[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6234-6252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Allard, Mr. Miller, and 
        Mr. Crapo):
  S. 611. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
gold, silver, and platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same 
manner as stocks and bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains 
rate for individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Congress, I introduced the Fair 
Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct a flawed capital 
gains tax definition, which includes precious metals investments as 
``collectibles.'' This simple flaw in the tax code has discouraged 
investments in gold and other precious metals for nearly fifteen years. 
I rise today to reintroduce the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals 
Investors Act to correct this problem.
  My State, Nevada, is the third largest producer of gold in the world 
behind Australia and South Africa. Largely because of Nevada's exports, 
America enjoys a good trade surplus of more than $1 billion. U.S. gold 
is purchased around the world in financial markets from London to 
Zurich to Hong Kong.
  Historically, precious metals investments derived their value from 
their rarity. Today, however, precious metals coins and bars are 
specifically designed and produced by governments to be used as an 
investment vehicle for those commodities similar to stocks and bonds. 
My legislation will correct the outdated tax classification of precious 
metal bullion and apply to precious metals holdings the same capital 
gains tax treatment as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.
  In 1997 and 1998, The Taxpayer Relief Act and the Internal Revenue 
Service Restructuring and Reform Act set two basic types of capital 
gains tax rates: short-term capital gains, which are taxed at between 
15 and 39.6 percent, and long-term capital gains which are taxed at a 
maximum rate of 20 percent.

[[Page 6235]]

Long-term capital gains attributable to investments defined as 
``collectibles'', (vintage wines, rare coins, and the like), however, 
are taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. Although precious metal 
bullion coins are intended to be used as investments in the precious 
metals they contain, they are still classified as ``collectibles'', and 
are taxed at the 28 percent maximum rate. The Taxpayer Relief Act 
allowed precious metal bullion coins held in IRA accounts to be taxed 
at the same rate as stocks and other capital assets. The bill I 
introduce today would treat all precious metal investments with the 
same tax equity.
  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. 611

       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 ``Fair Treatment for Precious 
     Metals Investors Act''.

     SEC. 2. GOLD, SILVER, AND PLATINUM TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER 
                   AS STOCKS AND BONDS FOR MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS 
                   RATE FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of 
     collectibles gain and loss) is amended by striking ``without 
     regard to paragraph (3) thereof'' and inserting ``without 
     regard to so much of paragraph (3) thereof as relates to 
     palladium and the bullion requirement for physical possession 
     by a trustee''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 612. A bill to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National 
Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Glen 
Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act.''
  This legislation will revise the total acreage within the National 
Recreation Area's, NRA, boundary to reflect the actual acreage within 
the NRA, and it will also do much to protect the scenic view of Lake 
Powell as seen by those traveling along U.S. Highway Route 89.
  As enacted into law, the enabling legislation for the Glen Canyon 
National Recreation Area, inaccurately reflected the acreage within the 
NRA boundary. This legislation would correct the acreage ceiling by 
estimating the acreage within the NRA to be 1,256,000 instead of 
1,236,880.
  Secondly, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, to 
exchange 320 NRA acres for 152 acres of privately owned land in Kane 
County, UT. Currently, Page One L.L.C. owns 152 acres between U.S. 
Highway 89 and the southwestern shore of Lake Powell. This private land 
provides a breathtaking view of Lake Powell from Highway 89, which is 
the main viewshed corridor between the highway and the lake. This land 
also encompasses three highway access rights-of-way and a developed 
culinary water well. In an effort to protect this viewshed and better 
manage its boundaries along its most visited entrance, the National 
Park Service, NPS, has been negotiating with Page One to exchange 370 
acres of NRA lands for these 152 acres. The approximate value of the 
NRA lands is $480,000 whereas the private land's appraised value is 
$856,000. Page One has agreed to donate the balance of appraised value 
to the NPS.
  By authorizing this land exchange, this bill will allow the NPS to 
preserve and better manage the corridor between the park and Highway 
89, which affords such a scenic view of Lake Powell. This boundary 
change would not add any facilities, increase operating costs, or 
require additional staff and as such, it will not add to the NPS 
maintenance backlog.
  Because of the common interest in preserving this scenic corridor 
from development, this legislation has garnered the support of the 
administration, the Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission, the 
National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Utah Planning 
Advisory Council. In light of the benefits provided by and community 
support for this proposal, I look forward to working with my Senate 
colleagues and the administration to pass this legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 613. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
construct, lease, or modify major medical facilities at the site of the 
former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
facilitate the move of the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 
DVAMC, from its present site in Denver to the former Fitzsimons Army 
Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. I am pleased to be joined in this 
effort by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-
sponsor.
  The bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
construct, lease or modify major medical facilities at the site of the 
former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. It instructs the Secretary to 
work with the Department of Defense in planning a joint Federal project 
that would serve the health care needs of active duty Air Force and the 
VA. It would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Veterans Affairs of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives. This report would detail 
the options selected by the Secretary and any information on further 
planning needed to carry out the move.
  The relocation of the DVAMC to the former Fitzsimons site offers a 
unique opportunity to provide the highest quality medical care for our 
veterans and certain members of our military. The University of 
Colorado Health Sciences Center, UCHSC, is moving its facilities from 
its overcrowded location near downtown Denver to the Fitzsimons site, a 
decommissioned Army base. The UCHSC and the DVAMC have long operated on 
adjacent campuses and have shared faculty, medical residents, and 
access to equipment. A DVAMC move to the new location in conjunction 
with the DOD would allow such cost-effective cooperation to continue, 
for the benefit of our veterans, active duty Air Force members and all 
taxpayers.
  The need to move is pressing. A recent VA study concludes that the 
Colorado State veterans' population will experience one of the highest 
percent increases nationally in veterans age 65 and over between 1990 
and 2020. The present VA hospital was built in the 1950's. While still 
able to provide service, the core facilities are approaching the end of 
their useful lives and many of the patient care units have fallen 
horribly out of date. Studies indicate that co-location with the 
University on a state-of-the-art medical campus would be a cost 
effective way to give veterans and active duty Air Force members in the 
region the highest quality of care. The move would also provide a 
tremendous opportunity to showcase a nationwide model of cooperation 
between the University, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the 
Department of Defense.
  The VA needs to move quickly. Assisting our veterans with their 
medical needs is a promise we, as a country, made long ago.
  The savings we can realize by approving the timely transfer of our 
veterans' medical treatment facilities in the Denver region compels me 
to urge my colleagues to act quickly on this bill. We must not miss out 
on this opportunity to serve America's veterans and their families by 
ensuring that they receive the excellent medical care they deserve.
  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. 613

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

[[Page 6236]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' New Fitzsimons 
     Health Care Facilities Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS, 
                   FORMER FITZSIMONS ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, AURORA, 
                   COLORADO.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     carry out major medical facility projects under section 8104 
     of title 38, United States Code, at the site of the former 
     Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. Projects to 
     be carried out at such site shall be selected by the 
     Secretary and may include inpatient and outpatient facilities 
     providing acute, sub-acute, primary, and long-term care 
     services. Project costs shall be limited to an amount not to 
     exceed a total of $300,000,000 if a combination of direct 
     construction by the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     capital leasing is selected under subsection (b) and no more 
     than $30,000,000 per year in capital leasing costs if a 
     leasing option is selected as the sole option under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Selection of Capital Option.--The Secretary of Veterans 
     shall select the capital option to carry out the authority 
     provided in subsection (a) of either--
       (1) direct construction by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs or a combination of direct construction and capital 
     leasing; or
       (2) capital leasing alone.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for 
     fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 for ``Construction, 
     Major Projects'' for the purposes authorized in subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) a total of $300,000,000, if direct construction, or a 
     combination of direct construction and capital leasing, is 
     chosen pursuant to subsection (b) for purposes of the 
     projects authorized in subsection (a); and
       (2) $30,000,000 for each such fiscal year, if capital 
     leasing alone is chosen pursuant to subsection (b) for 
     purposes of the projects authorized in subsection (a).
       (d) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (a) 
     may only be carried out using--
       (1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2004, 2005, 2006, or 
     2007 pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in 
     subsection (a);
       (2) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects, 
     for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2004 that remain 
     available for obligation; and
       (3) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects, 
     for fiscal year 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 for a category of 
     activity not specific to a project.
       (e) Report to Congressional Committees.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives a report on this section. The report 
     shall include notice of the option selected by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (b) to carry out the authority 
     provided by subsection (a), information on any further 
     planning required to carry out the authority provided in 
     subsection (a), and other information of assistance to the 
     committees with respect to such authority.

     SEC. 3. JOINT ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF 
                   VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE AIR FORCE.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the 
     Air Force shall undertake such joint activities as the 
     Secretaries consider appropriate to address the health care 
     needs of veterans and members of the Air Force on active 
     duty.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. 
        Dorgan, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 616. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the 
quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting the use of mercury 
fever thermometers and improving the collection and proper management 
of mercury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mercury 
Reduction Act of 2003. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators 
Jeffords, Chafee, Kerry, Hutchison, Reed, Lieberman, Voinovich, Dorgan, 
and Leahy have joined me in this initiative. Our legislation addresses 
the very serious problems of mercury in the environment and mercury 
disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and widely 
distributed sources of mercury mercury fever thermometers while also 
for the first time creating a nationwide policy for dealing with 
surplus mercury.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment 
and particularly harmful to developing children. In fact, according to 
a draft report recently released by the EPA, approximately 5 million 
American women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their 
bloodstream above safe levels. Tragically, the children of these women 
will have an elevated risk of birth defects.
  When mercury enters the environment, it takes on a highly toxic 
organic form known as methylmercury. Methylmercury is almost completely 
absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the 
brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in the food chain and become 
concentrated in some species of fish, posing a health threat to some 
people who consume them. For this reason, 40 States have issued 
freshwater fish advisories that warn certain individuals to restrict or 
avoid consuming fish from affected bodies of water.
  One prevalent source of mercury in the environment is from mercury 
fever thermometers. Many of us know from personal experience that they 
are easily broken. In fact, in 1998 the American Poison Control Center 
received 18,000 phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury 
thermometers.
  One mercury thermometer contains a little under one gram of mercury. 
Despite its small size, the mercury in one thermometer, if it were 
released annually into the environment, is enough to contaminate all 
the fish in a 20-acre lake.
  The bill we are introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the 
sale of mercury fever thermometers. It would also provide grants for 
swap programs to help consumers exchange mercury thermometers for 
digital or other alternatives.
  Our legislation would allow millions of consumers across the Nation 
to receive free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury 
thermometers. By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, 
consumers will ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end 
up polluting our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce 
the risk of breakage and contamination inside the home.
  An important component of our bill is the safe disposal of the 
mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs, which are 
increasingly popular in communities throughout our country. I want to 
make sure that we are actually removing surplus mercury from the 
environment and from commerce, rather than simply recycling it. It 
obviously does little good to collect all this mercury from thermometer 
exchange programs if it is going to be recycled into new products and 
put back into commerce and eventually into our environment. This bill 
directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and 
stored in order to keep it out of the environment and out of commerce. 
Once the mercury is collected, my intention is it will never again be 
able to pose a threat to the health of our children.
  The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs is only part 
of the problem. There is a bigger problem, and that is the global 
circulation of mercury. Let me give an example. When the HoltraChem 
manufacturing plant in Orrington, ME, shut down a few years ago, the 
plant was left with over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no known way 
to permanently and safely dispose of it. In total, about 3,000 tons of 
mercury is held at similar plants across the country.
  Yet despite this surplus mercury, large amounts of mercury are still 
being mined around the world. In addition, the Department of Defense 
currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of surplus mercury it does 
not know what to do with and for which it does not have any use.
  In view of these facts, why are Algeria and other countries still 
mining huge amounts of an element that is a known neurotoxin, when the 
United States and other countries are doing their best to remove this 
extremely toxic element from the environment? How will the United 
States dispose of the huge amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants 
and other sources that no longer are understood?
  Our bill would create an interchange task force to address these very 
questions. The task force would be chaired by the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and would

[[Page 6237]]

be comprised of members from other Federal agencies involved with 
mercury. Our legislation directs this task force to find ways to reduce 
the mercury threat to humans and to our environment, to identify long-
term means of disposing of mercury safely and properly, and to address 
the excess mercury problems from mines as well as industrial sources. 
This task force would also be directed to identify comprehensive 
solutions to the global mercury problem. One year from the creation of 
this task force, it would be required to submit its recommendations to 
the Congress for permanently disposing of mercury and for reducing the 
amount of new mercury mined every year.
  In the meantime, this legislation would make significant progress 
toward reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury 
contamination in the environment, a source that is found in many of our 
homes; that is, the mercury thermometer. Perhaps even more important, 
this legislation would, for the first time ever, establish a national 
policy, which is what we need to deal with surplus mercury in order to 
protect our environment in the long term, as well as our health, and 
particularly the health of developing children, from this highly toxic 
element.
  I hope many more of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation and that it will be signed into law this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Ms. 
        Landrieu, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 617. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress 
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No 
Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 legislation that will right 
an ongoing injustice experienced by 600,000 American citizens--the 
citizens of the District of Columbia--who have historically been denied 
voting representation in Congress.
  This injustice is felt directly by District residents, but it is also 
a stain on the fabric of our democracy for the Nation as a whole. By 
now, we should all understand that the vote is a civic entitlement of 
every American citizen. It is democracy's most essential right, our 
most useful tool.
  I am proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of this bill, which 
Congresswoman Norton is also today introducing in the House. I am 
delighted that Senator Feingold, who has worked with me for two years 
on this legislation, is joining me again as an original sponsor, as are 
Senators Daschle, Durbin, Mikulski, Schumer, Kennedy, Dodd, Landrieu 
and Kerry. The aim of the legislation is simple: It would provide full 
voting representation in Congress--through two senators and a member of 
the House--to citizens of the District, providing to them the same 
rights to participate in our democracy as citizens in the 50 States. 
Despite this bill's title, it would not exempt residents of the 
District from paying income taxes.
  Last year, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired, 
held a hearing on this issue in May. It was the first time since 1994 
that Congress had held a hearing on the issue. Five months later, in 
October, the Committee reported out legislation identical to the bill 
we introduce today. I am proud that we progressed as far as we did last 
year. Unfortunately it was not far enough.
  Today, I think it is particularly ironic--though painfully so--that 
we are introducing this legislation as the Nation stands on the brink 
of a decision about war with Iraq to protect our national security. If 
war does come, citizens of Washington D.C. will serve their fellow 
Americans with pride, as they have in every previous war. In fact, the 
District suffered more casualties in Vietnam than the citizens of 10 
states. Furthermore, over 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen and 
women from the District have already been called upon to help in the 
war on terrorism. Yet--to our shame--D.C. citizens cannot choose 
representatives to the legislature that governs them. There is 
something wrong with this picture.
  The people of this city have also been the direct target of 
terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a 
vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. 
Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like everyone else. 
Actually, they pay more. Per capita, District residents have the second 
highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no say in how high 
those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent.
  They fight and die and pay for our democracy, but they cannot 
participate fully in it. How can we countenance this? How can we 
promote democracy abroad effectively while denying it to hundreds of 
thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital?
  The citizens who live in our Nation's Capital deserve more than a 
nonvoting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding the strong service of 
the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and her ability to 
vote in committee, a representative without the power to vote on the 
floor of the House simply isn't good enough.
  Prior to the District's establishment in 1790, residents of the area 
who were eligible to vote had full representation in Congress. When the 
framers of the Constitution placed our Capital under the jurisdiction 
of the Congress, they placed with Congress the responsibility of 
ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights would be protected in the future, 
just as Congress should protect the rights of all citizens throughout 
the land. For more than 200 years, Congress has failed to meet this 
obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to make D.C. citizens wait 
another 200 years.
  Today, no other democratic nation denies the residents of its capital 
representation in the national legislature. What must visitors from 
around the world think when they come to see our beautiful landmarks, 
our monuments, and our Capitol dome--proud symbols of the world's 
leading democracy--only to learn that the citizens of this city have no 
voice in Congress? What would we do if the residents of Boston, 
Nashville, Denver, Seattle, or El Paso had no voting rights? All those 
cities are roughly the same size as Washington, D.C.--and I know we as 
a Nation wouldn't let their citizens go voiceless in the Congress.
  Incredibly, the vast majority of Americans already believe that D.C. 
residents have voting representation in the Congress. When they are 
informed that they don't, 80 percent of Americans, according to one 
poll, say that they should. That is overwhelming support and by 
righting this wrong, we will be following the will of the American 
people.
  The people of the District of Columbia have been without this key 
right for far too long. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 618. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds 
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims 
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign 
to reintroduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. Last year 
the Senate unanimously passed this bill, which will at last release 
funds the United States has held in trust for the Western Shoshone 
people for over 24 years. Unfortunately the House was unable to 
complete its consideration of the bill before the last Congress 
adjourned.
  Historically, the Western Shoshone people have resided on land within 
the central portion of Nevada and parts of California, Idaho, and Utah. 
For more than a hundred years, the Western Shoshone have not received a 
fair compensation for the loss of their tribal land and resources. In 
1946 the Indian Claims Commission was established to

[[Page 6238]]

compensate Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the 
United States. In 1962 the commission determined that the Western 
Shoshone land had been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977 
the commission awarded the tribe in excess of $26 million dollars. The 
United States Supreme Court has upheld the commission's award. It was 
not until 1979 that the United States appropriated over $26 million 
dollars to reimburse the descendents of these tribes for their loss.
  The Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third of the tribal 
members are unemployed; for many of those who do have jobs, it is a 
struggle to live from paycheck to the next. Wood stoves often provide 
the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like other American 
Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be disproportionately 
affected by poverty and low educational attainment. The high school 
completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 20 and 24 is 
dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate that is 12.5 
percent higher than the rest of the National. For the Western Shoshone, 
the money contained in the settlement funds could lead to drastic 
lifestyle improvements.
  After 24 years the judgment funds still remain in the United States 
Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a single penny of this 
money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty-four years, the 
original trust fund has grown to well over $121 million dollars. It is 
the past time that this money should be delivered into the hands of its 
owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee has officially 
requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this distribution. 
It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast 
majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an 
immediate distribution of their money.
  This Act will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone tribal 
members and ensure that future generations of Western Shoshone will be 
able to enjoy the benefit of the distribution in perpetuity. Through 
the establishment of a tribally controlled grant trust fund, individual 
members of the Western Shoshone will be able to apply for money for 
education and other needs within limits set by a self-appointed 
committee of tribal members. I will continue my ongoing work with the 
members of the Western Shoshone and the Department of Interior to help 
resolve any current land issues.
  It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim 
distributed without further delay. They have already voted twice to 
firmly and decisively voice their interests. Members of the Western 
Shoshone gathered in Fallon and Elko, NV in May of 1998. They cast a 
vote overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported 
the distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. Again on 
June 2002 they cast a vote overwhelmingly in support of the 
distribution of the judgment funds at a rate of 100 percent per capita. 
1,647 Western Shoshone voted in favor of the distribution of the funds; 
only 156 opposed. I rise today in support and recognition of their 
decision. The final distribution of this fund has lingered for more 
than twenty years. During the 107th Congress, the Indian Affairs 
Committee approved and the full Senate unanimously passed this bill. It 
is clear that the best interests of the Tribe will not be served by 
prolonging their wait. Twenty-four years has been more than long 
enough. I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 618

       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 ``Western Shoshone Claims 
     Distribution Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the 
     administrative committee established under section 4(c)(1).
       (2) Western shoshone joint judgment funds.--The term 
     ``Western Shoshone joint judgment funds'' means--
       (A) the funds appropriated in satisfaction of the judgment 
     awards granted to the Western Shoshone Indians in Docket 
     Numbers 326-A-1 and 326-A-3 before the United States Court of 
     Claims; and
       (B) all interest earned on those funds.
       (3) Western shoshone judgment funds.--The term ``Western 
     Shoshone judgment funds'' means--
       (A) the funds appropriated in satisfaction of the judgment 
     award granted to the Western Shoshone Indians in Docket 
     Number 326-K before the Indian Claims Commission; and
       (B) all interest earned on those funds.
       (4) Judgment roll.--The term ``judgment roll'' means the 
     Western Shoshone judgment roll established by the Secretary 
     under section 3(b)(1).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Western 
     Shoshone Educational Trust Fund established under section 
     4(b)(1).
       (7) Western shoshone member.--The term ``Western Shoshone 
     member'' means an individual who--
       (A)(i) appears on the judgment roll; or
       (ii) is the lineal descendant of an individual appearing on 
     the roll; and
       (B)(i) satisfies all eligibility criteria established by 
     the Committee under section 4(c)(4)(D)(iii);
       (ii) meets any application requirements established by the 
     Committee; and
       (iii) agrees to use funds distributed in accordance with 
     section 4(b)(2)(B) for educational purposes approved by the 
     Committee.

     SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN SHOSHONE JUDGMENT FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Western Shoshone judgment funds shall 
     be distributed in accordance with this section.
       (b) Judgment Roll.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Western 
     Shoshone judgment roll consisting of all individuals who--
       (A) have at least \1/4\ degree of Western Shoshone blood;
       (B) are citizens of the United States; and
       (C) are living on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Ineligible individuals.--Any individual that is 
     certified by the Secretary to be eligible to receive a per 
     capita payment from any other judgment fund awarded by the 
     Indian Claims Commission, the United States Claims Court, or 
     the United States Court of Federal Claims, that was 
     appropriated on or before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     shall not be listed on the judgment roll.
       (3) Regulations regarding judgment roll.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) publish in the Federal Register all regulations 
     governing the establishment of the judgment roll; and
       (B) use any documents acceptable to the Secretary in 
     establishing proof of eligibility of an individual to--
       (i) be listed on the judgment roll; and
       (ii) receive a per capita payment under this Act.
       (4) Finality of determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on an application of an individual to be listed on 
     the judgment roll shall be final.
       (c) Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--On establishment of the judgment roll, the 
     Secretary shall make a per capita distribution of 100 percent 
     of the Western Shoshone judgment funds, in shares as equal as 
     practicable, to each person listed on the judgment roll.
       (2) Requirements for distribution payments.--
       (A) Living competent individuals.--The per capita share of 
     a living, competent individual who is 19 years or older on 
     the date of distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment 
     funds under paragraph (1) shall be paid directly to the 
     individual.
       (B) Living, legally incompetent individuals.--The per 
     capita share of a living, legally incompetent individual 
     shall be administered in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated and procedures established by the Secretary under 
     section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or 
     Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)).
       (C) Deceased individuals.--The per capita share of an 
     individual who is deceased as of the date of distribution of 
     the Western Shoshone judgment funds under paragraph (1) shall 
     be paid to the heirs and legatees of the individual in 
     accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
       (D) Individuals under the age of 19.--The per capita share 
     of an individual who is not yet 19 years of age on the date 
     of distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment funds under 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       (i) held by the Secretary in a supervised individual Indian 
     money account; and
       (ii) distributed to the individual--

       (I) after the individual has reached the age of 18 years; 
     and
       (II) in 4 equal payments (including interest earned on the 
     per capita share), to be made--

       (aa) with respect to the first payment, on the eighteenth 
     birthday of the individual (or, if the individual is already 
     18 years of age, as soon as practicable after the date of 
     establishment of the Indian money account of the individual); 
     and
       (bb) with respect to the 3 remaining payments, not later 
     than 90 days after each of the 3 subsequent birthdays of the 
     individual.

[[Page 6239]]

       (3) Applicable law.--Notwithstanding section 7 of the 
     Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1407), a per capita share (or the availability of that 
     share) paid under this section shall not--
       (A) be subject to Federal or State income taxation;
       (B) be considered to be income or resources for any 
     purpose; or
       (C) be used as a basis for denying or reducing financial 
     assistance or any other benefit to which a household or 
     Western Shoshone member would otherwise be entitled to 
     receive under--
       (i) the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
       (ii) any other Federal or federally-assisted program.
       (4) Unpaid funds.--The Secretary shall add to the Western 
     Shoshone joint judgment funds held in the Trust Fund under 
     section 4(b)(1)--
       (A) all per capita shares (including interest earned on 
     those shares) of living competent adults listed on the 
     judgment roll that remain unpaid as of the date that is--
       (i) 6 years after the date of distribution of the Western 
     Shoshone judgment funds under paragraph (1); or
       (ii) in the case of an individual described in paragraph 
     (2)(D), 6 years after the date on which the individual 
     reaches 18 years of age; and
       (B) any other residual principal and interest funds 
     remaining after the distribution under paragraph (1) is 
     complete.

     SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN SHOSHONE JOINT JUDGMENT 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Western Shoshone joint judgment funds 
     shall be distributed in accordance with this section.
       (b) Western Shoshone Educational Trust Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish in 
     the Treasury of the United States, for the benefit of Western 
     Shoshone members, a trust fund to be known as the ``Western 
     Shoshone Educational Trust Fund'', consisting of--
       (A) the Western Shoshone joint judgment funds; and
       (B) the funds added under in section 3(b)(4).
       (2) Amounts in trust fund.--With respect to amounts in the 
     Trust fund--
       (A) the principal amount--
       (i) shall not be expended or disbursed; and
       (ii) shall be invested in accordance with section 1 of the 
     Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a); and
       (B) all interest income earned on the principal amount 
     after the date of establishment of the Trust fund--
       (i) shall be distributed by the Committee--

       (I) to Western Shoshone members in accordance with this 
     Act, to be used as educational grants or for other forms of 
     educational assistance determined appropriate by the 
     Committee; and
       (II) to pay the reasonable and necessary expenses of the 
     Committee (as defined in the written rules and procedures of 
     the Committee); but

       (ii) shall not be distributed under this paragraph on a per 
     capita basis.
       (c) Administrative Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established an administrative 
     committee to oversee the distribution of educational grants 
     and assistance under subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of 7 
     members, of which--
       (A) 1 member shall represent the Western Shoshone Te-Moak 
     Tribe and be appointed by that Tribe;
       (B) 1 member shall represent the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 
     and be appointed by that Tribe;
       (C) 1 member shall represent the Yomba Shoshone Tribe and 
     be appointed by that Tribe;
       (D) 1 member shall represent the Ely Shoshone Tribe and be 
     appointed by that Tribe;
       (E) 1 member shall represent the Western Shoshone Committee 
     of the Duck Valley Reservation and be appointed by that 
     Committee;
       (F) 1 member shall represent the Fallon Band of Western 
     Shoshone and be appointed by that Band; and
       (G) 1 member shall represent the general public and be 
     appointed by the Secretary.
       (3) Term.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Committee shall serve a 
     term of 4 years.
       (B) Vacancies.--If a vacancy remains unfilled in the 
     membership of the Committee for a period of more than 60 
     days--
       (i) the Committee shall appoint a temporary replacement 
     from among qualified members of the organization for which 
     the replacement is being made; and
       (ii) that member shall serve until such time as the 
     organization (or, in the case of a member described in 
     paragraph (2)(G), the Secretary) designates a permanent 
     replacement.
       (4) Duties.--The Committee shall--
       (A) distribute interest funds from the Trust Fund under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(i);
       (B) for each fiscal year, compile a list of names of all 
     individuals approved to receive those funds;
       (C) ensure that those funds are used in a manner consistent 
     with this Act;
       (D) develop written rules and procedures, subject to the 
     approval of the Secretary, that cover such matters as--
       (i) operating procedures;
       (ii) rules of conduct;
       (iii) eligibility criteria for receipt of funds under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(i);
       (iv) application selection procedures;
       (v) procedures for appeals to decisions of the Committee;
       (vi) fund disbursement procedures; and
       (vii) fund recoupment procedures;
       (E) carry out financial management in accordance with 
     paragraph (6); and
       (F) in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii), use a 
     portion of the interest funds from the Trust Fund to pay the 
     reasonable and necessary expenses of the Committee (including 
     per diem rates for attendance at meetings that are equal to 
     those paid to Federal employees in the same geographic 
     location), except that not more than $100,000 of those funds 
     may be used to develop written rules and procedures described 
     in subparagraph (D).
       (5) Jurisdiction of tribal courts.--At the discretion of 
     the Committee and with the approval of the appropriate tribal 
     government, a tribal court, or a court of Indian offenses 
     operated under section 11 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or a successor regulation), shall have 
     jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the 
     Committee.
       (6) Financial management.--
       (A) Financial statement.--The Committee shall employ an 
     independent certified public accountant to prepare a 
     financial statement for each fiscal year that discloses--
       (i) the operating expenses of the Committee for the fiscal 
     year; and
       (ii) the total amount of funds disbursed under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
       (B) Distribution of information.--For each fiscal year, the 
     Committee shall provide to the Secretary, to each 
     organization represented on the Committee, and, on the 
     request of a Western Shoshone member, to the Western Shoshone 
     member, a copy of--
       (i) the financial statement prepared under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (ii) the list of names compiled under paragraph (4)(B).
       (d) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Committee on the management and investment of the funds 
     distributed under this section.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 620. A bill to amend title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
to provide for fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression or 
prevention technologies, in public and private college and university 
housing and dormitories, including fraternity and sorority housing and 
dormitories; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Mr. 
Lautenburg and Mr. Levin to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention 
Act. This measure would provide Federal matching grants for the 
installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university 
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is 
now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our 
children's college living facilities.
  The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday, 
January 19th, 2000, will not be forgotten. Three freshmen, all 18 years 
old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two 
South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, 
was a six-story, 350-room structure built in 1952 that housed 
approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to 
the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with 
smoke alarms but no sprinkler system.
  Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. 
And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic 
experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation 
Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and 
injured three others. The three-story fraternity house was 70 years 
old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several 
factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire 
sprinkler protection.
  Sadly, dorm fires are not rare. On December 9, 1997, a student died 
in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, IL. The 
dormitory, Kinney

[[Page 6240]]

Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On 
January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at 
Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On 
January 3, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri 
State University in Warrensburg, MO. On October 21, 1994, five students 
died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, PA. The list goes on and 
on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1998, the National Fire 
Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires 
at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving one death, 70 
injuries, and $8 million in property damage.
  So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these 
tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults? 
We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college 
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives.
  Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not 
have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced 
safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are 
rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent 
of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in 
buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 
percent of them had fire sprinklers present.
  At my State's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only 
14 of the 33 residence halls have sprinklers. Only 3 of 9 dorms at 
North Carolina Central University are equipped with the life-saving 
devices, and there are sprinklers in 4 of the 18 dorms at the 
University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
  The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of 
Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, 
to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities, 
fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler 
systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would 
be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost of 
the project. This legislation authorizes $80 million for fiscal years 
2004 through 2008.
  In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install 
sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost 
is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North 
Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I 
think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is 
just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small 
incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive 
review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they 
need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can 
help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives.
  Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire 
traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them 
to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, 
burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise 
on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill wrote me: ``Every 
year, parents send their children off to college seeking an education 
unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing their children is the 
fire hazards associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority 
houses and other forms of student housing .  .  . The only complete 
answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire sprinkler 
systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our 
college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college 
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has been 
endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association. I ask all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank 
you.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and the 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    March 4, 2003.
     Hon. John Edwards,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Edwards: On behalf of the National Fire Prevention 
     Association (NFPA) and our 70,000 members, I want to thank 
     you for introducing the College Fire Prevention Act. We are 
     pleased to support your legislative efforts to provide 
     federal assistance for the installation of fire sprinkler 
     systems in college and university housing and dormitories.
       Each year, an estimated 1,800 fires occur in dormitories 
     and fraternity and sorority houses. These fires are 
     responsible for an average of one death, seventy injuries and 
     over $8 million in property damage. Of these fires, only 35% 
     had fire sprinkler systems present. As you know, in your home 
     state of North Carolina, a tragic fire on Mother's Day in 
     1996 killed five students in a fraternity house.
       Our statistics show that properly installed and maintained 
     fire sprinkler systems have a proven track records of 
     protecting lives and property in all types of occupancies. In 
     particular, the retrofitting of fire sprinkler systems in 
     college and university housing will greatly improve the 
     safety of these public and private institutions.
       Thank you for your leadership on this crucial issue. NFPA 
     is ready to assist in any way to see this legislation passed.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John C. Biechman,
     Vice-President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                  Chapel Hill Fire Department,

                                  Chapel Hill, NC, March 12, 2003.
     Senator John Edwards,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards: One of the most under addressed fire 
     safety problems in America today is university and college 
     student housing. Every year, parents send their children off 
     to college seeking an education unaware that one of the 
     greatest dangers facing their children is the fire hazards 
     associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses 
     and other forms of student housing. We in Chapel Hill 
     experienced a worst-case scenario, when in 1996 a fire in a 
     fraternity house on Mother's Day/Graduation Day claimed five 
     young lives and injured three more. We recognized the only 
     complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install 
     fire sprinkler systems.
       I had the privilege of reading a draft copy of your 
     proposed legislation amending the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 to create a matching grants program supporting the 
     lifesaving step of installing fire sprinkler systems in 
     student housing. I strongly urge you to introduce this 
     legislation and I pledge to assist you in promoting this 
     important Bill. Your proposed legislation is the only real 
     solution to the fire threat in student housing. Higher 
     education cannot prepare our young people to contribure to 
     society if they do not survive the experience.
       After thirteen years of being responsible for fire 
     protection at the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill, 
     I am convinced that where students reside, alarms systems are 
     not enough, clear exit ways are not enough, quick fire 
     department response is not enough and educational programs 
     are not enough. The only way you can insure fire safety for 
     college student housing is to place a fire sprinkler system 
     over them. Thank you for recognizing the magnitude of this 
     threat and for proposing a solution to it.
       Tell me how we can help.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Daniel Jones,
     Fire Chief.
                                  ____


                                 S. 620

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

     SECTION 1. COLLEGE FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

       Title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1133 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

              ``PART E--COLLEGE FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE

     ``SEC. 771. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `College Fire Prevention 
     Act'.

     ``SEC 772. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire occurred at a 
     Seton Hall University dormitory. Three male freshmen, all 18 
     years of age, died. Fifty-four students, 2 South Orange 
     firefighters, and 2 South Orange police officers were 
     injured. The dormitory was a 6-story, 350-room structure 
     built in 1952, that housed approximately 600 students. It was 
     equipped with smoke alarms but no fire sprinkler system.
       ``(2) On Mother's Day 1996 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 
     a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House killed 5 
     college juniors and injured 3. The 3-story plus basement 
     fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire 
     Protection Association identified

[[Page 6241]]

     several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, 
     including the lack of fire sprinkler protection.
       ``(3) It is estimated that between 1980 and 1998, an 
     average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and 
     sororities, involving 1 death, 70 injuries, and $8,000,000 in 
     property damage were reported to public fire departments.
       ``(4) Within dormitories, fraternities, and sororities the 
     number 1 cause of fires is arson or suspected arson. The 
     second leading cause of college building fires is cooking, 
     while the third leading cause is smoking.
       ``(5) New dormitories are generally required to have 
     advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such 
     requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing 
     buildings.
       ``(6) In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires 
     reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where 
     there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent had 
     fire sprinklers present.

     ``SEC. 773. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $80,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.

     ``SEC. 774. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the United States Fire Administration, is authorized to 
     award grants to States, private or public colleges or 
     universities, fraternities, and sororities to assist them in 
     providing fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression 
     or prevention technologies, for their student housing and 
     dormitories.
       ``(b) Matching Funds Requirement.--The Secretary may not 
     award a grant under this section unless the entity receiving 
     the grant provides, from State, local, or private sources, 
     matching funds in an amount equal to not less than one-half 
     of the cost of the activities for which assistance is sought.

     ``SEC. 775. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Application.--Each entity desiring a grant under this 
     part shall submit to the Secretary an application at such 
     time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this part, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applicants that demonstrate 
     in the application submitted under subsection (a) the 
     inability to fund the sprinkler system, or other fire 
     suppression or prevention technology, from sources other than 
     funds provided under this part.
       ``(c) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--An entity 
     that receives a grant under this part shall not use more than 
     4 percent of the grant funds for administrative expenses.

     ``SEC. 776. DATA AND REPORT.

       ``The Comptroller General shall--
       ``(1) gather data on the number of college and university 
     housing facilities and dormitories that have and do not have 
     fire sprinkler systems and other fire suppression or 
     prevention technologies; and
       ``(2) report such data to Congress.

     ``SEC. 777. ADMISSIBILITY.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     application for assistance under this part, any negative 
     determination on the part of the Secretary with respect to 
     such application, or any statement of reasons for the 
     determination, shall not be admissible as evidence in any 
     proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 621. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to allow 
qualifying States to use allotments under the State children's health 
insurance program for expenditures under the Medicaid program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Cantwell entitled the 
``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill addresses an 
inequity that was created during the establishment of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized 
certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid 
coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill.
  While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and 
``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new 
CHIP funding for the children of their respective States, the 
legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico, Vermont, 
and Washington, among others. This had the effect of penalizing a 
certain group of States for having done the right thing.
  The ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' addresses this inequity 
by allowing those States, which had expanded coverage to children up to 
185 percent of poverty by April 15, 1997, before the enactment of CHIP, 
to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of 
those children covered by Medicaid above 133 percent of poverty--
putting them on a more level field with all other States in the 
country.
  As you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to 
establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and 
provide $48 billion over ten years as an incentive to States to provide 
health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent 
of poverty or beyond.
  During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, 
Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain States 
were already undertaking Medicaid or separate State-run expansions of 
coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that 
they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. 
The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, 
and Pennsylvania to convert their separate State-run programs into CHIP 
expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through 
Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding 
for their expansions.
  Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar 
expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for 
their expansions. This created an inequity among the States where some 
were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP 
and others were denied. Therefore, our bill addresses this inequity.
  New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to 
children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment 
of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 
18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After 
CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 
percent of poverty--above the level of the vast majority of states 
across the country.
  Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated 
$266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has 
only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last 
fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less 
than 10 percent of its federal CHIP allocations.
  New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its 
expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to 
the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP 
as other comparable states were.
  The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. 
According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 
uninsured children. In other words, almost 21 percent of all the 
children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has 
expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the second 
highest rate of uninsured children in the country.
  This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the 
uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. 
These children are, consequently, often eligible for Medicaid but 
currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 
185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all 
of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New 
Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.
  Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many States are accessing 
their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New 
Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those 
States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than 
the children of New Mexico.
  As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association 
reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative 
states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before 
the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these 
goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding 
flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage 
to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

[[Page 6242]]

  Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. 
The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended 
consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children 
currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, 
including Washington and Vermont.
  Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA 
that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong 
maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to 
conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to 
find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must 
receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.
  The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It 
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments 
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other 
states across the country are doing.
  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. 621

       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 ``Children's Health Equity Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE SCHIP FUNDS 
                   FOR MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.

       Section 2105 of the Social 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 fiscal years in which allotments for a 
     fiscal year under section 2104 (beginning with fiscal year 
     1998) are available under subsections (e) and (g) of that 
     section, a qualifying State (as defined in paragraph (2)) may 
     elect to use 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 133 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).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Bunning, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.  Jeffords, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Reed, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Miller, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Edwards, 
        Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Biden, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 622. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide families of disabled children with the opportunity to purchase 
coverage under the medicaid program for such children, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to 
announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill 
to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the 
country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and 
appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care 
needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental 
retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness.
  Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family 
health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't 
adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their 
child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care 
services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements, 
and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program 
for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that 
best meets the needs of children with disabilities,

[[Page 6243]]

it can become a lifeline on which many parents depend.
  Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in 
order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and 
middle income families who have a child with special health care needs: 
they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst 
cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody 
for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so 
desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a 
parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need.
  Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two 
daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The 
family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored 
health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down-
sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000 
on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job; 
unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month 
and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The 
family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's 
earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses 
puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty 
level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is 
being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their 
disabled child.
  Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and 
Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on 
behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than 
70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I 
understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care 
system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these 
families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year.
  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. 622

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; 
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family 
     Opportunity Act of 2003'' or the ``Dylan Lee James Act''.
       (b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment 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 that section or other provision of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; table of 
              contents.
Sec. 2. Opportunity for families of disabled children to purchase 
              medicaid coverage for such children.
Sec. 3. Treatment of inpatient psychiatric hospital services for 
              individuals under age 21 in home or community-based 
              services waivers.
Sec. 4. Development and support of family-to-family health information 
              centers.
Sec. 5. Restoration of medicaid eligibility for certain SSI 
              beneficiaries.

     SEC. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR FAMILIES OF DISABLED CHILDREN TO 
                   PURCHASE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR SUCH CHILDREN.

       (a) State Option To Allow Families of Disabled Children To 
     Purchase Medicaid Coverage for Such Children.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1902 (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVII);
       (ii) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII); and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subclause:

       ``(XIX) who are disabled children described in subsection 
     (cc)(1);''; and

       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(cc)(1) Individuals described in this paragraph are 
     individuals--
       ``(A) who have not attained 18 years of age;
       ``(B) who would be considered disabled under section 
     1614(a)(3)(C) but for having earnings or deemed income or 
     resources (as determined under title XVI for children) that 
     exceed the requirements for receipt of supplemental security 
     income benefits; and
       ``(C) whose family income does not exceed such income level 
     as the State establishes and does not exceed--
       ``(i) 250 percent of the income official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved; or
       ``(ii) such higher percent of such poverty line as a State 
     may establish, except that--
       ``(I) any medical assistance provided to an individual 
     whose family income exceeds 250 percent of such poverty line 
     may only be provided with State funds; and
       ``(II) no Federal financial participation shall be provided 
     under section 1903(a) for any medical assistance provided to 
     such an individual.''.
       (2) Interaction with employer-sponsored family coverage.--
     Section 1902(cc) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(cc)), as added by paragraph 
     (1)(B), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) If an employer of a parent of an individual 
     described in paragraph (1) offers family coverage under a 
     group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of the 
     Public Health Service Act), the State shall--
       ``(i) require such parent to apply for, enroll in, and pay 
     premiums for, such coverage as a condition of such parent's 
     child being or remaining eligible for medical assistance 
     under subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX) if the parent is 
     determined eligible for such coverage and the employer 
     contributes at least 50 percent of the total cost of annual 
     premiums for such coverage; and
       ``(ii) if such coverage is obtained--
       ``(I) subject to paragraph (2) of section 1916(h), reduce 
     the premium imposed by the State under that section in an 
     amount that reasonably reflects the premium contribution made 
     by the parent for private coverage on behalf of a child with 
     a disability; and
       ``(II) treat such coverage as a third party liability under 
     subsection (a)(25).
       ``(B) In the case of a parent to which subparagraph (A) 
     applies, a State, subject to paragraph (1)(C)(ii), may 
     provide for payment of any portion of the annual premium for 
     such family coverage that the parent is required to pay. Any 
     payments made by the State under this subparagraph shall be 
     considered, for purposes of section 1903(a), to be payments 
     for medical assistance.''.
       (b) State Option To Impose Income-Related Premiums.--
     Section 1916 (42 U.S.C. 1396o) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (g)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (g) and (h)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h)(1) With respect to disabled children provided medical 
     assistance under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX), subject to 
     paragraph (2), a State may (in a uniform manner for such 
     children) require the families of such children to pay 
     monthly premiums set on a sliding scale based on family 
     income.
       ``(2) A premium requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may 
     only apply to the extent that--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of such premium and any premium 
     that the parent is required to pay for family coverage under 
     section 1902(cc)(2)(A)(i) does not exceed 5 percent of the 
     family's income; and
       ``(B) the requirement is imposed consistent with section 
     1902(cc)(2)(A)(ii)(I).
       ``(3) A State shall not require prepayment of a premium 
     imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall not terminate 
     eligibility of a child under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX) 
     for medical assistance under this title on the basis of 
     failure to pay any such premium until such failure continues 
     for a period of not less than 60 days from the date on which 
     the premium became past due. The State may waive payment of 
     any such premium in any case where the State determines that 
     requiring such payment would create an undue hardship.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1903(f)(4) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(f)(4)) is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting ``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX),'' after 
     ``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII),''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to medical assistance for items and services 
     furnished on or after October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SERVICES 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 21 IN HOME OR 
                   COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES WAIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1915(c) (42 U.S.C. 1396n(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, or would 
     require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for 
     individuals under age 21,'' after ``intermediate care 
     facility for the mentally retarded''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, or would 
     require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for 
     individuals under age 21'' before the period;
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``or services in an 
     intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded'' each 
     place it appears

[[Page 6244]]

     and inserting ``services in an intermediate care facility for 
     the mentally retarded, or inpatient psychiatric hospital 
     services for individuals under age 21'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(C)--
       (A) by inserting ``, or who are determined to be likely to 
     require inpatient psychiatric hospital services for 
     individuals under age 21,'' after ``, or intermediate care 
     facility for the mentally retarded''; and
       (B) by striking ``or services in an intermediate care 
     facility for the mentally retarded'' and inserting ``services 
     in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded, 
     or inpatient psychiatric hospital services for individuals 
     under age 21''; and
       (4) in paragraph (7)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or would require inpatient psychiatric 
     hospital services for individuals under age 21,'' after 
     ``intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded,''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``or who would require inpatient 
     psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21'' 
     before the period.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to medical assistance provided on or after 
     January 1, 2004.

     SEC. 4. DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF FAMILY-TO-FAMILY HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION CENTERS.

       Section 501 (42 U.S.C. 701) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1)(A) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary 
     (through grants, contracts, or otherwise) to provide for 
     special projects of regional and national significance for 
     the development and support of family-to-family health 
     information centers described in paragraph (2)--
       ``(i) there is appropriated to the Secretary, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
       ``(I) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(II) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(III) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       ``(ii) there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
       ``(B) Funds appropriated or authorized to be appropriated 
     under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) be in addition to amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (a) and retained under section 502(a)(1) for the 
     purpose of carrying out activities described in subsection 
     (a)(2); and
       ``(ii) remain available until expended.
       ``(2) The family-to-family health information centers 
     described in this paragraph are centers that--
       ``(A) assist families of children with disabilities or 
     special health care needs to make informed choices about 
     health care in order to promote good treatment decisions, 
     cost-effectiveness, and improved health outcomes for such 
     children;
       ``(B) provide information regarding the health care needs 
     of, and resources available for, children with disabilities 
     or special health care needs;
       ``(C) identify successful health delivery models for such 
     children;
       ``(D) develop with representatives of health care 
     providers, managed care organizations, health care 
     purchasers, and appropriate State agencies a model for 
     collaboration between families of such children and health 
     professionals;
       ``(E) provide training and guidance regarding caring for 
     such children;
       ``(F) conduct outreach activities to the families of such 
     children, health professionals, schools, and other 
     appropriate entities and individuals; and
       ``(G) are staffed by families of children with disabilities 
     or special health care needs who have expertise in Federal 
     and State public and private health care systems and health 
     professionals.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall develop family-to-family health 
     information centers described in paragraph (2) under this 
     subsection in accordance with the following:
       ``(A) With respect to fiscal year 2004, such centers shall 
     be developed in not less than 25 States.
       ``(B) With respect to fiscal year 2005, such centers shall 
     be developed in not less than 40 States.
       ``(C) With respect to fiscal year 2006, such centers shall 
     be developed in not less than 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(4) The provisions of this title that are applicable to 
     the funds made available to the Secretary under section 
     502(a)(1) apply in the same manner to funds made available to 
     the Secretary under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `State' 
     means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.''.

     SEC. 5. RESTORATION OF MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN SSI 
                   BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(A)-
     (i)(II) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(II)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(aa)'' after ``(II)'';
       (2) by striking ``) and'' and inserting ``and'';
       (3) by striking ``section or who are'' and inserting 
     ``section), (bb) who are''; and
       (4) by inserting before the comma at the end the following: 
     ``, or (cc) who are under 21 years of age and with respect to 
     whom supplemental security income benefits would be paid 
     under title XVI if subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     1611(c)(7) were applied without regard to the phrase `the 
     first day of the month following'''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to medical assistance for items and services 
     furnished on or after the first day of the first calendar 
     quarter that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleague 
Senator Grassley today in re-introducing the Family Opportunity Act 
of--so that once and for all, we can remove the health care barriers 
for children with disabilities that so often prevent families from 
staying together and staying employed, and that so often prevent their 
children from growing up to live independent lives and become fully 
contributing members of their communities.
  More than 9 percent of children in this country have significant 
disabilities, many of whom do not have access to the basic health 
services they need to maintain their health status, let alone prevent 
its continuing deterioration. To obtain theses health services for 
their children, families are being forced to become poor, stay poor, 
put their children in institutions or ever give up custody of their 
children--all so that their children can qualify for the health 
coverage available under Medicaid.
  In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children 
report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down 
overtime, and unable even to save money for the future of their 
children and family--all so that their child can stay eligible for 
Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. The lack of 
adequate health care in our country today continues to force these 
families into poverty in order to obtain the care they need for their 
disabled children.
  The legislation we are reintroducing will close the health care gap 
for the nation's most vulnerable population, and enable families of 
disabled children to be equal partners in the American dream.
  In the words of President George Bush in his ``New Freedom 
Initiative,'' ``To many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in 
bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for 
success--and we need to tear down these barriers.
  The Family Opportunity Act will do just that. It will tear down the 
unfair barriers to needed health care that so many disabled and special 
needs children are denied. It will make health insurance coverage more 
widely available for children with significant disabilities, through 
opportunities to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. States will 
have greater flexibility to enable children with metal health 
disabilities to obtain the health services they need in order to live 
at home and in their communities. It will establish Family to Family 
Information Centers in each state to assist families with special needs 
children.
  The passage of Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999 demonstrated 
the nation's commitment to give adults with disabilities the right to 
lead independent and productive lives without giving up their health 
care. It is time for Congress to show the same commitment to children 
with disabilities.
  We came very close to passing the Family Opportunity Act in the last 
Congress. I look forward to working members of this new Congress to 
enact this important legislation, and give disabled children and their 
families their rightful opportunity to fulfill their dreams and 
participate fully in the life of our nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 623. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums 
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental 
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the 
severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit, FEHB, program 
premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to federal and 
military retirees,

[[Page 6245]]

allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax 
dollars.
  Over 9 million Federal employees, retirees and their families are 
covered under FEHBP. In 2003 premiums are expected to rise an average 
of 11 percent, the third year in a row the average increase has 
exceeded 10 percent.
  The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to 
retirees living on a fixed income. The 2003 Cost of Living Adjustment, 
COLA, for Federal civil service annuitants is only 1.4 percent, the 
lowest since a 1.3 percent increase in 1999. The modest COLA is 
completely diminished by increased health care costs.
  In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current 
federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private 
sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the 
amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by 
reducing an individual's federal tax liability.
  Extending this benefit to federal retirees requires a change in the 
tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.
  Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our 
Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health 
care costs.
  A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees 
are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association 
of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve 
Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation and 
show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and 
military retirees. 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. 623

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

     SECTION 1. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY 
                   FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and 
     military retirees.--
       ``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title 
     5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the 
     annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and 
     benefits under the health benefits program established by 
     chapter 89 of such title 5.
       ``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of 
     being a member or former member of the uniformed services of 
     the United States with respect to a choice between such pay 
     and benefits under the health benefits programs established 
     by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 223 as section 224 and by inserting 
     after section 222 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 223. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an 
     individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts 
     paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance 
     purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits 
     programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and 
     dependents.
       ``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount 
     allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be 
     taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the 
     taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (18) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(19) Tricare supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
     The deduction allowed by section 223.''
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 223. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 224. Cross reference.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian 
     Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary 
     so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning 
     with the first open enrollment period, afforded under section 
     8905(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, which begins not 
     less than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military 
     Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with 
     the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section 
     1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the 
     option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning with the 
     first open enrollment period afforded under health benefits 
     programs established under chapter 55 of such title, which 
     begins not less than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 624. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the 
Russian Federation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia 
Trade Act of 2003.
  This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to 
Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this 
legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of 
negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.
  Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when 
that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly 
what Congress did when China joined the WTO.
  The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that 
Congress should grant PNTR to Russia prior to their joining the WTO. If 
we are going to do down this path, we must ensure that there is 
adequate Congressional oversight.
  This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the 
following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be 
guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the 
WTO, if such a resolution is introduced.
  Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on 
Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The 
Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of 
Congressional involvement.
  And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government 
has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports 
of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef. 
That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress 
continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO.
  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. 624

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

        The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Russian Federation has adopted constitutional 
     protections and statutory and administrative procedures that 
     accord its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, 
     free of anything more than a nominal

[[Page 6246]]

     tax on emigration or on the visas or other documents required 
     for emigration and free of any tax, levy, fine, fee, or other 
     charge on any citizens as a consequence of the desire of such 
     citizens to emigrate to the country of their choice or to 
     return to the Russian Federation;
       (2) the Russian Federation has been found to be in full 
     compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1994;
       (3) the Russian Federation has taken important steps toward 
     the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market 
     economy and, as a participating state of the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe (in this Act referred to 
     as the ``OSCE''), is committed to developing a system of 
     governance in accordance with the principles regarding human 
     rights and humanitarian affairs that are set forth in the 
     Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe (also known as the ``Helsinki Final Act'') and 
     successive documents;
       (4) the Russian Federation is committed to addressing 
     issues relating to its national and religious minorities as a 
     participating state of the OSCE, to adopting measures to 
     ensure that persons belonging to national minorities have 
     full equality both individually and communally, and to 
     respecting the independence of minority religious 
     communities, although problems still exist regarding the 
     registration of religious groups, visa, and immigration 
     requirements, and other laws, regulations, and practices that 
     interfere with the activities or internal affairs of minority 
     religious communities;
       (5) the Russian Federation has enacted legislation 
     providing protection against discrimination or incitement to 
     violence against persons or groups based on national, racial, 
     ethnic, or religious discrimination, including anti-Semitism;
       (6) the Russian Federation has committed itself, including 
     through exchanges of letters, to ensuring freedom of 
     religion, equal treatment of all religious groups, and 
     combating racial, ethnic, and religious intolerance and 
     hatred, including anti-Semitism;
       (7) the Russian Federation has engaged in efforts to combat 
     ethnic and religious intolerance by cooperating with various 
     United States nongovernmental organizations;
       (8) the Russian Federation is continuing the restitution of 
     religious properties, including religious and communal 
     properties confiscated from national and religious minorities 
     during the Soviet era, facilitating the reemergence of these 
     minority groups in the national life of the Russian 
     Federation, and has committed itself, including through 
     exchanges of letters, to continue the restitution of such 
     properties;
       (9) the Russian Federation has received normal trade 
     relations treatment since concluding a bilateral trade 
     agreement with the United States that entered into force on 
     June 17, 1992;
       (10) the Russian Federation is making progress toward 
     accession to the World Trade Organization, recognizing that 
     many central issues remain to be resolved, including removal 
     of unjustified restrictions on agricultural products of the 
     United States, commitments relating to tariff reductions for 
     goods, trade in services, protection of intellectual property 
     rights, reform of the industrial energy sector, elimination 
     of export incentives for industrial goods, reform of customs 
     procedures and technical, sanitary, and phytosanitary 
     measures, and inclusion of trade remedy provisions;
       (11) the Russian Federation has enacted some protections 
     reflecting internationally recognized labor rights, but 
     serious gaps remain both in the country's legal regime and 
     its enforcement record;
       (12) the Russian Federation has provided constitutional 
     guarantees of freedom of the press, although infringements of 
     this freedom continue to occur; and
       (13) the Russian Federation has demonstrated a strong 
     desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with 
     the United States.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to the 
     Russian Federation; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the Russian Federation, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the Russian 
     Federation, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 
     shall cease to apply to that country.

     SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

       It is the policy of the United States to remain fully 
     committed to a multifaceted engagement with the Russian 
     Federation, including by--
       (1) urging the Russian Federation to ensure that its 
     national, regional, and local laws, regulations, practices, 
     and policies fully, and in conformity with the standards of 
     the OSCE--
       (A) provide for the free emigration of its citizens;
       (B) safeguard religious liberty throughout the Russian 
     Federation, including by ensuring that the registration of 
     religious groups, visa and immigration requirements, and 
     other laws, regulations, and practices are not used to 
     interfere with the activities or internal affairs of minority 
     religious communities;
       (C) enforce and enhance existing Russian laws at the 
     national and local levels to combat ethnic, religious, and 
     racial discrimination and related violence;
       (D) expand the restitution of religious and communal 
     properties, including by establishing a legal framework for 
     the timely completion of such restitution; and
       (E) respect fully freedom of the press;
       (2) working with the Russian Federation, including through 
     the Secretary of Labor and other appropriate executive branch 
     officials, to address the issues described in section 1(11); 
     and
       (3) continuing rigorous monitoring by the United States of 
     human rights issues in the Russian Federation, including the 
     issues described in paragraphs (1) and (2), providing 
     assistance to nongovernmental organizations and human rights 
     groups involved in human rights activities in the Russian 
     Federation, and promoting annual discussions and ongoing 
     dialog with the Russian Federation regarding those issues, 
     including the participation of United States and Russian 
     nongovernmental organizations in such discussions.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

        The reports required by sections 102(b) and 203 of the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 
     6412(b) and 6433) shall include an assessment of the status 
     of the issues described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of 
     section 3(1).

     SEC. 5. CONTINUED ENJOYMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER THE JUNE 17, 
                   1992, BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that the trade agreement 
     between the United States and the Russian Federation that 
     entered into force on June 17, 1992, remains in force between 
     the 2 countries and provides the United States with important 
     rights, including the right to use specific safeguard rules 
     to respond to import surges from the Russian Federation.
       (b) Applicability of Safeguard.--Section 421 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451) shall apply to the Russian 
     Federation to the same extent as such section applies to the 
     People's Republic of China.

     SEC. 6. EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OVER WTO 
                   ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS.

       (a) Notice of Agreement on Accession to WTO by Russian 
     Federation.--Not later than 5 days after the date on which 
     the United States has entered into a bilateral agreement with 
     the Russian Federation on the terms of accession by the 
     Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, the 
     President shall so notify the Congress, and the President 
     shall transmit to the Congress, not later than 15 days after 
     that agreement is entered into, a report that sets forth the 
     provisions of that agreement.
       (b) Resolution of Disapproval.--
       (1) Introduction.--If a resolution of disapproval is 
     introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     during the 30-day period (not counting any day which is 
     excluded under section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2194(b)), beginning on the date on which the President 
     first notifies the Congress under subsection (a) of the 
     agreement referred to in that subsection, that resolution of 
     disapproval shall be considered in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       (2) Resolution of disapproval.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``resolution of disapproval'' means only a joint 
     resolution of the two Houses of the Congress, the matter 
     after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the 
     Congress does not approve the agreement between the United 
     States and the Russian Federation on the terms of accession 
     by the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, of 
     which Congress was notified on __.'', with the blank space 
     being filled with the appropriate date.
       (3) Procedures for considering resolutions.--
       (A) Introduction and referral.--Resolutions of 
     disapproval--
       (i) in the House of Representatives--

       (I) may be introduced by any Member of the House;
       (II) shall be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     and, in addition, to the Committee on Rules; and
       (III) may not be amended by either Committee; and

       (ii) in the Senate--

       (I) may be introduced by any Member of the Senate;
       (II) shall be referred to the Committee on Finance; and
       (III) may not be amended.

       (B) Committee discharge and floor consideration.--The 
     provisions of subsections (c) through (f) of section 152 of 
     the Trade Act

[[Page 6247]]

     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(c) through (f)) (relating to 
     committee discharge and floor consideration of certain 
     resolutions in the House and Senate) apply to a resolution of 
     disapproval to the same extent as such subsections apply to 
     resolutions under such section.
       (c) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--
     Subsection (b) is enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such are 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, and 
     such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent that 
     they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
       (2) with the full recognition of the constitutional right 
     of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to 
     the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that 
     House.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Miller):
  S. 626. A bill to reduce the amount of paperwork for special 
education teachers, to make mediation mandatory for all legal disputes 
related to individualized education programs, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along 
with my colleague Senator Miller, the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 2003. During the 107th Congress, we were successful in 
legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage of the No 
Child Left Behind Act. This year we hope to complete reauthorization of 
another important federal education initiative--the reauthorization of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we 
consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve 
the quality of the education that students with special needs receive.
  One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in 
direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden 
imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable 
time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing 
frustration for the special education teachers working on the 
frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best 
quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork 
Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that 
will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the 
children they instruct.
  This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct 
the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of 
Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, 
would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent 
within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be 
encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General 
Accounting Office, GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of 
the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State 
and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been 
conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 
1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork 
burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the 
U.S. Department of Education, and the States and local districts can 
take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this 
legislation.
  Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to 
Individual Education Programs, IEPs, to better empower parents and 
schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather 
than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this 
legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct 
research to determine best practices for successful mediation, 
including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to 
reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher 
resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation 
training support services to support state and local efforts. The 
resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated 
through Part D of IDEA.
  The Council for Exceptional Children, CEO, states, ``No barrier is so 
irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from 
teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked 
third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The 
CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the 
profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics 
concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend 
completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education 
teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their 
job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on 
paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average 
of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education 
teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing 
paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized 
education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 
percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to 
one and a half days each week in IEP-relating meetings.
  One special education teacher expressed her frustration with 
excessive paperwork to me. ``I began my professional career as a 
lawyer, but found that I had a passion for interacting with and helping 
students and became a teacher. However, I decided last year that I 
could no longer work with special education students from my district. 
I came this decision reluctantly and solely on the basis of the 
increasing and burdensome amount of paperwork required for special 
education summer services. As a teacher, your job is to interact, 
teach, and participate in a student's learning experience, in 
particular that of a student of special needs. As a result of the 
paperwork and fear of lawsuits by school districts, I am no longer able 
to interact with my students.''
  There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. 
The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set 
forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to 
complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the 
National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result 
in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a 
negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, 
there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding 
Federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by 
the States and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education 
compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five 
pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is 
litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for 
due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials 
often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove 
that a free appropriate public education, FAPE, was provided to the 
special education student.
  A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal 
disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation 
as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. 
According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in 
Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for 
children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a 
positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have 
the benefit of working together with educator and service providers as 
partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached 
as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing 
due process and legal options.
  Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative 
for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation 
sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, States are required 
to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot 
of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation 
Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it

[[Page 6248]]

pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that 
attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. 
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays 
mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is 
apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. 
According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation 
session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental 
request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.
  Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due 
process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 
percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of 
voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both 
parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute 
Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict 
occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 
percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.
  The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious 
problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated 
special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in 
order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. 
It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to 
give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing 
their lives, and less time wading through stacks of paper. I would 
invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to 
help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all 
students so that no child is left behind.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 627. A bill to prevent the use of certain payments instruments, 
credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. KYL. 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. 627

       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 ``Unlawful Internet Gambling 
     Funding Prohibition Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal 
     use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire 
     transfers;
       (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 
     recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire 
     transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which 
     represent them;
       (3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection 
     problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer 
     credit industry;
       (4) Internet gambling conducted through offshore 
     jurisdictions has been identified by United States law 
     enforcement officials as a significant money laundering 
     vulnerability;
       (5) gambling through the Internet, which has grown rapidly 
     in the half-decade preceding the enactment of this Act, opens 
     up the possibility of immediate, individual, 24-hour access 
     in every home to the full range of wagering opportunities on 
     sporting events or casino-like contests, such as roulette, 
     slot machines, poker, or black-jack; and
       (6) the extent to which gambling is permitted and regulated 
     in the United States has been primarily a matter for 
     determination by individual States and, if applicable, Indian 
     tribes, with Federal law serving to prevent interstate or 
     other attempts to evade or avoid such determinations.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT SYSTEM 
                   INSTRUMENT, CREDIT CARD, OR FUND TRANSFER FOR 
                   UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

       Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

         ``SUBCHAPTER IV--FUNDING OF ILLEGAL INTERNET GAMBLING

     ``Sec. 5361. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this subchapter, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Bet or wager.--The term `bet or wager'--
       ``(A) means the staking or risking by any person of 
     something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a 
     sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an 
     agreement or understanding that the person or another person 
     will receive something of value in the event of a certain 
     outcome;
       ``(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to 
     win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is 
     predominantly subject to chance);
       ``(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 
     3702 of title 28, United States Code;
       ``(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining 
     to the establishment or movement of funds in, to, or from an 
     account by the bettor or customer with regard to the business 
     of betting or wagering; and
       ``(E) does not include--
       ``(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that 
     term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934) for the purchase or sale of securities 
     (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of such Act);
       ``(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules 
     of a registered entity or exempt board of trade pursuant to 
     the Commodity Exchange Act;
       ``(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
       ``(iv) any other transaction that--

       ``(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the 
     Commodity Exchange Act; or
       ``(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws 
     under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 
     28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

       ``(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
       ``(vi) any contract for insurance;
       ``(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured 
     institution;
       ``(viii) any participation in a simulation sports game, or 
     an educational game or contest, that--

       ``(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single 
     sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual 
     performance in any single sporting event;
       ``(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge 
     and skill of the participants, with such outcome determined 
     predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting 
     events; and
       ``(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is 
     established in advance of the game or contest and is not 
     determined by the number of participants or the amount of any 
     fees paid by those participants; or

       ``(ix) any lawful transaction with a business licensed or 
     authorized by a State.
       ``(2) Business of betting or wagering.--The term `business 
     of betting or wagering' does not include, other than for 
     purposes of section 5366, any creditor, credit card issuer, 
     insured institution, or other financial institution, operator 
     of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be 
     initiated, money transmitting business, or international, 
     national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a 
     credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value 
     product transaction, or money transmitting service, or any 
     participant in such network, or any interactive computer 
     service or telecommunications service.
       ``(3) Designated payment system.--The term `designated 
     payment system' means any system utilized by any creditor, 
     credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a 
     terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be 
     initiated, money transmitting business, or international, 
     national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a 
     credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value 
     product transaction, or money transmitting service, or any 
     participant in such network, that the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System and the Attorney General of the United States, 
     determines, by regulation or order, could be utilized in 
     connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted 
     transaction.
       ``(4) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of interoperable packet 
     switched data networks.
       ``(5) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive 
     computer service' has the same meaning as in section 230(f) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934.
       ``(6) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of 
     Electronic Funding Oversight, established under section 5362.
       ``(7) Restricted transaction.--The term `restricted 
     transaction' means any transaction or transmittal involving 
     any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any 
     paragraph of section 5363 which the recipient is prohibited 
     from accepting under section 5363.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
       ``(9) Unlawful internet gambling.--The term `unlawful 
     Internet gambling' means the placing, receipt, or other 
     transmission of a bet or wager by any means which involves 
     the use, at least in part, of the Internet, where such bet or 
     wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law 
     in the State in which the bet or wager is initiated, 
     received, or otherwise made.
       ``(10) Other terms.--
       ``(A) Credit; creditor; credit card; and card issuer.--The 
     terms `credit', `creditor', `credit card', and `card issuer' 
     have the same

[[Page 6249]]

     meanings as in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act.
       ``(B) Electronic fund transfer.--The term `electronic fund 
     transfer'--
       ``(i) has the same meaning as in section 903 of the 
     Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term includes 
     transfers that would otherwise be excluded under section 
     903(6)(E) of that Act; and
       ``(ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of 
     the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.
       ``(C) Financial institution.--The term `financial 
     institution' has the same meaning as in section 903 of the 
     Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term does not 
     include a casino, sports book, or other business at or 
     through which bets or wagers may be placed or received.
       ``(D) Insured institution.--The term `insured institution' 
     means--
       ``(i) an insured depository institution, as defined in 
     section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and
       ``(ii) an insured credit union, as defined in section 101 
     of the Federal Credit Union Act.
       ``(E) Money transmitting business and money transmitting 
     service.--The terms `money transmitting business' and `money 
     transmitting service' have the same meanings as in section 
     5330(d) (determined without regard to any regulations issued 
     by the Secretary thereunder).

     ``Sec. 5362. Office of electronic funding oversight; policies 
       and procedures to identify and prevent restricted 
       transactions

       ``(a) Establishment of Treasury Office.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established within the 
     Department of the Treasury, the Office of Electronic Funding 
     Oversight, the purposes of which are--
       ``(A) to coordinate Federal efforts to prohibit restricted 
     transactions; and
       ``(B) otherwise to carry out the duties of the Office, as 
     specified in this subchapter.
       ``(2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director, 
     appointed by the Secretary. The director of the Office may 
     serve as the designee of the Secretary, at the request of the 
     Secretary, for any purpose under this subchapter.
       ``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this subchapter, the Office, in consultation 
     with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 
     the Attorney General of the United States, shall prescribe 
     regulations requiring any designated payment system, and all 
     participants therein, to establish policies and procedures 
     reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted 
     transactions through the establishment of policies and 
     procedures that--
       ``(1) allow the payment system and any person involved in 
     the payment system to identify restricted transactions by 
     means of codes in authorization messages or by other means;
       ``(2) block restricted transactions identified as a result 
     of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) prevent the acceptance of the products or services of 
     the payment system in connection with a restricted 
     transaction.
       ``(c) Requirements for Policies and Procedures.--In 
     prescribing regulations pursuant to subsection (b), the 
     Office shall--
       ``(1) identify types of policies and procedures, including 
     nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed to be 
     `reasonably designed to identify' and `reasonably designed to 
     block' or to `prevent the acceptance of the products or 
     services' with respect to each type of transaction, such as, 
     should credit card transactions be so designated, identifying 
     transactions by a code or codes in the authorization message 
     and denying authorization of a credit card transaction in 
     response to an authorization message;
       ``(2) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a 
     payment system to choose among alternative means of 
     identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing the 
     acceptance of the products or services of the payment system 
     or participant in connection with, restricted transactions; 
     and
       ``(3) consider exempting restricted transactions from any 
     requirement imposed under such regulations, if the Office 
     finds that it is not reasonably practical to identify and 
     block, or otherwise prevent, such transactions.
       ``(d) Compliance With Payment System Policies and 
     Procedures.--A creditor, credit card issuer, financial 
     institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic 
     fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, 
     or international, national, regional, or local network 
     utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund 
     transfer, stored value product transaction, or money 
     transmitting service, or a participant in such network, shall 
     be considered to be in compliance with the regulations 
     prescribed under subsection (b), if--
       ``(1) such person relies on and complies with the policies 
     and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is 
     a member or participant--
       ``(A) to identify and block restricted transactions; or
       ``(B) to otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products 
     or services of the payment system, member, or participant in 
     connection with restricted transactions; and
       ``(2) such policies and procedures of the designated 
     payment system comply with the requirements of regulations 
     prescribed under subsection (b).
       ``(e) No Liability for Blocking or Refusing To Honor 
     Restricted Transactions.--A person that is subject to a 
     regulation prescribed or order issued under this subchapter 
     and blocks, or otherwise refuses to honor, a restricted 
     transaction, or as a member of a designated payment system 
     relies on the policies and procedures of the payment system, 
     in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under this 
     section, shall not be liable to any party for such action.
       ``(f) Regulatory Enforcement.--Regulations issued by the 
     Office under this subchapter shall be enforced by the Federal 
     functional regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, in 
     the manner provided in section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-
     Bliley Act.

     ``Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any bank instrument 
       for unlawful internet gambling

       ``No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering 
     may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of 
     another person in unlawful Internet gambling--
       ``(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on 
     behalf of such other person (including credit extended 
     through the use of a credit card);
       ``(2) an electronic fund transfer or funds transmitted by 
     or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of 
     an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, 
     from or on behalf of such other person;
       ``(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is 
     drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or 
     payable at or through any financial institution; or
       ``(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial 
     transaction, as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, 
     which involves a financial institution as a payor or 
     financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of 
     such other person.

     ``Sec. 5364. Civil remedies

       ``(a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United 
     States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to 
     prevent and restrain violations of this subchapter or the 
     rules or regulations issued under this subchapter by issuing 
     appropriate orders in accordance with this section, 
     regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under 
     this subchapter.
       ``(b) Proceedings.--
       ``(1) Institution by federal government.--
       ``(A) In general.--The United States, acting through the 
     Attorney General, or, in the case of rules or regulations 
     issued under this subchapter, through an agency authorized to 
     enforce such regulations in accordance with this subchapter, 
     may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or 
     restrain a violation or a threatened violation of this 
     subchapter or such rules or regulations.
       ``(B) Relief.--Upon application of the United States under 
     this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary 
     injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or 
     restrain a violation or threatened violation of this 
     subchapter or the rules or regulations issued under this 
     subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure.
       ``(2) Institution by state attorney general.--
       ``(A) In general.--The attorney general of a State (or 
     other appropriate State official) in which a violation of 
     this subchapter allegedly has occurred or will occur may 
     institute proceedings under this section to prevent or 
     restrain the violation or threatened violation.
       ``(B) Relief.--Upon application of the attorney general (or 
     other appropriate State official) of an affected State under 
     this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary 
     injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or 
     restrain a violation or threatened violation of this 
     subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure.
       ``(3) Indian lands.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     for a violation of this subchapter or the rules or 
     regulations issued under this subchapter that is alleged to 
     have occurred, or may occur, on Indian lands (as that term is 
     defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--
       ``(i) the United States shall have the enforcement 
     authority provided under paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an 
     applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall be carried out in 
     accordance with that compact.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--No provision of this 
     subchapter shall be construed as altering, superseding, or 
     otherwise affecting the application of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act.
       ``(c) Expedited Proceedings.--In addition to any proceeding 
     under subsection (b), a district court may, in exigent 
     circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order against a 
     person alleged to be in violation of this subchapter or the 
     rules or regulations issued under this subchapter, upon 
     application of the United States under subsection (b)(1), or

[[Page 6250]]

     the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of 
     an affected State under subsection (b)(2), in accordance with 
     rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(d) Limitation Relating to Interactive Computer 
     Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Relief granted under this section 
     against an interactive computer service shall--
       ``(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access 
     to, an online site violating this subchapter, or a hypertext 
     link to an online site violating this subchapter, that 
     resides on a computer server that such service controls or 
     operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph 
     shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under 
     this section pursuant to section 5366;
       ``(B) be available only after notice to the interactive 
     computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear 
     are provided;
       ``(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer 
     service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts 
     indicating activity violating this subchapter;
       ``(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it 
     applies; and
       ``(E) specifically identify the location of the online site 
     or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be 
     disabled.
       ``(2) Coordination with other law.--An interactive computer 
     service that does not violate this subchapter shall not be 
     liable under section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, 
     except that the limitation in this paragraph shall not apply 
     if an interactive computer service has actual knowledge and 
     control of bets and wagers and--
       ``(A) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet 
     website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, 
     received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or 
     wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; 
     or
       ``(B) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any 
     person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an 
     Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be 
     placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful 
     bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or 
     otherwise made.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraph 
     (2) do not affect any potential liability of an interactive 
     computer service or other person under any provision of title 
     18, United States Code, other than as specifically provided 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(e) Factors To Be Considered in Certain Cases.--In 
     considering granting relief under this section against any 
     payment system, or any participant in a payment system that 
     is a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, 
     operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer 
     may be initiated, money transmitting business, or 
     international, national, regional, or local network utilized 
     to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, 
     stored value product transaction, or money transmitting 
     service, or a participant in such network, the court shall 
     consider--
       ``(1) the extent to which the person extending credit or 
     transmitting funds knew or should have known that the 
     transaction was in connection with unlawful Internet 
     gambling;
       ``(2) the history of such person in extending credit or 
     transmitting funds when such person knew or should have known 
     that the transaction is in connection with unlawful Internet 
     gambling;
       ``(3) the extent to which such person has established and 
     is maintaining policies and procedures in compliance with 
     rules and regulations issued under this subchapter;
       ``(4) the extent to which it is feasible for any specific 
     remedy prescribed as part of such relief to be implemented by 
     such person without substantial deviation from normal 
     business practice; and
       ``(5) the costs and burdens that the specific remedy will 
     have on such person.
       ``(f) Notice to Regulators and Financial Institutions.--
     Before initiating any proceeding under subsection (b) with 
     respect to a violation or potential violation of this 
     subchapter or the rules or regulations issued under this 
     subchapter by any creditor, credit card issuer, financial 
     institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic 
     fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, 
     or international, national, regional, or local network 
     utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund 
     transfer, stored value product transaction, or money 
     transmitting service, or any participant in such network, the 
     Attorney General of the United States, an attorney general of 
     a State (or other appropriate State official), or an agency 
     authorized to initiate such proceeding under this subchapter, 
     shall--
       ``(1) notify such person, and the appropriate regulatory 
     agency (as determined in accordance with section 5362(f) for 
     such person) of such violation or potential violation and the 
     remedy to be sought in such proceeding; and
       ``(2) allow such person 30 days to implement a reasonable 
     remedy for the violation or potential violation, consistent 
     with the factors described in subsection (e), and in 
     conjunction with such action as the appropriate regulatory 
     agency may take.

     ``Sec. 5365. Criminal penalties

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever violates this subchapter or the 
     rules or regulations issued under this subchapter shall be 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for 
     not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Permanent Injunction.--Upon conviction of a person 
     under this section, the court may enter a permanent 
     injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or 
     otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or 
     inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or 
     wagers.

     ``Sec. 5366. Circumventions prohibited

       ``Notwithstanding section 5361(2), a creditor, credit card 
     issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at 
     which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money 
     transmitting business, or international, national, regional, 
     or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction, 
     electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, 
     or money transmitting service, or any participant in such 
     network, or any interactive computer service or 
     telecommunications service, may be liable under this 
     subchapter if such creditor, issuer, institution, operator, 
     business, network, or participant has actual knowledge and 
     control of bets and wagers, and--
       ``(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet 
     website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, 
     received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or 
     wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; 
     or
       ``(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any 
     person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an 
     Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be 
     placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful 
     bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or 
     otherwise made.''.

     SEC. 4. INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN 
                   JURISDICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--In deliberations between the United States 
     Government and any other country on money laundering, 
     corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government 
     should--
       (1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and 
     relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet 
     gambling operations are being used for money laundering, 
     corruption, or other crimes;
       (2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of 
     foreign governments, through information sharing or other 
     measures, in the enforcement of this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act; and
       (3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money 
     Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering 
     typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling 
     operations are being used for money laundering purposes.
       (b) Report Required.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations 
     between the United States and other countries on issues 
     relating to Internet gambling.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL GAMBLING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Amendment to Definition.--Section 1081 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by designating the five undesignated paragraphs that 
     begin with ``The term'' as paragraphs (1) through (5), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), as so designated--
       (A) by striking ``wire communication'' and inserting 
     ``communication'';
       (B) by inserting ``satellite, microwave,'' after 
     ``cable,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``(whether fixed or mobile)'' after 
     ``connection''.
       (b) Increase in Penalty for Unlawful Wire Transfers of 
     Wagering Information.--Section 1084(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``two years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bond,  and Ms. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 628. A bill to require the construction at Arlington National 
Cemetery of a memorial to the crew of the Columbia Orbiter; ordered 
held at the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle 
Columbia was lost during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. We all mourn 
that tragic loss. But although our hearts have been filled with sorrow, 
we have also taken comfort in the knowledge that there was so much 
about these heroic astronauts for us to be grateful for.
  They were, indeed, remarkable people for they truly represented the 
best of the human spirit. As such, it is only fitting that we endeavor 
to remember them for their outstanding contributions.
  Today, along with Senators Bond and Mikulski, I introduce legislation 
to construct a memorial to the crew of the Columbia  Orbiter at 
Arlington National Cemetery.
  This memorial would be located in close proximity to the memorial to 
the crew of the Challenger Orbiter at Arlington Cemetery and that the 
design

[[Page 6251]]

 of the Columbia Memorial is intended to be consistent with the 
artistic sensibilities of the Challenger Memorial.
  This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Army, in 
consultation with NASA, to place the Columbia Memorial at Arlington and 
would make available $500,000 from funds already appropriated in the 
Fiscal Year 2003 DOD Appropriations Act for the Memorial.
  The bill also authorizes NASA to collect gifts and donations for the 
Columbia Memorial at Arlington Cemetery or for another appropriate 
memorial or monument. This authority to collect donations and gifts 
expires after 5 years.
  We will never forget the wonderful legacy of the Columbia  
astronauts. They have been an inspiration to us all.
  Lastly, I take this opportunity to invite any Senator to join with me 
in cosponsoring this legislation to establish this memorial to these 
outstanding individuals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be held at the desk until the 
close of business Wednesday, March 19, so that such Senators will be 
shown as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is my further hope 
that this bill will be speedily cleared on each side of the aisle so 
that it may be sent to the House next week, if at all possible. I send 
the bill to the desk, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill 
will be held at the desk until the close of business, Wednesday, March 
19.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution requiring the President to report to 
Congress specific information relating to certain possible consequences 
of the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate companion to 
a joint resolution already introduced in the House by Congressman 
Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
  This resolution is quite simple. It requires the President to report 
to Congress on the potential costs and consequences of military action 
in Iraq before ordering the United States Armed Forces to war in Iraq. 
This is a resolution that simply requires that this country know what 
it is we are getting into before, not after, war breaks out.
  Of course, it is my hope, and I very much believe the President when 
he asserts that it is his hope, that there will be no war. But judging 
from the administration's statements and Iraq's behavior, with each 
passing day it becomes more and more likely that the United States will 
engage in a major military operation in Iraq. It is entirely possible 
that we will undertake this operation without a great deal of 
international support. And while I have no doubt in my mind that our 
admirable men and women in uniform will be successful in any military 
engagement, I do have doubts about whether or not the American people 
truly understand the magnitude of the task the country is setting for 
itself--not only with regard to the military engagement itself, but 
with regard to occupation and reconstruction.
  I do not believe that Americans have been told much about what the 
future holds beyond the most optimistic of scenarios, and frankly I do 
not believe that Congress has heard much about the full range of 
potential scenarios either.
  This resolution would require that the President provide that 
information before ordering our men and women in uniform to war in 
Iraq.
  The resolution asks for a full accounting of the implications for 
homeland security of initiating military action against Iraq. It asks 
for an accounting of the implications for the fight against terrorism. 
It asks for an accounting of the implications for regional stability in 
the Middle East, and for an accounting of the implications of war in 
Iraq for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  This resolution recognizes that there may be positive and negative 
implications to consider. It does not pre-judge these issues. But it 
does acknowledge that Members of Congress, the elected representatives 
of the people, should be privy to the thinking of our experts and 
leaders in the executive branch about the effect of war in Iraq on all 
of these issues. It is our responsibility to weigh these questions, to 
weigh the consequences of starting a war.
  And, while I do not doubt for a moment the skills and competence of 
our brave service men and women, I do know that their efforts alone are 
not enough to ensure a lasting victory. It is crucial to the ultimate 
success of U.S. policy, that the American people understand the 
potential risks and the potential rewards of this national undertaking. 
We are considering the American military occupation of a major Middle 
Eastern country, and we are considering this in a very dangerous time. 
This country must have its eyes open before we move forward.
  This resolution also requires that the administration explain to 
Congress the steps that the United States and our allies will take to 
ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction will be safeguarded 
from dispersal to other rogue states or international terrorist 
organizations. If the goal is disarmament, then defeating Saddam 
Hussein's forces is not going to accomplish the mission at hand. Do we 
know where the WMD sites are? One would assume that we would share that 
information with the inspectors if we had it. But if we do not, how 
will we ensure that WMD and the means to make them are not dispersed 
across Iraq's borders, or sold off to the highest bidder, in the event 
of invasion. Saddam Huessein's order is despicable and dangerous. But 
disorder is dangerous too. Again, we need to understand the risks, and 
we need to understand the plan.
  This resolution requires the Administration to explain the plan for 
stabilization and reconstruction. Earlier this week the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee held a hearing on reconstruction in Iraq. We had 
hoped to get answers to some of the basic questions that senior 
officials from the State and Defense Departments were utterly unable to 
respond to as recently as February. But the Administration canceled the 
appearance of General Jay Garner, the director for the Pentagon's 
Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, who was slated to 
come before the committee. And so the Foreign Relations Committee of 
the United States Senate is left scanning the newspapers to get a sense 
of Administration plans, extrapolating from tidbits in the press to 
understand potential costs, and quizzing very capable experts--but 
experts not privy to Administration planning--about the universe of 
possibilities. This is simply unacceptable.
  This resolution calls for the Administration to clearly report to 
Congress on the nature and extent of the international support for 
military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against 
Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. I believe that 
this is the single most important issue before us. I know that I 
disagree with some of my colleagues on the wisdom of the 
Administration's policy in Iraq. But I am certain that none of us 
disagree on the proposition that the first priority of all of us in 
government must be the fight against terrorism. And we all know that we 
cannot fight terrorism alone. But I have heard directly from foreign 
officials who are telling me that it will be more difficult for them to 
be strong supporters of the fight against terrorism if the U.S. acts in 
Iraq without the United Nations' approval.
  This resolution calls on the Administration to explain clearly the 
steps that it will take to protect United States soldiers, allied 
forces, and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental 
hazards resulting from military operations. Everyone in this body has 
heard from veterans of the Gulf War who suffer and struggle even today, 
long after their period of sacrifice for their country should have 
ended. Based on what we know from these veterans, it is entirely 
reasonable to demand a plan now, not after the fact.
  The resolution also calls for the Administration to provide estimates 
of

[[Page 6252]]

the American and allied military casualties, Iraqi military casualties, 
and Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from military action against 
Iraq, and measures that will be taken to prevent civilian casualties 
and adhere to international humanitarian law. I know that America is a 
resilient society and a resolute society. But I am not at all sure that 
Americans have been prepared for anything but the best-case scenario, 
and that is a disservice to the American people and a disservice to our 
military.
  This resolution calls for an estimate of the full costs associated 
with military action against Iraq, including, but not limited to, 
providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people and to neighboring 
nations in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq with or 
without allied support, and securing long-term political stability in 
Iraq and the region insofar as it is affected by such military action. 
I can tell you that right now in the Budget committee, we are flying 
blind, trying to make fiscally responsible decisions for the future 
while the Administration remains unwilling to provide an honest 
accounting of what this war will cost, or what it will cost to meet the 
humanitarian needs of Iraq, or what the long process of reconstruction 
will cost. We know that these are not small figures. And unfortunately, 
it looks as though we will be proceeding without a great deal of 
international support, meaning less burden-sharing and more shouldering 
of this cost on our own. And that is why this resolution also calls for 
an accounting of the anticipated short and long term effects of 
military action on the United States economy and the Federal budget.
  I feel strongly that we should have demanded this information long 
ago. But we continue to ask, because Congress continues to have 
constitutional responsibilities. And I continue to hear from a 
tremendous number of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the 
prospect of a war with Iraq. The sources of their concern and their 
views on the issue vary, but in virtually all cases, they want to 
understand the range of options before us, and they are demanding more 
information about the costs and commitments they will incur as a result 
of decisions that we make here. They are right to insist on that 
information, to insist that we exercise some foresight here and wrestle 
honestly with the consequences that may follow from taking military 
action. Without such a discussion, we cannot hope to answer the most 
important question before us--will a given course of action make the 
U.S. more or less secure in the end.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to insist that 
the Administration provide this information before war breaks out. I 
voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq last 
fall, because I was uncomfortable with the Administration's shifting 
justifications for war, dissatisfied with the vague answers available 
at the time relating to our plans for dealing with weapons of mass 
destruction and reconstruction in Iraq, and most of all, because I was 
concerned that this action would actually alienate key allies in the 
fight against terrorism. But even those who voted differently surely 
must believe that we have a responsibility to anwser these questions 
now, and to share the answers with our constituents, so that this great 
country is operating not on wishful thinking or simple ignorance, but 
with an understanding of the facts before us, and the awesome task 
ahead.

                          ____________________