaries, or 
     commissions) in bankruptcy proceedings to claims relating to 
     compensatory time off.

                   Section 5, Congressional Coverage

       Congressional employees would have access to comp time, 
     biweekly work programs, and flexible credit hours.

                         Section 6, Termination

       The provisions sunset after 5 years.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2003]

                             The Regulators

                          (By Cindy Skrzycki)


                  Businesses Sore About Medical Leave

       It was the Labor Department's 1996 ruling that counted the 
     common cold, flu, earaches, headaches and other routine 
     ailments as ``serious health conditions'' that put many 
     employers in a swivet over benefits offered under the Family 
     and Medical Leave Act.
       The business community, fearing employees would be absent 
     from work for minor ailments, geared up almost immediately to 
     press Congress and the Labor Department for ``technical 
     corrections'' to the rules.
       The law, passed a decade ago, provides workers at companies 
     with more than 50 employees up to 12 weeks or unpaid leave 
     and job protection for the birth or adoption of a child, to 
     care for an immediate family member, or to tend to a serious 
     health condition. Businesses felt so strongly about the need 
     to ``fix'' some of the rules that they created the FMLA 
     Technical Corrections Coalition in 1997, and about 300 
     companies and trade associations joined. They testified, 
     lobbied and complained about problems with the rules, 
     especially the guidance on what constitutes a serious health 
     condition. The Clinton administration, which viewed the law 
     as a signature piece of legislation, was not disposed to 
     change the rules. In surveys done for the Labor Department, 
     Clinton regulators insisted that companies were not finding 
     it onerous to comply. A Labor survey in 2000, for example, 
     said millions of workers have taken the leave, using it 
     ``infrequently and for relatively short periods of time.''
       The Bush administration has been more receptive to industry 
     complaints and is talking to business groups, AARP, unions 
     and women's advocacy groups about what works and doesn't work 
     with the regulations.
       ``The employer community has come in with very specific, 
     very targeted issues in very specific areas of the 
     regulations,'' said Victoria A. Lipnic, assistant secretary 
     for the Employment Standards Administration. ``These are 
     listening sessions on our part. The biggest thing we hear is 
     the chronic use of unforeseen, intermittent leave.''
       Lipnic said the department hopes to reorganize the rules 
     and eliminate some of the complexity to make them more 
     efficient for employers and employees alike. She added that 
     the department has to change some of the notification 
     requirements that employers have to abide by because a recent 
     Supreme Court decision found employers did not have to offer 
     12 weeks of family leave on top of other, more generous leave 
     policies.
       ``No one debates the 12-week leave or the family-leave part 
     of the legislation,'' said Randel Johnson, vice president of 
     labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce. ``It's the medical leave part that causes the 
     problem.''
       Johnson, who was the staff aide who wrote the minority 
     views when the original legislation passed the House, 
     predicted at the time that administration would be unworkable 
     and lead to extensive litigation. For some companies, those 
     problems have come to pass and so has the litigation. There 
     have been some 1,300 federal cases dealing with various 
     aspects of the law, according to the Labor Department.
       Though Congress made it clear that the leave was to be 
     applied to ``serious medical conditions,'' such as cancer, 
     surgeries and pregnancy-related issues, the rules were 
     interpreted otherwise.
       The 1996 opinion letter that triggered business outrage 
     said an employee is eligible for leave if he is out for more 
     than three days and is receiving treatment, such as 
     antibiotics for the flu. That interpretation followed an 
     opinion from the department the year before that said exactly 
     the opposite.
       ``Whenever we have seminar or a breakout session [on the 
     law] at a conference, it's packed to capacity,'' said Deron 
     Zeppelin, director of governmental affairs for the Society 
     for Human Resource Management, a group of business benefits 
     managers. ``When you're dealing with the realities of the 
     workplace, the law becomes more difficult. No one thought 
     when it was passed that people would get [medical] 
     certification to take off time whenever they want.''
       One large corporation, which asked not to be named, said 90 
     percent of the leave its workers take falls into the 
     ``serious medical condition'' category, not the care of 
     family members. Company officials said the leave has been 
     taken for pinkeye, poison ivy, stress and tooth extraction. 
     ``People use this as a way to get additional sick leave 
     without any repercussions,'' said a company official.
       Business lobbyists want to tighten the definition of what 
     constitutes a serious health condition. The also want to 
     restrict employees to taking the leave in half-day chunks--
     now, it can be taken in the smallest increments their payroll 
     systems can track, and that can be minutes. They also want 
     employees to be responsible for requesting leave under the 
     act, instead of requiring that companies tell them about it.
       Labor unions and women's groups who fought for passage of 
     the law have been watching warily, especially since the Bush 
     administration recently threw out a Clinton-era rule that 
     allowed states to pay for family leave through their 
     unemployment funds. They would like to see the law expanded 
     to cover other absences, such as teacher conferences or to 
     allow employees to take a sick parent to a doctor's 
     appointment. They also would like the leave to be paid, which 
     would require new legislation, and cover more employees.
       Christine Owens, director of public policy for the AFL-CIO, 
     said business is overstating the seriousness of the problems 
     and they probably could be fixed with ``modest tinkering.'' 
     Judith L. Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for 
     Women & Families, said the problems employers are complaining 
     about are of ``questionable merit.''
       ``If the Bush administration wants to think of itself as 
     family-friendly, it should put its policies where its 
     rhetoric is--expand on existing FMLA rights,'' Lichtman said. 
     ``It's an incredibly popular program that has made a 
     difference in the lives of working people.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Edwards, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Warner, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Harkin, 
        and Mr Reid):
  S. 318. A bill to provide emergency assistance to nonfarm-related 
small business concerns that have suffered substantial economic harm 
from drought; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem 
for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation 
to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it 
through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program.
  You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The 
Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to 
farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only 
small businesses owners whose livelihoods are at

[[Page 2524]]

risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as 
devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and 
tackle shops. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the 
SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about 
government, bureaucracy.
  The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its 
lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a 
disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that 
drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this 
legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought 
disaster declarations in 36 States. And adding insult to injury, in 
those States where the Agency declared drought disasters, it limited 
assistance to only farm-related small businesses.
  My friends, the SBA has the authority to help all small businesses 
hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it. 
For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some 
and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small 
Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA to comply with 
existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to 
small business drought victims that need it.
  This bill deserves quick consideration. Time is of the essence for 
drought victims. This legislation has been through a thorough review, 
and there is no reason to duplicate our efforts. The Committee 
considered virtually identical legislation last year and voted 
unanimously to pass it. In addition to approval by the committee of 
jurisdiction, OMB approved identical legislation last year. The bill I 
am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the 
Administration, and I see no reason to delay passage.
  Senator Bond has been a real champion on this issue, and I thank him. 
I look forward to having a similar partnership with Senator Snowe. I 
thank all my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Bond, Landrieu, 
Edwards, Johnson, Bingaman, Levin, Baucus, Daschle, Hollings, 
Lieberman, Warner, Crapo, Harkin, and Reid.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and letters of 
support from governors who advocated prompt passage of this legislation 
last year, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 318

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

     SECTION 1. LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS DAMAGED BY 
                   DROUGHT.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small 
     Business Drought Relief Act of 2003''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) as of July 2002, more than 36 States (including 
     Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Louisiana) have suffered 
     from continuing drought conditions;
       (2) droughts have a negative effect on State and regional 
     economies;
       (3) many small businesses in the United States sell, 
     distribute, market, or otherwise engage in commerce related 
     to water and water sources, such as lakes, rivers, and 
     streams;
       (4) many small businesses in the United States suffer 
     economic injury from drought conditions, leading to revenue 
     losses, job layoffs, and bankruptcies;
       (5) these small businesses need access to low-interest 
     loans for business-related purposes, including paying their 
     bills and making payroll until business returns to normal;
       (6) absent a legislative change, the practice of the Small 
     Business Administration of permitting only agriculture and 
     agriculture-related businesses to be eligible for Federal 
     disaster loan assistance as a result of drought conditions 
     would likely continue;
       (7) during the past several years small businesses that 
     rely on the Great Lakes have suffered economic injury as a 
     result of lower than average water levels, resulting from low 
     precipitation and increased evaporation, and there are 
     concerns that small businesses in other regions could suffer 
     similar hardships beyond their control and that they should 
     also be eligible for assistance; and
       (8) it is necessary to amend the Small Business Act to 
     clarify that nonfarm-related small businesses that have 
     suffered economic injury from drought are eligible to receive 
     financial assistance through Small Business Administration 
     Economic Injury Disaster Loans.
       (c) Drought Disaster Authority.--
       (1) Definition of disaster.--Section 3(k) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(k)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of section 7(b)(2), the term `disaster' 
     includes--
       ``(A) drought; and
       ``(B) below average water levels in the Great Lakes, or on 
     any body of water in the United States that supports commerce 
     by small business concerns.''.
       (2) Drought disaster relief authority.--Section 7(b)(2) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``including drought, with respect to both 
     farm-related and nonfarm-related small business concerns 
     affected by drought,'' before ``if the Administration''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Consolidated 
     Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961 (7 U.S.C. 1961)'' and 
     inserting the following: ``section 321 of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961), in which 
     case, assistance under this paragraph may be provided to 
     farm-related and nonfarm-related small business concerns, 
     subject to the other applicable requirements of this 
     paragraph''.
       (d) Prompt Response to Disaster Requests.--Section 
     7(b)(2)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)(D)) 
     is amended by striking ``Upon receipt of such certification, 
     the Administration may'' and inserting ``Not later than 30 
     days after the date of receipt of such certification by a 
     Governor of a State, the Administration shall respond in 
     writing to that Governor on its determination and the reasons 
     therefore, and may''.
       (e) Limitation on Loans.--From funds otherwise appropriated 
     for loans under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)), not more than $9,000,000 may be used during 
     fiscal year 2003 to provide drought disaster loans to non-
     farm related small business concerns.
       (f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall promulgate final rules to carry 
     out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____



                              Southern Governors' Association,

                                                  August 19, 2002.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: We are deeply concerned that small 
     businesses in states experiencing drought are being 
     devastated by drought conditions that are expected to 
     continue through the end of the summer. We urge you to 
     support legislation that would allow small businesses to 
     protect themselves against the detrimental effects of 
     drought.
       Much like other natural disasters, the effects of drought 
     on local economies can be crippling. Farmers and farm-related 
     businesses can turn in times of drought to the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture. However, non-farm small businesses 
     have nowhere to go, not even the Small Business 
     Administration (SBA), because their disaster loans are not 
     made available for damage due to drought.
       To remedy this omission, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) 
     introduced the Small Business Drought Relief Act (S. 2734) on 
     July 16, 2002, to make SBA disaster loans available to those 
     small businesses debilitated by prolonged drought conditions. 
     This bill was passed by the Senate Small Business Committee 
     just eight days later. Also, the companion legislation (H.R. 
     5197) was introduced by Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on July 24, 
     2002. Both bills are gaining bipartisan support, and we hope 
     you will cosponsor this important legislation and push for 
     its rapid enactment in the 107th Congress.
       As 11 southern states are presently experiencing moderate 
     to exceptional drought conditions this summer, we cannot 
     afford to wait to act. We urge you to cosponsor the Small 
     Business Drought Relief Act and push for its consideration as 
     soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
         Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama; Gov. Mike Huckabee of 
           Arkansas; Gov. Roy E. Barnes of Georgia; Gov. M.J. 
           ``Mike'' Foster, Jr. of Louisiana; Gov. Ronnie Musgrove 
           of Mississippi; Gov. Michael F. Easley of North 
           Carolina; Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina; Gov. Rick 
           Perry of Texas; Gov. Bob Wise of West Virginia; Gov. 
           Paul E. Patton of Kentucky; Gov. Parris N. Glendening 
           of Maryland; Gov. Bob Holden of Missouri; Gov. Frank 
           Keating of Oklahoma; Gov. Don Sundquist of Tennessee; 
           and Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia.
                                  ____



                                        Ofice of the Governor,

                                                    July 23, 2002.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kerry and Bond: Much of Nevada and the Nation 
     have been experiencing extreme drought over the past several

[[Page 2525]]

     years. In Nevada we have seen the effects of this situation 
     through catastrophic range and forest fires, insect 
     infestations and loss of crops and livestock.
       Prolonged drought causes a drastic reduction in stream and 
     river flow levels. This can cause the level of lakes to drop 
     so significantly that existing docks and boat ramps cannot 
     provide access to boats. In the case of range and forest 
     fires we have seen small innkeepers and hunting and fishing 
     related businesses that have their entire season wiped out in 
     a matter of a few hours.
       Unfortunately for some small businesses, drought assistance 
     is available only for agriculture related small businesses, 
     such as feed and seed stores. For businesses that are based 
     on tourism around lakes and rivers, there is currently no 
     drought assistance available.
       The Small Business Administration (SBA) is not currently 
     authorized to help these businesses because a drought is not 
     a sudden occurrence. Nonetheless, a drought is an ongoing 
     natural disaster that causes great damage to these small 
     businesses.
       I would like to lend my support to S. 2734, The Small 
     Business Drought Relief Act. This bill would amend the 
     guidelines and authorize the SBA to offer assistance to small 
     businesses affected by prolonged drought. With passage of 
     this bill, Governors would be allowed to ask SBA for an 
     administrative declarations of economic injury because of 
     drought. The low interest loans SBA can offer these 
     businesses would allow many of them to weather the drought 
     and remain economically viable for future operation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kenny C. Guinn,
     Governor.
                                  ____



              State of North Carolina, Office of the Governor,

                                       Raleigh, NC, July 18, 2002.
     Hon. John Edwards,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards: I am writing to thank you for your 
     support for legislation introduced in the Senate to add 
     drought as a condition for which small businesses may apply 
     for Small Business Administration Economic Injury Disaster 
     Loans.
       The Small Business Drought Relief Act (S. 2734) will 
     correct the current situation facing our small businesses in 
     North Carolina. SBA disaster assistance is not available 
     despite a historic drought that is impacting not just our 
     agriculture sector, but causing real business and revenue 
     losses, which threaten some firms with job layoffs or even 
     bankruptcy.
       These businesses need help, and access to low-interest SBA 
     loans can offer a lifeline to allow paying bills and making 
     payrolls until business returns to normal.
       I urge you to push for rapid action on this important 
     enhancement to SBA's ability to help our people through this 
     time of trouble.
       With kindest regards, I remain
           Very truly yours,
                                                Michael F. Easley,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                          State of South Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Columbia, SC, July 9, 2002.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: The State of South Carolina is in its 
     fifth year of drought status, the worst in over fifty years. 
     Some parts of the state are in extreme drought status and the 
     rest if in severe drought status.
       Ninety-nine percent of our streams are flowing at less than 
     10 percent of their average flow for this time of year. 60 
     percent of those same streams are running at lowest flow on 
     record for this date. The levels of South Carolina's lakes 
     have dropped anywhere from five feet to twenty feet. Some 
     lakes have experienced a drop in water level so significant 
     that tourist and recreational use has diminished.
       State and national climatologists are not hopeful that we 
     will receive any significant rainfall in the near future. To 
     end our current drought, we would need an extended period of 
     average to above average rainfall.
       Droughts, particularly prolonged ones such as we are 
     experiencing now, have extensive economic effects. For 
     farmers who experience the economic effects of such a 
     drought, assistance is available through the USDA. For small 
     businesses, assistance is available only for agriculture 
     related small businesses, i.e., feed and seed stores. For 
     businesses that are based on tourism around Lakes and Rivers, 
     there is currently no assistance available.
       We have reports of lake and river tourism dependent 
     businesses experiencing 17 percent to 80 percent declines in 
     revenue. The average decline in revenue is probably near 50 
     percent across the board.
       My staff has contacted Small Business Administration and 
     they are not authorized to offer assistance to these 
     businesses because a drought is not defined as a sudden 
     occurrence. Nonetheless, a drought is an ongoing natural 
     disaster that is causing great economic damage to these small 
     business owners.
       I am requesting that you assist us in this situation by 
     proposing that the Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
     Committee take action to at least temporarily amend the SBA 
     authorizing language and allow them to offer assistance to 
     small businesses affected by prolonged drought. This would 
     allow Governors to ask SBA for an administrative declaration 
     of economic injury because of drought. The low interest loans 
     SBA can offer these businesses would allow many of them to 
     weather the drought and remain in business for the long run.
       My staff has also been in contact with Senator Hollings' 
     legislative staff. I hope together, we can find an expedient 
     solution to the plight of these small business owners. Short 
     of finding a way to control the weather, this may be our only 
     option to help their dire situation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jim Hodges,
                                                         Governor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 319. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to 
increase the Government contribution for Federal employee health 
insurance; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 along with my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes. This bill would reduce the 
employee portion of premiums costs under the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Plan.
  Our Federal employees work hard for the American people and they 
deserve quality benefits.
  Why is this legislation important?
  Health insurance premiums for Federal employees and retirees rose an 
average of 11.2 percent this year. In contrast, Federal worker's wages 
are expected to rise by 4.1 percent in the Washington-Baltimore area 
once the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill is approved. This 
follows a 13.3 percent increase last year, and an increase of 10.5 
percent for 2001. As a result, premiums are nearly 50 percent greater 
than they were just 5 years ago.
  The Federal program provides health insurance coverage to about 9 
million government workers, retirees and family members. More than 
800,000 of these workers live in the DC metro area.
  Health insurance costs are skyrocketing, and Federal employees are 
paying a greater share of their take home pay for health care each 
year. Currently, Federal employees pay anywhere between 28 percent to 
30 percent of premiums. In the private sector, other large employers 
pay at least 80 percent of premiums and employees pay 20 percent, 
according to recent data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
  How would this bill help solve this problem?
  This bill would change the financing formula for Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Under this approach, the federal 
agencies would pay 80 percent of the weighted average for premiums. 
This would help reduce the out-of-pocket health care costs for federal 
employees and improve the affordability of FEHBP immensely.
  What would this mean to Federal employees?
  My bill would help improve the affordability of health care insurance 
for all 9 million. Currently, about 250,000 federal employees do not 
have health insurance. Many of them cannot afford health care insurance 
at the current rates. My proposal would improve the affordability of 
health care insurance so that many of these workers would be able to 
afford coverage.
  For example, under Blue Cross Blue Shield's Standard Option Plan, an 
individual would save almost $400, and a family would save about $925 
this year.
  Providing quality benefits for federal employees is also an important 
tool in helping recruit and retain a high quality workforce and compete 
with the private sector and other State and local governments.
  This bill would have an enormous impact in my State, Maryland, but 
would also benefit Federal workers nationally. Under this proposal, the 
percent that a Federal employee pays in health insurance premiums would 
decline, putting more money into Federal employees pockets each pay 
period.
  This bill improves benefits for our hardworking Federal Employees.

[[Page 2526]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG.
  S. 320. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
clarify the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was 
intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the 
birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or 
one's own ``serious medical condition.''
  Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a 
significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. 
According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, two-thirds of 
covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order 
to comply with the Act.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain 
provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended 
administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers 
when the Act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers 
to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members 
when employees plan to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace 
due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record 
keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing 
policies. These problems have been well documented in six separate 
congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing 
where I testified.
  Problems with the FMLA implementation have been documented in the 
courts. The validity of 13 different Department of Labor regulations 
relating to the Act has been challenged in 64 reported court decisions. 
Included in this, of course, is the Supreme Court's invalidation of one 
of the Department's regulations in the 2002 case of Ragsdale v. 
Wolverine Worldwide Inc. And, yesterday's Washington Post reported that 
there have been some 1,300 Federal cases dealing with various aspects 
of the law, according to the Department of Labor.
  The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing 
regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being 
misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure 
if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold 
will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious 
health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented 
problems with the Act, today I am introducing the Family and Medical 
Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical 
corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its 
original congressional intent.
  The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and 
strengthened by six congressional hearings and by the recent release of 
key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now 
been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the 
FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad 
due to the Department of Labor's interpretations. Additionally, the 
hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, 
notification, and certification problems are causing many serious 
workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress 
should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a 
paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or 
the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater.
  I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has 
been attributed to the administration's problematic FMLA 
interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided 
paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 
Society for Human Resource Management Benefits Survey found that paid 
vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while 
the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent in 
1999, and decreased to 74 percent the following year.
  A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of 
Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department 
report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it 
was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 
percent from 1995 to 2000.
  The recent release of the Society for Human Resource Management, 
SHRM, 2003 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical 
corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, 
more than half, or 52 percent, of employees who take FMLA leave do not 
schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have 
the ability to plan for work disruptions. Yesterday's Washington Post 
article reported that the biggest thing the Department of Labor hears 
about is the ``chronic use of unforseen, intermittent leave.'' 
Respondents to the SHRM survey also reported that, in most cases, the 
burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees 
who are not on leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA 
requests they felt were not legitimate, 50 percent said they had. 
Additionally, more than one-third, or 34 percent, of respondents said 
they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a 
co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave.
  The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely 
difficult. SHRM's 2000 FMLA survey showed that three-quarters, or 76 
percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the 
Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in 
half-day increments rather than by minutes.
  I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department 
surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not 
easier, ten years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the 
Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 108th 
Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem.
  The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for 
Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human 
Resources Professionals, and close to 300 other leading companies and 
associations that make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical 
Corrections Coalition. This broad-based coalition shares my belief that 
both employers and employees would benefit from making certain 
technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to 
restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and 
compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good 
faith effort to comply with the Act.
  The bill I am introducing today does several important things:
  First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for 
``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' 
own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such 
as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be 
covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious 
health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for 
which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is 
expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick 
leave policies.''
  On the other hand, the Department of Labor's current regulations are 
extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health 
condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 
3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives 
any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or 
a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a broad 
definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a 
health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is 
instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not 
improve. The regulations also define as a

[[Page 2527]]

``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, 
such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does 
not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three 
days.
  Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent 
leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in 
minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by 
employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine 
justification for early departures.
  Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request 
that leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to 
provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice 
to the employer for foreseeable leave.
  With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee 
to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave 
not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is 
physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the 
application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such 
additional time as necessary to provide notice.
  Shifting the burden to the employee to request that leave be 
designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to 
question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's 
family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps 
eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be 
expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even 
attorneys have a difficult time understanding.
  Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all 
circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. 
Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a 
specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that 
unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. In addition, the 
courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under 
the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held 
individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. 
For example, in the 1995 case of Freemon v. Foley, in the Northern 
District of Illinois, the court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends 
to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability 
to take leave of absence and return to her position.''
  Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious 
health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee 
to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid 
absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other 
sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the 
employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue 
their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to 
employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, 
including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union 
representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal 
work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules 
and procedures dealing with attendance requirements.
  The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns 
that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental 
protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to 
restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very 
legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to 
restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent.
  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. 320

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family and 
     Medical Leave Clarification Act''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Family and Medical Leave 
     Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Act'') is not working as Congress 
     intended when Congress passed the Act in 1993. Many 
     employers, including those employers that are nationally 
     recognized as having generous family-friendly benefit and 
     leave programs, are experiencing serious problems complying 
     with the Act.
       (2) The Department of Labor's overly broad regulations and 
     interpretations have caused many of those problems by greatly 
     expanding the Act's coverage to apply to many nonserious 
     health conditions.
       (3) Those problems are also documented in a review of 
     litigation under the Act. The validity of 13 different 
     Department of Labor regulations relating to the Act has been 
     challenged in 64 reported court decisions.
       (4) From 1996 through 2002, 6 congressional hearings (2 in 
     the Senate and 4 in the House of Representatives) documented 
     numerous implementation problems with the Act due to the 
     Department of Labor's misapplication of the Act through some 
     of its regulations and interpretations.
       (5) Documented problems generated by the Act include 
     significant new administrative and personnel costs, loss of 
     productivity, scheduling difficulties, unnecessary paperwork 
     and recordkeeping, and other compliance problems.
       (6) The Act often conflicts with employers' paid sick leave 
     policies, prevents employers from managing absences through 
     their absence control plans, and results in most leave under 
     the Act becoming paid leave.
       (7) Administrative problems associated with the use of 
     intermittent leave under the Act are a well-documented issue. 
     Approximately \3/4\ (76 percent) of the respondents to a 2000 
     survey by the Society for Human Resource Management said they 
     would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor 
     allowed covered leave to be offered and tracked in increments 
     of half days rather than minutes.
       (8) The Commission on Leave, established in title III of 
     the Act (29 U.S.C. 2631 et seq.) which in 1996 reported few 
     difficulties with compliance with the Act, failed to identify 
     many of the problems with compliance because the survey on 
     which the report was based was conducted too soon after the 
     date of enactment of the Act and the most significant 
     problems with compliance arose only when employers later 
     sought to comply with the Act's final regulations and 
     interpretations.
       (9) A more recent Department of Labor survey, released in 
     January 2001 as an update requested by Congress to the 1996 
     Commission on Leave report, found that between 1995 and 2000, 
     there had been a 21.5 percent decline in the share of covered 
     establishments reporting that it was somewhat easy or very 
     easy to comply with the Act.
       (10) According to the Society for Human Resource Management 
     2003 FMLA Survey, 50 percent of human resource professionals 
     indicated that they have had to grant leave requests under 
     the Act that they did not believe were legitimate because of 
     the Department of Labor's interpretations, and 34 percent of 
     human resource professionals were aware of employee 
     complaints in the past 12 months due to coworkers' 
     questionable use of leave under the Act.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.

       Section 101(11) (29 U.S.C. 2611(11)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by aligning the margins of those clauses with the 
     margins of clause (i) of paragraph (4)(A);
       (3) by inserting before ``The'' the following:
       ``(A) In general.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term does not include a short-term 
     illness, injury, impairment, or condition, for which 
     treatment and recovery are very brief.
       ``(C) Examples.--The term includes an illness, injury, 
     impairment, or physical or mental condition such as a heart 
     attack, a heart condition requiring a heart bypass or valve 
     operation, a back condition requiring extensive therapy or a 
     surgical procedure, a stroke, a severe respiratory condition, 
     a spinal injury, appendicitis, pneumonia, emphysema, severe 
     arthritis, a severe nervous disorder, an injury caused by a 
     serious accident on or off the job, an ongoing pregnancy, a 
     miscarriage, a complication or illness related to pregnancy 
     (such as severe morning sickness), a need for prenatal care, 
     childbirth, and recovery from childbirth, that involves care 
     or treatment described in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 4. INTERMITTENT LEAVE.

       Section 102(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2612(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end of

[[Page 2528]]

     the second sentence and inserting the following: ``, as 
     certified under section 103 by the health care provider 
     involved after each leave occurrence. An employer may require 
     an employee to take intermittent leave under this Act in 
     increments of up to (and including) \1/2\ of a workday. An 
     employer may require an employee who travels as part of the 
     normal day-to-day work or duty assignment of the employee and 
     who requests intermittent leave or leave on a reduced leave 
     schedule under this Act to take leave for the duration of the 
     work or assignment involved, if the employer cannot 
     reasonably accommodate the employee's request.''.

     SEC. 5. REQUEST FOR LEAVE.

       Section 102(e) (29 U.S.C. 2612(e)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Request for leave.--If an employer does not exercise, 
     under subsection (d)(2), the right to require an employee to 
     substitute other employer-provided leave for leave under this 
     title, the employer may require the employee who wants leave 
     under this title to request the leave in a timely manner. If 
     an employer requires a timely request under this paragraph, 
     an employee who fails to make a timely request may be denied 
     leave under this title.
       ``(4) Timeliness of request for leave.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (3), a request for leave shall be considered to be 
     timely if--
       ``(A) in the case of foreseeable leave, the employee--
       ``(i) provides the applicable advance notice required by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       ``(ii) submits any written application required by the 
     employer for the leave not later than 5 working days after 
     providing the notice to the employer; and
       ``(B) in the case of unforeseeable leave, the employee--
       ``(i) notifies the employer orally of the need for the 
     leave--

       ``(I) not later than the date the leave commences; or
       ``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary, 
     if the employer is physically or mentally incapable of 
     providing the notification; and

       ``(ii) submits any written application required by the 
     employer for the leave--

       ``(I) not later than 5 working days after providing the 
     notice to the employer; or
       ``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary, 
     if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of 
     submitting the application.''.

     SEC. 6. SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.

       Section 102(d)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Paid absence.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), with respect to leave provided under subsection 
     (a)(1)(D), if an employer provides a paid absence under the 
     employer's collective bargaining agreement, an employee 
     welfare benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or under any 
     other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or 
     policy of the employer, the employer may require the employee 
     to choose between the paid absence and unpaid leave provided 
     under this title.''.

     SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Existing Regulations.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall review 
     all regulations issued before that date to implement the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.), including the regulations published in sections 
     825.114 and 825.115 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Termination.--The regulations described in paragraph 
     (1), and opinions letters promulgated under the regulations, 
     cease to be effective on the effective date of final 
     regulations issued under subsection (b)(2)(B), except as 
     described in subsection (c).
       (b) Revised Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue revised 
     regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
     1993 that reflect the amendments made by this Act.
       (2) New regulations.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue--
       (A) proposed regulations described in paragraph (1) not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) final regulations described in paragraph (1) not later 
     than 180 days after that date of enactment.
       (3) Effective date.--The final regulations take effect 90 
     days after the date on which the regulations are issued.
       (c) Transition.--The regulations described in subsection 
     (a) shall apply to actions taken by an employer prior to the 
     effective date of final regulations issued under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), with respect to leave under the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Biden, Mr. DeWine, 
        and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 321. A bill to provide for the establishment of a scientific basis 
for new firefighting technology standards, improve coordination among 
Federal, State, and local fire officials in training for and responding 
to terrorist attacks and other national emergencies, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting 
Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the 
establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology 
standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire 
officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national 
emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to 
improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the 
tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, 
Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar 
legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last 
September.
  The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons 
learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other 
problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City 
firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism 
in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of 
many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid 
the ultimate price in the service of their country.
  While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it 
is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any 
future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must recognize 
that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to 
national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday 
role in protecting our families and homes.
  Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal 
imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and 
state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or 
hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. 
The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response 
Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal 
Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech 
equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used 
to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities 
and the responders.
  Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new 
equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire 
companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or 
even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article 
states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or 
certified by the government or independent labs. The article states 
that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new 
equipment floods the market in response to increased government 
funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, 
and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment.
  This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by 
establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It 
would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for 
Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, 
and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development 
organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement 
techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. 
These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis 
for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would 
allow the federal government to work with the private sector in 
developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical 
standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new 
technologies. The bill would authorize

[[Page 2529]]

$2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.
  As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on 
September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action 
report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which 
highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and 
Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion 
caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased 
risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are 
consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. 
David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he 
described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer 
efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, 
many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have 
highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the 
need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local 
officials.
  The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire 
Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state 
and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state 
mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual 
aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource 
information to ensure that local fire services could work together to 
deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The 
bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the 
need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a 
national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize 
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the 
Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist 
attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include 
fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services.
  The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. 
It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in 
building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires 
caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership 
and strategic skills including integrated management systems 
operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild 
fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics 
and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire 
services' needs.
  Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to 
coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the 
Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other 
federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training 
programs that has been identified by the GAO.
  In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a 
result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths 
because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that 
future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are 
working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.
  I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the 
National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services 
Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire 
Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; 
International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire 
Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training 
Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be 
printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 321

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Firefighting Research and 
     Coordination Act''.

     SEC. 2. NEW FIREFIGHTING TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of the Federal Fire Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2207) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Development of New Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to, or as part of, the 
     program conducted under subsection (a), the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment 
     Standardization and Inter-Operability, national voluntary 
     consensus standards development organizations, interested 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested 
     parties, shall--
       ``(A) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement 
     techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new 
     firefighting technologies, including--
       ``(i) personal protection equipment;
       ``(ii) devices for advance warning of extreme hazard;
       ``(iii) equipment for enhanced vision;
       ``(iv) devices to locate victims, firefighters, and other 
     rescue personnel in above-ground and below-ground structures;
       ``(v) equipment and methods to provide information for 
     incident command, including the monitoring and reporting of 
     individual personnel welfare;
       ``(vi) equipment and methods for training, especially for 
     virtual reality training; and
       ``(vii) robotics and other remote-controlled devices;
       ``(B) evaluate the compatibility of new equipment and 
     technology with existing firefighting technology; and
       ``(C) support the development of new voluntary consensus 
     standards through national voluntary consensus standards 
     organizations for new firefighting technologies based on 
     techniques and methodologies described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) New equipment must meet standards.--For equipment for 
     which applicable voluntary consensus standards have been 
     established, the Administrator shall, by regulation, require 
     that equipment or systems purchased through the assistance 
     program established by section 33 meet or exceed applicable 
     voluntary consensus standards.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 17 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2216) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Development of New Technology.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out section 
     8(e) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF RESPONSE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 10 of the Federal Fire Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2209) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Mutual Aid Systems.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, after consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     shall provide technical assistance and training to State and 
     local fire service officials to establish nationwide and 
     State mutual aid systems for dealing with national 
     emergencies that--
       ``(A) include threat assessment and equipment deployment 
     strategies;
       ``(B) include means of collecting asset and resource 
     information to provide accurate and timely data for regional 
     deployment; and
       ``(C) are consistent with the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency's Federal Response Plan.
       ``(2) Model mutual aid plans.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, shall develop and make available to State 
     and local fire service officials model mutual aid plans for 
     both intrastate and interstate assistance.''.
       (b) Report on Strategic Needs.--Within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     United States Fire Administration shall report to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Science on the need for 
     a strategy concerning deployment of volunteers and emergency 
     response personnel (as defined in section 6 of the 
     Firefighters' Safety Study Act (15 U.S.C. 2223e), including a 
     national credentialing system, in the event of a national 
     emergency.
       (c) Update of Federal Response Plan.--Within 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall--
       (1) revise that Agency's Federal Response Plan to 
     incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, 
     particularly in urban areas, including fire detection and 
     suppression and related emergency services; and
       (2) transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Science describing the action taken to comply 
     with paragraph (1).

[[Page 2530]]



     SEC. 4. TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (E);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (N); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) strategies for building collapse rescue;
       ``(G) the use of technology in response to fires, including 
     terrorist incidents and other national emergencies;
       ``(H) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with 
     terrorist-caused national catastrophes;
       ``(I) use of and familiarity with the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency's Federal Response Plan;
       ``(J) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated 
     management systems operations and integrated response;
       ``(K) applying new technology and developing strategies and 
     tactics for fighting forest fires;
       ``(L) integrating terrorism response agencies into the 
     national terrorism incident response system;
       ``(M) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at 
     United States ports, including fires on the water and aboard 
     vessels; and''.
       (b) Consultation on Fire Academy Classes.--The 
     Superintendent of the National Fire Academy may consult with 
     other Federal, State, and local agency officials in 
     developing curricula for classes offered by the Academy.
       (c) Coordination With Other Programs To Avoid 
     Duplication.--The Administrator of the United States Fire 
     Administration shall coordinate training provided under 
     section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) with the Attorney General, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the heads of 
     other Federal agencies--
       (1) to ensure that such training does not duplicate 
     existing courses available to fire service personnel; and
       (2) to establish a mechanism for eliminating duplicative 
     training programs.
                                  ____


    Statement of Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the Firefighting Research and 
                            Coordination Act

       Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
     Hollings, Biden, DeWine and Cantwell in introducing the 
     Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation 
     would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for 
     new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination 
     between Federal, state, and local fire officials in training 
     and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; 
     and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to 
     improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such 
     as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, 
     Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge and Weldon are introducing 
     companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by 
     the Senate Commerce Committee last September.
       The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the 
     lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also 
     address other problems faced by the fire services. On 
     September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency 
     service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly 
     rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of 
     many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS 
     technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their 
     country.
       While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United 
     States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately 
     prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of 
     terrorism. In addition, we must recognize that many of the 
     preparations we make to improve the response to national 
     emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday 
     role in protecting our families and homes.
       Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies 
     including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating 
     firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective 
     suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste 
     spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The 
     federal government's Firefighter Investment and Response 
     Enhancement (FIRE) program is authorized for $900 million for 
     Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in 
     purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the 
     American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will 
     effectively protect our local communities and the responders.
       Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for 
     new equipment used in combating fires. Without such 
     standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that 
     does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty 
     equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states 
     that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested 
     or certified by the government or independent labs. The 
     article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency 
     departments say, as new equipment floods the market in 
     response to increase government funding.'' The lives of 
     professional and volunteer emergency personnel--and the 
     citizens they protect--are at risk from untested equipment.
       This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment 
     standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary 
     consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire 
     Administrator to work with the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for 
     Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other 
     federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary 
     consensus standards development organizations, and other 
     interested parties to establish measurement techniques and 
     testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These 
     new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific 
     basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. 
     This bill would allow the federal government to work with the 
     private sector in developing the basic uniform performance 
     criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness 
     and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would 
     authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.
       As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination 
     surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently 
     issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire 
     department of Arlington County, Virginia, which highlighted 
     problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and 
     Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the 
     confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched 
     volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide 
     responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an 
     article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David 
     Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, 
     where he described being overwhelmed by the number of 
     uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida 
     after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and 
     the General Accounting Office (GAO) have highlighted the 
     duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for 
     better coordination between federal, state, and local 
     officials.
       The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the 
     U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and 
     training for state and local fire service officials to 
     establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for 
     responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans 
     would include collection of accurate asset and resource 
     information to ensure that local fire services could work 
     together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during 
     an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire 
     Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for 
     deploying volunteers, including the use of a national 
     credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize 
     the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
     update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for 
     responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban 
     areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, 
     and related emergency services.
       The bill would improve the training of state and local 
     firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to 
     offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of 
     technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks 
     and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic 
     skills including integrated management systems operations; 
     deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild 
     fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to 
     tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents 
     and other fire services' needs.
       Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire 
     Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's 
     training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to 
     prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs 
     that has been identified by the GAO.
       In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible 
     price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent 
     firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our 
     obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are 
     adequately equipped and trained, and are working in 
     coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.
       Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that this 
     legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire 
     Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the 
     National Fire Protection Association; the International 
     Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of 
     Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson 
     Investigators; International Society of Fire Service 
     Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the 
     International Fire Service Training Association.
                                  ____

                                                 January 31, 2003.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The tragic events of September 11th 
     certainly underscored the important need for additional 
     training and advanced technologies for our nation's fire and 
     emergency services. They are equal components in our efforts 
     to prepare our nation for future large-scale emergencies that 
     require rapid deployment of local first responders.

[[Page 2531]]

       In the area of technology, we have witnessed an emergence 
     of new technologies designed to improve our level of 
     readiness to future terrorist events and other large-scale 
     disasters. Many of these new technologies have the potential 
     to improve the capabilities of our first responders, however 
     we must ensure that these technologies serve their intended 
     purpose and protect our firefighters and emergency medical 
     personnel. What's most important is to ensure local response 
     agencies quick access to new technologies while guaranteeing 
     that they meet minimum safety standards.
       We extend our appreciation for your interest in this matter 
     and for introducing the Firefighter Research and Coordination 
     Act. We support this legislation as a crucial step towards 
     developing and deploying advanced technologies our nation's 
     first responders need in this period of heightened risk and 
     security.
       The legislation directs certain federal agencies and other 
     interested parties, including the National Fire Protection 
     Association, to develop a scientific basis for the private 
     sector development of standards for new fire fighting 
     technology. Your legislation will not undermine or duplicate 
     the standards-making process that has served the fire service 
     for over a hundred years, but rather strengthen it in areas 
     of new technologies necessitated by the events of September 
     11th.
       We also support the other sections of your legislation 
     calling for coordination of response to national emergencies 
     and for increased training. These are critical to the 
     effective deployment and safety of first responders at major 
     incidents. By calling upon the United States Fire 
     Administration to provide technical assistance and training 
     to state and local jurisdictions in developing state, 
     regional and national mutual aide agreements, the legislation 
     addresses the appropriate role for USFA in this process. In 
     addition, we certainly support authorizing the National Fire 
     Academy more latitude in the types of terrorism training 
     programs it conducts for our nation's first responders. And 
     lastly, we express our full support for authorizing USFA to 
     address the issue of a national credentialing system. It is 
     imperative that we establish the most effective credentialing 
     process to improve the accountability of firefighter skill 
     levels at major events.
       We look forward to working with you in advancing this 
     legislation through Congress. Again, we thank you for your 
     continued support.
           Sincerely,
         Congressional Fire Services Institute, International 
           Association of Arson Investigators, International 
           Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association 
           of Fire Fighters, International Fire Service Training 
           Association, International Society of Fire Service 
           Instructors, National Fire Protection Association, 
           National Volunteer Fire Council, North American Fire 
           Training Directors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 322. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
certain sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing 
flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment 
to the tax code is needed due to a problem that exists in the 
application of the excise tax.
  In 1986, the Internal Revenue Services, IRS, issued a Private Letter 
Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from 
paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied 
equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour 
operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its 
application of this excise tax.
  Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation 
are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust Funds program that 
is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an 
air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our 
nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be 
levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In 
addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment.
  The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour 
operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national 
transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial 
sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled 
commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are 
circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point.
  Hawaii is among a small handful of States where our citizens can 
enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by 
land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, 
Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air 
transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will 
significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will 
cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my 
home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have 
struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the 
months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight 
restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented 
many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry 
for many months into early 2002.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing 
trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour 
operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 322

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS EXEMPT FROM TAXES ON 
                   AIR TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 4281 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to small aircraft on nonestablished lines) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``For purposes of this section, an aircraft shall not be 
     considered as operated on an established line if such 
     aircraft is operated on a flight the sole purpose of which is 
     sightseeing.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to transportation beginning on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not 
     apply to any amount paid before such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 323. A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area, 
Louisiana; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Breaux 
to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area 
in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to 
those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural 
and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation.
  This legislation, reported by the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and unanimously passed by the full Senate during the 107th 
Congress, would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and 
promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational 
resources of the region.
  Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage 
Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the 
Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage 
area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the 
north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the 
Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The 
thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, 
Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, 
West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the 
same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage 
Area.
  This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission 
as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The 
commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative 
appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the

[[Page 2532]]

Atchafalaya Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage 
Area were created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. 
The Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives 
some State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana 
Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant 
Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create the 
management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility 
analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service. 
Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be 
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this 
legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that 
will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that 
this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning 
process, with participation of local National Park Service 
representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to 
that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal 
Government.
  Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing 
private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use 
ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing 
so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property 
acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program. 
In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or 
process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards 
different from those already in effect.
  Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all 
levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind 
heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in 
various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural 
and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable 
economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas 
provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private 
organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a 
coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will 
join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second 
National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing 
National Heritage Areas around the Nation.
  The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is 
an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this 
region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the 
future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this 
place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism 
agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural 
Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the 
National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish 
governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and 
local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the 
strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive 
of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area 
will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important 
resource, its people.
  I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that 
make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it 
important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to 
understanding America's future. The name of the place itself, 
Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.'' 
This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of 
whom still live there today.
  Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious, 
dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and 
undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least 
understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the 
Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American 
experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the 
complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay 
between nature and culture. The history of the United States has been 
shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against, and 
for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure, 
adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy 
unlike anywhere else in the world.
  The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the 
largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely 
known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized 
by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old-
growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat 
for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered 
American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique 
ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans, 
such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array 
of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest-
dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially 
important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood-
dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever 
recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also 
forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and 
is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In 
general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North 
America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and 
spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America 
summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy 
population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.
  The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive 
earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and 
awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage 
Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades 
the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas, 
and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the 
region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly 
important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has 
become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport 
fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too, 
but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing 
environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and 
forced residents to find new ways to make a living.
  Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of 
man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic 
Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions 
displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to protect human 
settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the Mississippi River is 
caged within the walls of earthen and concrete levees and manipulated 
with a complex system of locks, barrages and floodgates. The 
Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and through the 
center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin serves as the 
key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the large population 
centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting water from the 
Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was sorely tested 
in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the floodgates and 
permanently divert the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya. However, 
after this massive flood event, new land started forming off the coast. 
These new land formations make up the Atchafalaya Delta, and is the 
only significant area of new land being built in the United States. 
These vast amounts of Mississippi River sediment are also rapidly 
filling in the Basin itself, raising the level of land in certain areas 
of the basin and filling in

[[Page 2533]]

lakes and waterways. And to demonstrate just how complex this ecosystem 
is, one only needs to realize that just to the East of the Delta, 
Terrebonne parish, also in the heritage area, is experiencing some of 
the most significant coastal land loss in the country.
  Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped 
the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited 
from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the 
region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the 
French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being 
deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia. 
Twenty-five hundred to three thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in 
Louisiana where they proceeded to re-establish their former society. 
Today, in spite of complex social, cultural, and demographic 
transformations, Cajuns maintain a sense of group identity and continue 
to display a distinctive set of cultural expressions nearly two-
hundred-and-fifty years after their exile from Acadia. Cajun culture 
has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana. Culinary 
specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee, boudin, 
andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux, delight 
food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has also 
``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and ballads and 
instrumental dance music, and more recently popular by country, rhythm-
and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing interest in 
Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique traditions, many 
of the region's residents are concerned about the growing 
commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish the 
authentic Cajun ways of life.
  While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun 
culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these 
parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the 
most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been 
so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents 
interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have 
survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn 
from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The 
cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of 
history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language, 
food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the 
Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese, 
Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians, 
Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa, 
Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.
  This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic, 
natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build. 
Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and 
National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic 
byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The 
Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage 
area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the 
region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage 
area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a 
multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and 
canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways 
to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive 
centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and 
tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in 
the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor 
entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans. 
Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists 
around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However, 
more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as 
houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and 
rural areas.
  These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance 
of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout 
this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and 
appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation 
will bring a level of prestige and national and international 
recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 323

       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 ``Atchafalaya National 
     Heritage Area Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Atchafalaya Basin area of Louisiana, designated by 
     the Louisiana Legislature as the ``Atchafalaya Trace State 
     Heritage Area'' and consisting of the area described in 
     section 5(b), is an area in which natural, scenic, cultural, 
     and historic resources form a cohesive and nationally 
     distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity 
     shaped by geography;
       (2) the significance of the area is enhanced by the 
     continued use of the area by people whose traditions have 
     helped shape the landscape;
       (3) there is a national interest in protecting, conserving, 
     restoring, promoting, and interpreting the benefits of the 
     area for the residents of, and visitors to, the area;
       (4) the area represents an assemblage of rich and varied 
     resources forming a unique aspect of the heritage of the 
     United States;
       (5) the area reflects a complex mixture of people and their 
     origins, traditions, customs, beliefs, and folkways of 
     interest to the public;
       (6) the land and water of the area offer outstanding 
     recreational opportunities, educational experiences, and 
     potential for interpretation and scientific research; and
       (7) local governments of the area support the establishment 
     of a national heritage area.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to protect, preserve, conserve, restore, promote, and 
     interpret the significant resource values and functions of 
     the Atchafalaya Basin area and advance sustainable economic 
     development of the area;
       (2) to foster a close working relationship with all levels 
     of government, the private sector, and the local communities 
     in the area so as to enable those communities to conserve 
     their heritage while continuing to pursue economic 
     opportunities; and
       (3) to establish, in partnership with the State, local 
     communities, preservation organizations, private 
     corporations, and landowners in the Heritage Area, the 
     Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area, as designated by the 
     Louisiana Legislature, as the Atchafalaya National Heritage 
     Area.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Atchafalaya National Heritage Area established by section 
     5(a).
       (2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local 
     coordinating entity'' means the local coordinating entity for 
     the Heritage Area designated by section 5(c).
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Heritage Area developed under 
     section 7.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     Louisiana.

     SEC. 5. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the 
     Atchafalaya National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall consist of the 
     whole of the following parishes in the State: St. Mary, 
     Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, 
     Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton 
     Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge.
       (c) Local Coordinating Entity.--
       (1) In general.--The Atchafalaya Trace Commission shall be 
     the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.
       (2) Composition.--The local coordinating entity shall be 
     composed of 13 members appointed by the governing authority 
     of each parish within the Heritage Area.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING 
                   ENTITY.

       (a) Authorities.--For the purposes of developing and 
     implementing the management plan and otherwise carrying out 
     this Act, the local coordinating entity may--

[[Page 2534]]

       (1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, the State, units of local government, and private 
     organizations;
       (2) hire and compensate staff; and
       (3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
       (b) Duties.--The local coordinating entity shall--
       (1) submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan;
       (2) implement the management plan, including providing 
     assistance to units of government and others in--
       (A) carrying out programs that recognize important resource 
     values within the Heritage Area;
       (B) encouraging sustainable economic development within the 
     Heritage Area;
       (C) establishing and maintaining interpretive sites within 
     the Heritage Area; and
       (D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for 
     the natural, historic, and cultural resources of, the 
     Heritage Area;
       (3) adopt bylaws governing the conduct of the local 
     coordinating entity; and
       (4) for any year for which Federal funds are received under 
     this Act, submit to the Secretary a report that describes, 
     for the year--
       (A) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity; 
     and
       (B) the expenses and income of the local coordinating 
     entity.
       (c) Acquisition of Real Property.--The local coordinating 
     entity shall not use Federal funds received under this Act to 
     acquire real property or an interest in real property.
       (d) Public Meetings.--The local coordinating entity shall 
     conduct public meetings at least quarterly.

     SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The local coordinating entity shall 
     develop a management plan for the Heritage Area that 
     incorporates an integrated and cooperative approach to 
     protect, interpret, and enhance the natural, scenic, 
     cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the 
     Heritage Area.
       (b) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--In 
     developing the management plan, the local coordinating entity 
     shall--
       (1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
       (2) invite the participation of residents, public agencies, 
     and private organizations in the Heritage Area.
       (c) Contents.--The management plan shall include--
       (1) an inventory of the resources in the Heritage Area, 
     including--
       (A) a list of property in the Heritage Area that--
       (i) relates to the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
       (ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained 
     because of the significance of the property; and
       (B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the 
     Heritage Area;
       (2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and 
     enjoyment of the resources of the Heritage Area consistent 
     with this Act;
       (3) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area; and
       (4) a program for implementation of the management plan 
     that includes--
       (A) actions to be carried out by units of government, 
     private organizations, and public-private partnerships to 
     protect the resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (B) the identification of existing and potential sources of 
     funding for implementing the plan.
       (d) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the local coordinating entity shall 
     submit the management plan to the Secretary for approval.
       (2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is 
     not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional 
     funding under this Act until a management plan for the 
     Heritage Area is submitted to the Secretary.
       (e) Approval.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the 
     management plan submitted under subsection (d)(1), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or 
     disapprove the management plan.
       (2) Action following disapproval.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a management 
     plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (i) advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the 
     reasons for the disapproval;
       (ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management 
     plan; and
       (iii) allow the local coordinating entity to submit to the 
     Secretary revisions to the management plan.
       (B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date on which a revision is submitted under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove the revision.
       (f) Revision.--
       (1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a 
     management plan, the local coordinating entity shall 
     periodically--
       (A) review the management plan; and
       (B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the 
     Secretary, the recommendations of the local coordinating 
     entity for any revisions to the management plan that the 
     local coordinating entity considers to be appropriate.
       (2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under 
     this Act shall be used to implement any revision proposed by 
     the local coordinating entity under paragraph (1)(B) until 
     the Secretary approves the revision.

     SEC. 8. EFFECT OF ACT.

       Nothing in this Act or in establishment of the Heritage 
     Area--
       (1) grants any Federal agency regulatory authority over any 
     interest in the Heritage Area, unless cooperatively agreed on 
     by all involved parties;
       (2) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the 
     Federal Government or a State or local government to regulate 
     any use of land as provided for by law (including 
     regulations) in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (3) grants any power of zoning or land use to the local 
     coordinating entity;
       (4) imposes any environmental, occupational, safety, or 
     other rule, standard, or permitting process that is different 
     from those in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 
     that would be applicable had the Heritage Area not been 
     established;
       (5)(A) imposes any change in Federal environmental quality 
     standards; or
       (B) authorizes designation of any portion of the Heritage 
     Area that is subject to part C of title I of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) as class 1 for the purposes of 
     that part solely by reason of the establishment of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (6) authorizes any Federal or State agency to impose more 
     restrictive water use designations, or water quality 
     standards on uses of or discharges to, waters of the United 
     States or waters of the State within or adjacent to the 
     Heritage Area solely by reason of the establishment of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (7) abridges, restricts, or alters any applicable rule, 
     standard, or review procedure for permitting of facilities 
     within or adjacent to the Heritage Area; or
       (8) affects the continuing use and operation, where located 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, of any public utility 
     or common carrier.

     SEC. 9. REPORTS.

       For any year in which Federal funds have been made 
     available under this Act, the local coordinating entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
       (1) the accomplishments of the local coordinating entity; 
     and
       (2) the expenses and income of the local coordinating 
     entity.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $10,000,000, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be 
     made available for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The Secretary shall not provide any assistance under this 
     Act after September 30, 2017.

                          ____________________