[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8912-8945]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Biden):
  S. 826. A bill to amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to 
provide for transitional housing assistance grants for child victims of 
domestic violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will provide much-needed grants for transitional housing services to 
victims of domestic violence who are brave enough to leave an abusive 
situation and seek a new life of safety and freedom. I am pleased that 
Senators Kennedy and Biden join me as original cosponsors of this 
important legislation.
  I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence early in my 
career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. Today, 
more than 50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children 
fleeing domestic violence. More than half the cities surveyed by the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2000 cited domestic violence as a primary 
cause of homelessness. The women and children who leave their abusers 
tend to have few, if any, funds with which they can support themselves. 
Shelters offer short-term assistance, but are overcrowded and unable to 
provide the support needed. Transitional housing allows women to bridge 
the gap between leaving a domestic violence situation and becoming 
fully self-sufficient, but such assistance is limited because there is 
currently no Federal funding for transitional housing specifically for 
those victims.
  If we truly seek an end to domestic violence, then transitional 
housing must be available to all those fleeing domestic abuse. The 
stable, sustainable home base for women and their children found in 
transitional housing allows women the opportunities to learn new job 
skills, participate in educational programs, work full-time jobs, and 
search for adequate child care in order to gain self-sufficiency. 
Without such resources, many women eventually return to situations 
where they are abused and even killed. This cycle of domestic abuse 
must end, and transitional housing assistance is one of the tools we 
can use to end it.
  A transitional housing grant program was last authorized for only one 
year as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 
in 2000. This program would have been administered through the 
Department of Health and Human Services and provided $25 million in 
fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, funds were never appropriated for the 
program, and the authorization has now expired.
  The grant program established in the bill I introduce today with 
Senators Kennedy and Biden would establish a new Department of Justice 
grant program that authorizes the Attorney General, acting in 
consultation with the Director of the Violence Against Women Office of 
the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. This program would have the benefit of a wide range of 
expertise in the three departments, and has enormous potential to 
improve people's lives. It would authorize $30 million in DOJ 
transitional housing grants for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
2008.
  This new grant program administered through DOJ will make a big 
impact in many areas of the country where availability of affordable 
housing is at an all-time low. There are many dedicated people working 
to provide victims of domestic violence with resources, such as Rose 
Pulliam of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual 
Assault, but they can not work alone. We should all be concerned with 
providing victims of domestic violence a safe place to gain the skills 
and stability needed to make

[[Page 8913]]

the transition to independence. This is an important component of 
reducing and preventing crimes that take place in domestic situations, 
ranging from assault and child abuse to homicide, and helping the 
victims of these crimes.
  I am please that our bill will be included in the conference report 
on the PROTECT Act, S. 151. I thank the conferees for including in the 
conference agreement this language for a grant program that will supply 
to victims fleeing domestic violence situations tangible means by which 
they may move on with their lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of this 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

 A Bill To Amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 To Provide for 
 Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Child Victims of Domestic 
                 Violence--Section-by-Section Analysis


section 1. transitional housing assistance grants for child victims of 
            domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault.

       This section amends Subtitle B of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13701 note; 108 Stat. 1925) to 
     include a new Chapter 11--Transitional Housing Assistance 
     Grants for Child Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or 
     Sexual Assault.
       Subsection (a) of this section authorizes the Attorney 
     General, acting in consultation with the Director of Violence 
     Against Women Office of the Department of Justice, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     to award grants to organizations, States, units of local 
     government, and Indian tribes to carry out programs to 
     provide assistance to minors, adults, and their dependents 
     who are homeless or in need of transitional housing or 
     related assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of 
     domestic violence, and for whom emergency shelter services or 
     other crisis intervention services are unavailable or 
     insufficient.
       Subsection (b) provides that the grants awarded may be used 
     for programs that provide short-term housing assistance, 
     which includes rental or utilities payments assistance and 
     assistance with related expenses such as payment of security 
     deposits and other costs incidental to relocation to 
     transitional housing for minors, adults and their dependents. 
     Grants will also be available for support services designed 
     to help those fleeing a situation of domestic violence to 
     locate and secure permanent housing, as well as integrate 
     into a community by providing with services, such as 
     transportation, counseling, child care services, case 
     management, employment counseling, and other assistance.
       Subsection (c) states that a minor, an adult, or a 
     dependent who receives assistance under this section may 
     receive that assistance for not more than 18 months. The 
     recipient of a grant under this section may waive the time 
     restriction for not more than an additional 6 month period 
     with respect to any minor, adult, or dependent, so long as he 
     or she has made a good-faith effort to acquire permanent 
     housing; and has been unable to acquire permanent housing.
       Subsection (d) specifies the application process for 
     transitional housing grants. Each eligible entity desiring 
     such grants shall submit an application to the Attorney 
     General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. 
     Each application shall describe the activities for which 
     assistance under this section is sought; and provide such 
     additional assurances as the Attorney General determines to 
     be essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
     the grant program.
       Subsection (e) states that a recipient of a Justice 
     Department transitional housing grant must annually prepare 
     and submit to the Attorney General a report describing the 
     number of minors, adults, and dependents assisted, and the 
     types of housing assistance and support services provided.
       Subsection (f) provides that the Attorney General, with the 
     Director of the Violence Against Women Office, must also 
     annually prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate a report that contains a compilation 
     of the information contained in the report submitted by grant 
     recipients. Copies of this report will also be transmitted to 
     the Office of Community Planning and Development at the 
     United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and 
     the Office of Women's Health at the United States Department 
     of Health and Human Services.
       Subsection (g) authorizes that there be appropriated to 
     carry out the Department of Justice transitional housing 
     grant program $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008. Of the amount made available to carry out this 
     section in any fiscal year, not more than 3 percent may be 
     used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative 
     expenses. States, together with the grantees within the State 
     (other than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal 
     year, not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in the fiscal year for grants for transitional 
     housing. The United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
     Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be 
     allocated not less than 0.25 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to this 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Allen, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 827. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
provide assistance for nutrient removal technologies to States in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 828. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to establish a pilot program to make grants to eligible 
institutions to develop, demonstrate, or disseminate information on 
practices, methods, or techniques relating to environmental education 
and training in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, Ms. 
        Mikulski, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 829. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Chesapeake Bay 
Environmental Restoration and Protection Program; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 830. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a 
program to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and 
protect forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 831. A bill to establish programs to enhance protection of the 
Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five 
measures to sustain and, indeed, renew the Federal commitment to 
restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are 
my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators 
Warner, Allen, Mikulski and Specter.
  This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, 
the historic Federal-State compact that launched the Chesapeake Bay 
restoration effort. Over the past two decades, we have made important 
progress both in putting in place the comprehensive, coordinated 
Federal-State-local and private sector management structure to guide 
the program and in specific initiatives to address key problems in the 
watershed. Three subsequent agreements were signed in 1987, in 1992 and 
in 2000, respectively, setting specific goals and action plans to 
restore the Chesapeake watershed. There are today over 700 groups and 
some 40 committees involved in the Bay Program. More than twenty-five 
Federal agencies are partnering with EPA and the Bay area States and 
there are numerous State agencies, local governmental organizations and 
citizen groups actively engaged in the restoration efforts. The level 
of public support and the degree of cooperation and coordination among 
all parties is unparalleled.
  Despite these efforts, the job of restoring the Chesapeake to levels 
of quality and productivity that existed earlier in this century is far 
from complete. In its latest report card issued in November, 2002, the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the Chesapeake Bay a score of 27 out of 
100--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be 
declared ``saved.'' The index underscores the continuing serious 
challenges facing the Bay. Nitrogen pollution from farms and city 
streets,

[[Page 8914]]

sewage treatment plants, and air deposition, among other so-called non-
point sources, continue to overload the Bay. Many of the living 
resources--oysters, shad, white perch, crabs--which are indicators of 
the Bay's health, are still in decline. Toxic chemicals are still 
present in the Bay's surface and bottom waters, having untold impacts 
on water quality and wildlife. A recent analysis undertaken by the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that the costs to clean the Bay and 
achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement over the course of 
the next seven years will exceed projected income by nearly $13 
billion. Pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced, 
thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant 
efforts must be made to restore living resources, buffer zones to 
protect rivers and streams need to be created, education and 
stewardship efforts must be dramatically expanded.
  While $13 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that 
the health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 
million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one 
of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 
64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that 
still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch 
in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, 
including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a 
major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the 
Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a 
one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major 
commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United 
States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the 
Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the 
highest levels of protection and restoration.
  The five measures that we are introducing today are intended to help 
address some of the highest priority needs in the watershed and provide 
a Federal blueprint for restoring the Bay in the years ahead. I want to 
address each of these measures briefly.
  The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal 
Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental 
Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction 
technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th 
Congress and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 
1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no 
further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water 
quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient over-enrichment 
remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The 
overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to 
rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay 
Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by 
more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay 
and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from 
all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual 
nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 
million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 
million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, 
will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.
  There are 304 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed: Pennsylvania, 123, Maryland, 65, Virginia, 86, New York, 18, 
Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 1, and West Virginia, 8. These plants 
contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year--one-fifth--of 
the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with 
nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/
liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year 
or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal 
technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant 
sayings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 
50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. 
They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients 
discharged to the Bay.
  My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital 
cost of upgrading the plants with nutrient removal technologies capable 
of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned 
wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to 
treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be 
eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay 
Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states 
with financing these water infrastructure needs.
  The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot 
Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in 
the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school 
students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a 
growing consensus that a major commitment to education--to promoting an 
ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 
million people who live in the watershed--is necessary if all of the 
other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. Expanding 
environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only 
to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but a more educated and 
informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for 
the environment, their community and their role in society as 
responsible citizens.
  One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is 
to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every 
school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' 
beginning with the class of 2005. Despite important efforts by Bay area 
states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage 
of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed have had 
the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive 
classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the 
Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and 
implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone 
exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is 
not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake 
more comprehensive environmental education programs.
  This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next 
three years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and 
training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal 
match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be 
used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula 
and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and 
support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor 
educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other 
things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education 
and Training Program that we established last year.
  The third measure would reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay 
Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which 
was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and 
local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake 
Bay. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 
million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration 
and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in

[[Page 8915]]

Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at 
Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater 
Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients 
delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted 
the current $10 million authorization.
  This legislation increases the authorization for this program from 
$10 million to $30 million. Consistent with all other environmental 
restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States 
and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent 
non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also 
establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and 
nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and 
protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would 
be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has 
extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants 
for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each 
year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of 
the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area 
states, this legislation is clearly unwarranted.
  The forth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would 
continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration 
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are 
occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most 
important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According 
to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 
350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. 
More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments 
resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading 
to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, 
less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its 
capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, 
such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all 
critical to the Bay clean-up effort.
  Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the 
Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, 
State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with 
Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay 
region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and 
stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration 
goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of 
technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a 
year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address 
watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship.
  With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the 
USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other 
provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve 
existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion 
and connection of contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; 
and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to 
plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to 
provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and 
agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service 
must have additional resources and authority, and that is what this 
measure seeks to provide.
  This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA 
Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing 
coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and 
planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local 
agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on-
the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional 
applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, 
suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 
million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase 
in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed.
  The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, 
Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office's authorities to address the 
living resource restoration and education and training goals and 
commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. It builds upon provisions 
contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 
2003, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To 
help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it 
codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training or, B-WET, Program--
the first federally funded environmental education program focused 
solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 
2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and establishes an 
aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab 
hatchery production.
  To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of data 
collected and complied by Federal, State and local government agencies 
and academic institutions--data such as information on weather, tides, 
currents circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, 
aquatic living resources and habitat conditions--and make this 
information more useful to resource managers, scientists and the 
public, it establishes an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for 
the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes a shallow water monitoring 
program to address critical gaps in information on near shore and river 
area water quality conditions needed for restoration of living 
resources. And to help meet Chesapeake 2000 living resource restoration 
goals, it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program an authorizes 
a new submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program.
  Mr. President, these measures would provide an important boost to our 
efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay and a blueprint for the course 
ahead. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the 
watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and 
supporting letters to printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to 
join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum 
contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most 
valuable and treasured natural resource.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 827

       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 ``Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
     Nutrient Removal Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) nutrient pollution from point sources and nonpoint 
     sources continues to be the most significant water quality 
     problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (2) a key commitment of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, an 
     interstate agreement among the Administrator, the Chesapeake 
     Bay Commission, the District of Columbia, and the States of 
     Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, is to achieve the goal 
     of correcting the nutrient-related problems in the Chesapeake 
     Bay by 2010;
       (3) by correcting those problems, the Chesapeake Bay and 
     its tidal tributaries may be removed from the list of 
     impaired bodies of water designated by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency under section 303(d) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d));
       (4) nearly 300 major sewage treatment plants located in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed annually discharge approximately 
     60,000,000 pounds of nitrogen, or the equivalent of 20 
     percent of the total nitrogen load, into the Chesapeake Bay; 
     and
       (5) nutrient removal technology is 1 of the most reliable, 
     cost-effective, and direct methods for reducing the flow of 
     nitrogen from point sources into the Chesapeake Bay.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to provide

[[Page 8916]]

     financial assistance to States and municipalities for use in 
     upgrading publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed with nutrient removal technologies; 
     and
       (2) to further the goal of restoring the water quality of 
     the Chesapeake Bay to conditions that are protective of human 
     health and aquatic living resources.

     SEC. 3. SEWAGE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GRANT PROGRAM.

       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                       ``TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

     ``SEC. 701. SEWAGE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definition of Eligible Facility.--In this section, 
     the term `eligible facility' means a municipal wastewater 
     treatment plant that--
       ``(1) as of the date of enactment of this title, has a 
     permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of at 
     least 500,000 gallons of wastewater per day; and
       ``(2) is located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed in any 
     of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, 
     Virginia, or West Virginia or in the District of Columbia.
       ``(b) Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall establish 
     a program within the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     provide grants to States and municipalities to upgrade 
     eligible facilities with nutrient removal technologies.
       ``(2) Priority.--In providing a grant under paragraph (1), 
     the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) consult with the Chesapeake Bay Program Office;
       ``(B) give priority to eligible facilities at which 
     nutrient removal upgrades would--
       ``(i) produce the greatest nutrient load reductions at 
     points of discharge; or
       ``(ii) result in the greatest environmental benefits to 
     local bodies of water surrounding, and the main stem of, the 
     Chesapeake Bay; and
       ``(iii) take into consideration the geographic distribution 
     of the grants.
       ``(3) Application.--
       ``(A) In general.--On receipt of an application from a 
     State or municipality for a grant under this section, if the 
     Administrator approves the request, the Administrator shall 
     transfer to the State or municipality the amount of 
     assistance requested.
       ``(B) Form.--An application submitted by a State or 
     municipality under subparagraph (A) shall be in such form and 
     shall include such information as the Administrator may 
     prescribe.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--A State or municipality that receives 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant to upgrade 
     eligible facilities with nutrient removal technologies that 
     are designed to reduce total nitrogen in discharged 
     wastewater to an average annual concentration of 3 milligrams 
     per liter.
       ``(5) Cost sharing.--
       ``(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     upgrading any eligible facility as described in paragraph (1) 
     using funds provided under this section shall not exceed 55 
     percent.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of upgrading any eligible facility as described in 
     paragraph (1) using funds provided under this section may be 
     provided in the form of funds made available to a State or 
     municipality under--
       ``(i) any provision of this Act other than this section 
     (including funds made available from a State revolving fund 
     established under title VI); or
       ``(ii) any other Federal or State law.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $132,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008, to remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--The Administrator may use not 
     to exceed 4 percent of any amount made available under 
     paragraph (1) to pay administrative costs incurred in 
     carrying out this section.''.

                                 S. 828

       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 ``Chesapeake Bay Environmental 
     Education Pilot Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) increasing public environmental awareness and 
     understanding through formal environmental education and 
     meaningful bay or stream field experiences are vital parts of 
     the effort to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay 
     ecosystem;
       (2) using the Chesapeake Bay watershed as an integrating 
     context for learning can help--
       (A) advance student learning skills;
       (B) improve academic achievement in core academic subjects; 
     and
       (C)(i) encourage positive behavior of students in school; 
     and
       (ii) encourage environmental stewardship in school and in 
     the community; and
       (3) the Federal Government, acting through the Secretary of 
     Education, should work with the Under Secretary for Oceans 
     and Atmosphere, the Chesapeake Executive Council, State 
     educational agencies, elementary schools and secondary 
     schools, and nonprofit educational and environmental 
     organizations to support development of curricula, teacher 
     training, special projects, and other activities, to increase 
     understanding of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to improve 
     awareness of environmental problems.

     SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 
                   GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.

       Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

  ``PART D--CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING GRANT 
                             PILOT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 4401. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Bay watershed state.--The term `Bay Watershed State' 
     means each of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the District 
     of Columbia.
       ``(2) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake 
     Executive Council' has the meaning given the term in section 
     307(e) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d(e)).
       ``(3) Eligible institution.--The term `eligible 
     institution' means--
       ``(A) a public elementary school or secondary school 
     located in a Bay Watershed State; and
       ``(B) a nonprofit environmental or educational organization 
     located in a Bay Watershed State.
       ``(4) Program.--The term `Program' means the Chesapeake Bay 
     Environmental Education and Training Grant Pilot Program 
     established under section 4402.

     ``SEC. 4402. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 
                   TRAINING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a grant 
     program, to be known as the `Chesapeake Bay Environmental 
     Education and Training Grant Pilot Program', to make grants 
     to eligible institutions to pay the Federal share of the cost 
     of developing, demonstrating, or disseminating information on 
     practices, methods, or techniques relating to environmental 
     education and training in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
       ``(c) Administration.--The Secretary may offer to enter 
     into a cooperative agreement or contract with the National 
     Fish and Wildlife Foundation established by the National Fish 
     and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3701 et 
     seq.), the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, a State 
     educational agency, or a nonprofit organization that carries 
     out environmental education and training programs, for 
     administration of the Program.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible institution that receives 
     a grant under the Program shall use the funds made available 
     through the grant to carry out a project consisting of--
       ``(1) design, demonstration, or dissemination of 
     environmental curricula, including development of educational 
     tools or materials;
       ``(2) design or demonstration of field practices, methods, 
     or techniques, including--
       ``(A) assessments of environmental or ecological 
     conditions; and
       ``(B) analyses of environmental pollution or other natural 
     resource problems;
       ``(3) understanding and assessment of a specific 
     environmental issue or a specific environmental problem;
       ``(4) provision of training or related education for 
     teachers or other educational personnel, including provision 
     of programs or curricula to meet the needs of students in 
     various age groups or at various grade levels;
       ``(5) provision of an environmental education seminar, 
     teleconference, or workshop for environmental education 
     professionals or environmental education students, or 
     provision of a computer network for such professionals and 
     students;
       ``(6) provision of on-the-ground activities involving 
     students and teachers, such as--
       ``(A) riparian forest buffer restoration; and
       ``(B) volunteer water quality monitoring at schools;
       ``(7) provision of a Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor 
     educational experience; or
       ``(8) development of distance learning or other courses or 
     workshops that are acceptable in all Bay Watershed States and 
     apply throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       ``(e) Required Elements of Program.--In carrying out the 
     Program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) solicit applications for projects;
       ``(2) select suitable projects from among the projects 
     proposed;
       ``(3) supervise projects;
       ``(4) evaluate the results of projects; and
       ``(5) disseminate information on the effectiveness and 
     feasibility of the practices, methods, and techniques 
     addressed by the projects.
       ``(f) Solicitation of Applications.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which

[[Page 8917]]

     amounts are first made available to carry out this part, and 
     each year thereafter, the Secretary shall publish a notice of 
     solicitation for applications for grants under the Program 
     that specifies the information to be included in each 
     application.
       ``(g) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under the Program, an eligible institution shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(h) Priority in Selection of Projects.--In making grants 
     under the Program, the Secretary shall give priority to an 
     applicant that proposes a project that will develop--
       ``(1) a new or significantly improved environmental 
     education practice, method, or technique, in multiple 
     disciplines, or a program that assists appropriate entities 
     and individuals in meeting Federal or State academic 
     standards relating to environmental education;
       ``(2) an environmental education practice, method, or 
     technique that may have wide application; and
       ``(3) an environmental education practice, method, or 
     technique that addresses a skill or scientific field 
     identified as a priority by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       ``(i) Maximum Amount of Grants.--Under the Program, the 
     maximum amount of a grant shall be $50,000.
       ``(j) Notification.--Not later than 3 days before making a 
     grant under this part, the Secretary shall provide 
     notification of the grant to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress.
       ``(k) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot 
     Program Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     concerning implementation of the Program.

     ``SEC. 4403. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       ``(a) Evaluation.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the 
     Secretary shall enter into a contract with an entity that is 
     not the recipient of a grant under this part to conduct a 
     detailed evaluation of the Program. In conducting the 
     evaluation, the Secretary shall determine whether the quality 
     of content, delivery, and outcome of the Program warrant 
     continued support of the Program.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress containing the results of the evaluation.

     ``SEC. 4404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this part $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2007.
       ``(b) Administrative Expenses.--Of the amounts made 
     available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not more 
     than 10 percent may be used for administrative expenses.''.

                                 S. 829

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

     SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3759) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``The assistance'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The assistance''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Agreements.--In providing assistance under this 
     subsection, the Secretary may enter into 1 or more 
     cooperative agreements, to provide for public involvement and 
     education and other project needs, with--
       ``(i) federally designated coastal ecosystem learning 
     centers; and
       ``(ii) such nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
     Federal interest for any project carried out under this 
     section may include, with the consent of the affected local 
     government, a nonprofit entity.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(2)(A)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``and relocations'' and 
     inserting ``relocations, and in-kind contributions''; and
       (B) by striking ``and relocations'' and inserting 
     ``relocations, and in-kind contributions'';
       (4) by striking subsection (i);
       (5) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
       (6) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Small Watershed Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program, 
     to be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation, to provide small watershed grants for technical 
     and financial assistance to local governments and nonprofit 
     organizations in the Chesapeake Bay region.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--A local government or nonprofit 
     organization that receives a grant under paragraph (1) shall 
     use funds from the grant only for implementation of 
     cooperative tributary basin strategies that address the 
     establishment, restoration, protection, or enhancement of 
     habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.''; and
       (7) by inserting after subsection (i) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (5)) the following:
       ``(j) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.
       ``(2) Annual grant expenditure.--Of the amount made 
     available under paragraph (1) to carry out this section for a 
     fiscal year, not more than 10 percent may be used to carry 
     out subsection (h) for the fiscal year.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 830

       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 ``Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
     Forestry Program Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) trees and forests are critical to the long-term health 
     and proper functioning of the Chesapeake Bay and the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (2) the Chesapeake Bay States are losing forest land to 
     urban growth at a rate of nearly 100 acres per day; and
       (3) the Forest Service has a vital role to play in 
     assisting States, local governments, and nonprofit 
     organizations in carrying out forest conservation, 
     restoration, and stewardship projects and activities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to 
     protect, restore, and manage forests in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed; and
       (2) to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     Agreement'' means the formal, voluntary agreements--
       (A) executed to achieve the goal of restoring and 
     protecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the living 
     resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
       (B) signed by the Council.
       (2) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' means each of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New 
     York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the 
     District of Columbia.
       (3) Coordinator.--The term ``Coordinator'' means the 
     Coordinator of the program designated under section 
     4(b)(1)(B).
       (4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Chesapeake Bay 
     Executive Council.
       (5) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed forestry program carried out under section 4(a).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service and the Coordinator.

     SEC. 4. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED FORESTRY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed forestry program under which the Secretary 
     shall make grants and provide technical assistance to 
     eligible entities to restore and conserve forests in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed, including grants and assistance--
       (1) to promote forest conservation and stewardship efforts 
     in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed;
       (2) to manage National Forest System land in the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed in a manner that protects water quality and 
     sustains watershed health;
       (3) to assist in developing and carrying out projects and 
     partnerships in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (4) to conduct research, assessment, and planning 
     activities to restore and protect forest land in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (5) to develop communication and education resources to 
     enhance public understanding of the value of forests in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed; and
       (6) to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       (b) Office; Coordinator.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) maintain an office within the Forest Service to carry 
     out the program; and
       (B) designate an employee of the Forest Service as 
     Coordinator of the program.
       (2) Duties.--As part of the program, the Coordinator, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary and the Chesapeake Bay 
     Program, shall--
       (A) provide grants and technical assistance to restore and 
     protect forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (B) enter into partnerships to carry out forest restoration 
     and conservation activities at a watershed scale using the 
     resources and programs of the Forest Service;
       (C) carry out activities, in collaboration with other units 
     of the Forest Service, that contribute to the goals of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
       (D) represent the Forest Service in deliberations of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Program; and
       (E) support and collaborate with the Forestry Work Group in 
     planning and implementing program activities.

[[Page 8918]]

       (c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive 
     assistance under the program, an entity shall be--
       (1) a Chesapeake Bay State;
       (2) a political subdivision of a Chesapeake Bay State;
       (3) an organization operating in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed that is described in section 501(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of that Code; or
       (4) any other person in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that 
     the Secretary determines to be eligible.
       (d) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     eligible entities under the program to carry out projects to 
     protect, restore, and manage forests in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant made under 
     the program shall not exceed 75 percent, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Types of projects.--The Secretary may make a grant to 
     an eligible entity for any project in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed that--
       (A) improves habitat and water quality through the 
     establishment, protection, or stewardship of riparian or 
     wetland forests or stream corridors;
       (B) builds the capacity of State and local organizations to 
     implement forest conservation, restoration, and stewardship 
     actions;
       (C) develops and implements watershed management plans 
     that--
       (i) address forest conservation needs; and
       (ii) reduce urban runoff;
       (D) provides outreach and assistance to private landowners 
     and communities to restore or conserve forests in the 
     watershed;
       (E) implements communication, education, or technology 
     transfer programs that broaden public understanding of the 
     value of trees and forests in sustaining and restoring the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (F) coordinates and implements community-based watershed 
     partnerships and initiatives that--
       (i) focus on the restoration or protection of urban and 
     rural forests; or
       (ii) focus programs of the Forest Service on restoring or 
     protecting watersheds;
       (G) provides enhanced forest resource data to support 
     watershed management;
       (H) enhances upland forest health to reduce risks to 
     watershed function and water quality; or
       (I) conducts inventory assessment or monitoring activities 
     to measure environmental change associated with projects 
     carried out under the program.
       (4) State watershed foresters.--Funds made available under 
     section 6 may be used by a Chesapeake Bay State to employ a 
     State watershed forester to carry out activities and 
     coordinate watershed-level projects relating to the program.
       (e) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Council, shall conduct a study of urban and rural forests in 
     the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including--
       (A) an assessment of forest loss and fragmentation in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (B) an identification of forest land within the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed that should be restored or protected; and
       (C) recommendations for expanded and targeted actions and 
     programs that are needed to achieve the goals of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after amounts are first 
     made available under section 6, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the study.

     SEC. 5. WATERSHED FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Council, shall establish a watershed forestry research 
     program for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (b) Administration.--In carrying out the watershed forestry 
     research program established under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) use a combination of applied research, modeling, 
     demonstration projects, implementation standards, strategies 
     for adaptive management, training, and education to meet the 
     needs of the residents of the Chesapeake Bay States for 
     managing forests in urban, developing, and rural areas;
       (2) solicit input from local managers and Federal, State, 
     and private researchers, with respect to air and water 
     quality, social and economic implications, environmental 
     change, and other Chesapeake Bay watershed forestry issues in 
     urban and rural areas; and
       (3) collaborate with the Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific 
     and Technical Advisory Committee and universities in the 
     Chesapeake Bay States to--
       (A) address issues in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
       (B) support modeling and informational needs of the 
     Chesapeake Bay program.
       (c) Watershed Forestry Research Strategy.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, 
     in collaboration with the Northeast Forest Research Station 
     and the Southern Forest Research Station, shall submit to 
     Congress a strategy for research to address Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed goals.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     program $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2010, of which--
       (1) not more than $500,000 shall be used to conduct the 
     study required under section 4(e); and
       (2) not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year shall be 
     used to carry out the watershed forestry research program 
     under section 5.

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       Not later than December 1, 2005, and annually thereafter, 
     the Coordinator shall submit to the Secretary a comprehensive 
     report on activities carried out under the program.
                                  ____


                                 S. 831

       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 ``NOAA Chesapeake Bay 
     Watershed Education, Training, and Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the Coastal 
     Prediction Center for the Chesapeake Bay established under 
     paragraph (1) of section 3(a).
       (2) Chesapeake 2000 agreement.--The term ``Chesapeake 2000 
     agreement'' means the agreement between the United States, 
     the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the 
     District of Columbia entered into on June 28, 2000.
       (3) Chesapeake executive council.--The term ``Chesapeake 
     Executive Council'' has the meaning given that term in 
     subsection (d) of section 307 of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15 
     U.S.C. 1511d).
       (4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Chesapeake Bay Office appointed under paragraph (2) of 
     section 307(a) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d).
       (5) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     State government, an institution of higher education, 
     including a community college, a not-for-profit organization, 
     or an appropriate private entity.
       (6) Chesapeake bay office.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     Office'' means the Chesapeake Bay Office within the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established under 
     paragraph (1) of section 307(a) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (15 
     U.S.C. 1511d).

     SEC. 3. COASTAL PREDICTION CENTER.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director, in collaboration with 
     scientific institutions located in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed, shall establish a Coastal Prediction Center for 
     the Chesapeake Bay.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Center established under 
     paragraph (1) are to serve as a knowledge bank for--
       (A) assembling, integrating, and modeling coastal 
     information and data related to the Chesapeake Bay and the 
     tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay from appropriate government 
     agencies and scientific institutions;
       (B) interpreting such information and data; and
       (C) organizing such information and data into predictive 
     products that are useful to policy makers, resource managers, 
     scientists, and the public.
       (b) Activities.--
       (1) Information and prediction system.--The Center shall 
     develop an Internet-based information system for integrating, 
     interpreting, and disseminating coastal information and 
     predictions concerning the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries 
     of the Chesapeake Bay related to--
       (A) climate;
       (B) land use;
       (C) coastal pollution;
       (D) coastal environmental quality;
       (E) ecosystem health and performance;
       (F) aquatic living resources and habitat conditions; and
       (G) weather, tides, currents, and circulation that affect 
     the distribution of sediments, nutrients, and organisms, 
     coastline erosion, and related physical and chemical events.
       (2) Agreements to provide data, information, and support.--
     The Director may enter into agreements with other entities of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
     and academic institutions, to provide and interpret data and 
     information, and provide appropriate support, relating to the 
     activities of the Center.
       (3) Agreements relating to information products.--The 
     Director may enter into grants, contracts, and interagency 
     agreements with eligible entities for the collection, 
     processing, analysis, interpretation, and electronic 
     publication of information products for the Center.

     SEC. 4. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED EDUCATION AND TRAINING 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--

[[Page 8919]]

       (1) In general.--The Director, in cooperation with the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council, shall establish a Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed education and training program.
       (2) Purposes.--The program established under paragraph (1) 
     shall continue and expand the Chesapeake Bay watershed 
     education programs offered by the Chesapeake Bay Office for 
     the purposes of--
       (A) improving the understanding of elementary and secondary 
     school students and teachers of the living resources of the 
     ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay; and
       (B) meeting the educational goals of the Chesapeake 2000 
     agreement.
       (b) Grant Program.--
       (1) Authorization.--The Director is authorized to award 
     grants to pay the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     described in paragraph (3)--
       (A) to a not-for-profit institution;
       (B) to a consortia of not-for-profit institutions;
       (C) to an elementary or secondary school located within the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (D) to a teacher at a school described in subparagraph (C); 
     or
       (E) a State Department of Education if any part of such 
     State is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (2) Criteria.--The Director is authorized to award grants 
     under this section based on the experience of the applicant 
     in providing environmental education and training projects 
     regarding the Chesapeake Bay watershed to a range of 
     participants and in a range of settings.
       (3) Functions and activities.--Grants awarded under this 
     section may be used to support education and training 
     projects that--
       (A) provide classroom education, including the use of 
     distance learning technologies, on the issues, science, and 
     problems of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed;
       (B) provide meaningful outdoor experience on the Chesapeake 
     Bay, or on a stream or in a local watershed of the Chesapeake 
     Bay, in the design and implementation of field studies, 
     monitoring and assessments, or restoration techniques for 
     living resources;
       (C) provide professional development for teachers related 
     to the science of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the 
     dissemination of pertinent education materials oriented to 
     varying grade levels;
       (D) demonstrate or disseminate environmental educational 
     tools and materials related to the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
       (E) demonstrate field methods, practices, and techniques 
     including assessment of environmental and ecological 
     conditions and analysis of environmental problems; and
       (F) develop or disseminate projects designed to--
       (i) enhance understanding and assessment of a specific 
     environmental problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed or of a 
     goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program; or
       (ii) protect or restore living resources of the Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed.
       (4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project authorized under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 75 
     percent of the total cost of that project.
       (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the 
     Director, in consultation with the Chesapeake Executive 
     Council, shall submit to Congress a report through the 
     Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration regarding the program established under 
     subsection (a) and, on the appropriate role of Federal, 
     State, and local governments in continuing such program.

     SEC. 5. STOCK ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director, in cooperation with the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council, shall establish a Chesapeake 
     Bay watershed stock enhancement and habitat restoration 
     program.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established in 
     paragraph (1) are to support the restoration of oysters and 
     submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and 
     enhance education programs related to aquaculture.
       (b) Activities.--To carry out the purpose of the program 
     established in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), the Director 
     is authorized to enter into grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements with an eligible entity to support--
       (1) the establishment of oyster hatcheries;
       (2) the establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation 
     propagation programs;
       (3) the development of education programs related to 
     aquaculture; and
       (4) other activities that the Director determines are 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of such program.

     SEC. 6. CHESAPEAKE BAY AQUACULTURE EDUCATION.

       The Director is authorized to make grants and enter into 
     contracts with an institution of higher education, including 
     a community college, for the purpose of--
       (1) supporting education in Chesapeake Bay aquaculture 
     sciences and technologies; and
       (2) developing aquaculture processes and technologies to 
     improve production, efficiency, and sustainability of disease 
     free oyster spat and submerged aquatic vegetation.

     SEC. 7. SHALLOW WATER MONITORING PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director, in cooperation with the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council and scientific institutions 
     located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, shall establish a 
     program to monitor shallow water throughout the Chesapeake 
     Bay.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the program established in 
     paragraph (1) shall be to provide data on water quality 
     conditions necessary for restoration of living resources in 
     near-shore and tidal tributary areas of the Chesapeake Bay.
       (b) Activities.--To carry out the purpose of the program 
     established in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), the Director 
     is authorized to carry out, or enter into grants, contracts, 
     and cooperative agreements with an eligible entity to carry 
     out activities--
       (1) to collect, analyze, and disseminate scientific 
     information necessary for the management of living marine 
     resources and the marine habitat associated with such 
     resources;
       (2) to interpret the information described in paragraph 
     (1);
       (3) to organize the information described in paragraph (1) 
     into products that are useful to policy makers, resource 
     managers, scientists, and the public; or
       (4) that will otherwise further the purpose of such 
     program.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Chesapeake Bay Office.--Subsection (e) of section 307 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 1511d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$8,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2008''.
       (b) Programs.--There is authorized to be appropriated the 
     following amounts to carry out the provisions of this Act:
       (1) $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
     to carry out the provisions of section 3.
       (2) $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008 to carry out the provisions of section 4.
       (3) $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008 to carry out the provisions of section 5.
       (4) $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008 to carry out the provisions of section 6.
       (5) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008 to carry out the provisions of section 7.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Foundation,

                                     Annapolis, MD, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: We would like to express our deepest 
     appreciation for your continued leadership on behalf of the 
     Chesapeake Bay. Your proposed legislation for the 108th 
     Congress will provide essential new resources and policy 
     direction for top Chesapeake priorities, consistent with the 
     ambitious goals of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. We 
     pledge our support for the legislation, and we stand ready to 
     help you in any way possible to secure enactment.
       We are particularly pleased with your proposed Chesapeake 
     Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, which will 
     significantly help reduce nitrogen pollution by providing 
     first-time federal assistance to local communities for 
     improving sewage treatment throughout the watershed. The bill 
     will provide $660 million over five years, and more than 300 
     major sewage treatment plants will be eligible to participate 
     in the new federal program. Importantly, the legislation will 
     limit assistance to only those treatment plants willing to 
     install state-of-the-art pollution controls, which is 
     precisely consistent with the scientific conclusions of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Program.
       Your other Chesapeake initiatives will strengthen 
     environmental education, improve forestry management, and 
     enhance the work of the Army Corps of Engineers. Together, 
     these bills will authorize significant new federal financial 
     support for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
       This year marks the 20th anniversary of the modern 
     Chesapeake Bay Program. While we have made significant 
     progress in the past two decades, Chesapeake scientists now 
     believe we must redouble our efforts if we are to succeed in 
     the goals that we all share. Your legislation will provide 
     new direction and federal resources to the Chesapeake at a 
     key time.
       We thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of the 
     Chesapeake Bay.
           Sincerely,

                                             Robert M. Ferris,

                                                   Vice President,
     Environmental Protection and Restoration.
                                  ____



                                    Chesapeake Bay Commission,

                                     Annapolis, MD, April 9, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: Federal funding has played a crucial 
     role in supporting the

[[Page 8920]]

     Chesapeake Bay restoration. Thanks in large part to your 
     efforts, federal funds have supported nearly one-fifth of the 
     projects currently underway.
       However, in signing Chesapeake 2000, the signatories (both 
     state and federal) vowed to substantially enhance their 
     efforts to reduce nutrient pollution and restore the Bay's 
     fisheries. With science driving these decisions, the 
     expenditure of some $18.7 billion dollars will be required to 
     restore the Bay to its former health and abundance. A 
     commitment of this size will require the substantial 
     involvement of all partners, including the federal, state, 
     and local governments and the private sector.
       With this financial need solidly in focus, we are writing 
     to convey our unanimous, tri-state support for your 
     Chesapeake Bay legislative package. Together, these five 
     bills promote the kinds of enhanced funding and technical 
     assistance called for in Cheasapeake 2000 (C2K). We hope that 
     the 108th Congress will join us in our support of:
       1. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Act;
       2. The reauthorization and improvement of The Chesapeake 
     Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program of WRDA.
       3. The Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program 
     Act;
       4. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act; and
       5. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, Training and 
     Restoration Act.
       The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance 
     Act is of keen interest to this Commission. As a signatory to 
     C2K, we have committed to reducing the Bay's nitrogen loads 
     by 110 million pounds. Translated, this goal represents a 
     doubling of the load reductions achieved since 1983. If 
     accomplished, it will restore the Bay waters to conditions 
     that are clean, clear and productive.
       The Act provides grants to upgrade the major wastewater 
     treatment plants (WWTP) in our six-state watershed with 
     nutrient removal technologies. It will allow the region to 
     demonstrate that state-of-the-art nutrient removal is 
     possible on a large scale. It will single-handedly result in 
     the removal of 41 million pounds of nitrogen, or 40 percent 
     of the total nitrogen reduction needed. Only the federal 
     government is in the position to trigger such remarkable 
     reductions. It is an opportunity that should not and cannot 
     be ignored.
       In addition to the removal of nitrogen loads from our 
     WWIPs, The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act will help to 
     control pollution running off the land. Forests and riparian 
     buffers play a critical role in filtering and absorbing 
     sediment and nutrient runoff, while providing valuable 
     habitat for animals and birds and food and shelter for fish. 
     Enhanced support for the Bay Program Forest Service will ramp 
     up its provision of interstate coordination, technical 
     assistance, and forest assessment and planning services that 
     are otherwise limited or unavailable in our region.
       Finally, let us emphasize the important support for 
     education that this package provides. Sustaining hard won 
     progress in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay will 
     ultimately rest in the hands of citizens and their 
     communities. Sustainability, then, rests in our ability to 
     provide ample education and opportunity for community 
     involvement. This effort to supply financial and technical 
     support is provided by the The Chesapeake Bay Environmental 
     Education Pilot Program Act and the NOAA Chesapeake Bay 
     Watershed Education, Training and Restoration Act. Education 
     and community engagement are two activities of C2K that are 
     woefully underfunded. The monies provided by these two acts 
     will substantially improve our ability to keep our 
     commitments on track and reach our stated goals.
       Since the Bay Program's inception the federal government 
     has been a strong partner, providing approximately 18 percent 
     of the funds needed. For the federal government to maintain 
     its level of support in the face of rising costs to attain 
     our C2K objectives, it will need to triple its investment. 
     Your five-bill package puts the federal government soundly on 
     this track. As a Bay-region leader, you are to be commended. 
     Please instruct us as to how we can further support these 
     measures.
           Sincerely,
                                        Delegate Robert S. Bloxom,
                                                         Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 832. A bill to provide that bonuses and other extraordinary or 
excessive compensation of corporate insiders and wrongdoers may be 
included in the bankruptcy estate; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act.'' This bill would clarify 
that the bonuses and other excessive compensation of corporate 
directors and wrongdoers can be brought back into a bankruptcy estate 
when a company goes bankrupt. It is only fair that corporate officers 
and employees who have engaged in wrongdoing and violated the 
securities and accounting laws should not be able to make money off of 
a company which has gone bankrupt, while company employees, 
shareholders and creditors are left carrying the burden of the 
bankruptcy. Moreover, corporate officers and insiders should not be 
allowed to keep their bonuses and loans when a company has done so 
poorly to go bankrupt.
  Currently, the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to recover assets 
which a debtor has previously distributed to creditors within a certain 
time period prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. This allows a 
trustee to increase a debtor's assets for the fair treatment and 
equitable distribution of assets among all creditors, as well as to 
help shore up a debtor's assets during a reorganization.
  Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code currently allows a trustee to 
recover assets from an insider made within a year of the filing of a 
bankruptcy petition. Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a 
trustee to recover transfers of assets, made within one year, where 
there has been a fraudulent transaction or where a debtor has received 
less than what is reasonably equivalent in value. However, the 
Bankruptcy Code is not clear as to whether these sections would include 
the bonuses and other extraordinary or excessive compensation of 
officers, directors or other company employees. That needs to change.
  The Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act clarifies section 547 
of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, 
loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary 
or excessive compensation as determined by the court, made to an 
insider, officer or director and made within one year before the date 
of the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
  In addition, the bill amends section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to 
provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified 
deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive 
compensation, as determined by the court, paid to an officer, director 
or employee who has committed securities or accounting violations, 
within 4 years of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The reason 
that the bill extends the present one year reach-back period for 
fraudulent transfers to four years is because a majority of States have 
adopted a four year time period or the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 
(which allows for 4 years).
  The plain fact is that corporate officers and employees who have 
violated the law, as well as corporate officials who have not done a 
good job in managing a company, should not be allowed to benefit where 
their actions have contributed to the downfall of the company. 
Corporate mismanagement and irresponsibility should not be rewarded, 
and the bad guys need to be held accountable. The changes to the 
Bankruptcy Code contained in this bill are tied to excessiveness and 
wrongdoing and are fair. We need to do something about bringing more 
accountability and fairness to the system, and the Corporate 
Accountability in Bankruptcy Act does that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 833. A bill to increase the penalties to be imposed for a 
violation of fire regulations applicable to the public lands, National 
Parks System lands, or National Forest System lands when the violation 
results in damage to public or private property, to specify the purpose 
for which collected fines may be used, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
   Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Public 
Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003, a bill that I am 
introducing, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 833

       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 ``Public Lands Fire 
     Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003''.

[[Page 8921]]



     SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC LAND FIRE 
                   REGULATIONS RESULTING IN PROPERTY DAMAGE.

       (a) Increased Penalties on Interior Lands.--Notwithstanding 
     section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)) or section 3 of the Act of August 
     25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 3), a violation of the rules regulating 
     the use of fire by visitors and other users of lands 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management or National 
     Park System lands shall be punished by a fine of not less 
     than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or 
     both, if the violation results in damage to public or private 
     property.
       (b) Increased Penalties on National Forest System Lands.--
     Notwithstanding the eleventh undesignated paragraph under the 
     heading ``SURVEYING THE PUBLIC LANDS'' of the Act of June 4, 
     1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), a violation of the rules regulating the 
     use of fire by visitors and other users of National Forest 
     System lands shall be punished by a fine of not less than 
     $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 
     if the violation results in damage to public or private 
     property.
       (c) Relation to Other Sentence of Fine Authority.--The 
     maximum fine amount specified in subsections (a) and (b) 
     applies in lieu of the fine otherwise applicable under 
     section 3571 of title 18, United States Code.
       (d) Use of Collected Fines.--Any moneys received by the 
     United States as a result of a fine imposed for a violation 
     of fire rules applicable to lands administered by the Bureau 
     of Land Management, National Park System lands, or National 
     Forest System lands shall be available to the Secretary of 
     the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may 
     be, without further appropriation and until expended, for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) To cover the cost to the United States of any 
     improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work rendered 
     necessary by the action that resulted in the fine.
       (2) To reimburse the affected agency for the cost of the 
     response to the action that resulted in the fine, including 
     investigations, damage assessments, and legal actions.
       (3) To increase public awareness of rules, regulations, and 
     other requirements regarding the use of fire on public lands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 834. A bill for the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a private bill on 
behalf of Tanya Andrea Goudeau and her family to grant Tanya immediate 
relative status. The Goudeaus adopted Tanya in 2001, but due to 
misinformation and an undue delay in the adoption process, the adoption 
was not completed until a week after Tanya's 16th birthday. As a 
result, Tanya was no longer considered a child under the law and 
therefore was not eligible to receive permanent resident status. 
Currently, Tanya faces deportation to Sri Lanka where she no longer has 
a family to care for her. What is more, she is now legally a part of 
the Goudeau family. Tanya is the Goudeau's daughter and they are her 
parents.
  Tanya Goudeau was born to Mrs. Goudeau's sister in 1984 in Sri Lanka. 
During a visit with the Goudeaus in 1999 at their home in Baker, LA, 
Tanya's mother announced that she was moving and that she did not want 
any further contact with her daughter. Tanya's father had walked out on 
the family 11 years earlier and could not be located. The Goudeaus 
realized that Tanya had no family to return to and they decided to 
adopt her. They could not bear to send their niece back to her native 
home where she would be on her own at age 14. Without any children of 
their own, they lovingly took Tanya into their family and have lovingly 
cared for her for the past 4 years.
  Tanya has overcome her mother's and father's abandonment and after a 
period of adjustment, she has grown to love her new home. She is 
currently a senior in high school with aspirations to earn an advanced 
medical degree. Without the passage of this private bill, Tanya could 
face deportation to Sir Lanka at a time when she should be focused on 
her college degree with the support of her parents. The Goudeaus' 
situation is an unintended consequence of the requirement to complete 
the adoption process before a child's sixteenth birthday. We need to 
grant Tanya immediate relative status to allow the Goudeaus to remain a 
family.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 835. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
student loan borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation, 
to provide notice regarding loan consolidation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, throughout the next month, hundreds of 
thousands of high school seniors across this Nation will open up their 
mailboxes and receive acceptance letters for college. They will begin 
planning where they will live and what they will study for the next 2 
or 4 years. These students will dream big and have grand ideas about 
what college will mean for them, but before they can officially enroll, 
they will be slapped in the face with a very real question: how are 
they going to pay for it?
  Attending an institution of higher education can be expensive. 
According to the National Center for Higher Education, the cost of 
attending two or four year, public and private colleges has increased 
faster than both inflation and family income. In 2000, families in the 
lowest quartile of the income bracket spent as much as 25 percent of 
their annual income to send their children to a public, four year 
college, compared with only 13 percent in 1980. At the same time, 
though, sources of federal assistance are diminishing. The Federal Pell 
Grant program, which was designed to help alleviate the financial 
burden on low income families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of 
tuition at public, four year colleges in 1999, whereas Pell Grants 
covered 98 percent of the costs in 1986.
  As the cost of college increases and the impact of Federal grants 
decreases, school loans have become a gateway to attending college for 
the majority of students. However, because of a provision in the 1998 
re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, entitled the ``Single 
Lender Rule,'' students who have all of their student loans from a 
single lender are barred from getting a lower rate by consolidating 
their loans with a different lender. The financial benefits for the 
consumer by using a different lender for loan consolidation are easily 
seen in other areas of finance, such as homeowners refinancing their 
mortgage. What appears to me to be an arbitrarily contrived limitation 
that protects lenders more than students has prevented college 
graduates from consolidating their multiple student loans into a 
single, new loan, thus driving up the cost of attending college.
  Having a college degree is fast becoming a necessary pre-requisite to 
long-term success. That is why I rise today to introduce to my 
colleagues the ``Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003.'' 
This bill would repeal the Single Lender rule, and knock down this 
arbitrarily contrived barrier that hinders students from gaining access 
to higher education.
  Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait to repeal 
the Single Lender rule when we readdress the Higher Education Act? As 
the close of this school year fast approaches, and high school 
graduates begin making important decisions about their educational 
future, we cannot put off the repeal of the Single Lender rule. The 
effects of maintaining the Single Lender rule are devastating. In 2001, 
143,504 students were forced to pay higher rates on their student loans 
because the Single Lender rule denied them benefits of loan 
consolidation. Over 3,300 of these students were from my home State of 
Louisiana. We cannot force another class of college students to pay 
more for college than necessary. Studies have shown that a major factor 
influencing a student's choice of college and degree program is the 
amount of debt connected with the type of institution of profession. 
These choices greatly impact not only the lives of the students 
themselves, but also society as a whole. At a time when our society is 
in dire need of nurses, teachers, and many other professions, we must 
not frighten students away from college for fear of substantial debt 
burdens after their graduation.
  The greatest investment we can make in our future is in the education 
of our children. Today, with the changing world, educating our children 
includes assisting those who desire to obtain a college degree. By not 
repealing the Single Lender rule, we will be continuing to drive up the 
cost of college,

[[Page 8922]]

thus impeding access, especially for lower-income students. According 
to the Census Bureau, the income gap between people receiving a 
bachelor's degree and people receiving only a high school diploma has 
increased from 57 percent in 1975, to 76 percent in 2002. By 
financially hindering the entrance into college, we will be adding to 
this income gap, which only further hurts our already recessed economy.
  The Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act is an important first 
step to making college more affordable for all American families. I 
hope and urge my colleagues to join me in making the dream of a college 
education a reality for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 836. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend by 
five years the period for the provision by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs of noninstitutional extended care services and required nursing 
home care; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill 
that is enormously important to veterans in my State of West Virginia 
and to all veterans across this great Nation. The bill I am 
reintroducing will extend VA's ability to provide long-term care under 
two specific authorities of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and 
Benefits Act of 1999.
  In November of 1999, Congress passed comprehensive long-term care 
legislation that required VA for the first time to provide extended 
care services to enrolled veterans. Section 101 of Public Law 106-117 
directed VA to provide nursing home care to any veteran who is in need 
of such care for a service-connected condition, or who is 70 percent or 
more service-connected disabled. In addition, VA was to have provided 
non-institutional care, such as respite care, adult day care, home-
based primary care, homemaker/home health aide and skilled home health 
care to all enrolled veterans. Without extension, both authorities will 
expire in December, 2003.
  Long-term care for veterans has been, and remains, a priority for me. 
And the extension of these services is critically important to veterans 
and their families in every State across this country.
  Prior to the passage of the Millennium Health Care Bill, when 
families in West Virginia were told by VA that the long-term care 
services they needed were not available to them, they would turn to me 
in despair. I still frequently hear from families of aging, sick 
veterans who want desperately to keep their husbands, fathers or 
brothers at home, but in order to do that they need help.
  Many of our aging veterans are suffering from debilitating diseases, 
such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or a stroke. A large number of 
these veterans are WW II combat veterans, whose wives are lovingly 
caring for them at home with very limited resources. The 
noninstitutional long-term care services currently available within VA 
provide an array of care that can be a lifesaver for the dedicated care 
givers of critically ill veterans, and allow these veterans to remain 
at home.
  While the purpose of this bill is clear, let me explain the reason it 
is so necessary. Within three years of the enactment of Public Law 106-
117, VA was to evaluate and report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Veterans' Affairs on its experience in providing services under both 
the nursing home care and non-institutional care provisions, and to 
make recommendations on extending or making permanent these provisions. 
These programs were given an expiration date of four years.
  But unfortunately, very little has happened with these long-term care 
programs. It was not until October, 2001, that VA addressed the 
requirements of the law by issuing a directive on such noninstitutional 
long-term care services as respite and adult day care. And even now, we 
find that how these services are being provided, if at all, varies 
widely throughout the VA health care system. The delay in implementing 
these programs will greatly impede our ability to adequately study 
their effects.
  Additionally, in September, 2001, two years after Congress passed the 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, I asked the General 
Accounting Office to identify the long-term care services that are 
available at each of VA's medical centers, and the standards and 
criteria used by VA to determine which veterans may receive these 
services.
  GAO is expected to release their final report on VA long-term care by 
May 1, but their preliminary report confirms that VA has not made much 
progress in implementing noninstitutional long-term care services for 
veterans.
  Therefore, I believe it is critical that both long-term care 
authorities, due to expire in December of this year, be extended for an 
additional five years, until December 31, 2008, so that we can be 
properly evaluate the services and, if need be, make appropriate 
adjustments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Fitzgerald, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 837. A bill to establish a commission to conduct a comprehensive 
review of Federal agencies and programs and to recommend the 
elimination or realignment of duplicative, wasteful, or outdated 
functions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal 
Agencies, CARFA, Act.
  We need accountability in Federal spending. With our Nation at war 
and with a recovering economy, the Congress needs to take concrete 
steps to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being efficiently 
used by the Federal Government.
  Indeed, few things are more upsetting to my Kansas constituents than 
to see wasteful Federal spending. Kansans often say to me: ``I do not 
mind paying my taxes, but it is infuriating to see my hard-earned money 
being poorly spent by the Federal Government. If I am going to work 
hard to earn this money, I want it spent wisely.'' These are real 
concerns that need to be addressed.
  The bipartisan legislation that I introduce today with 13 original 
cosponsors would help to provide accountability to Federal spending by 
establishing a commission to review Federal domestic agencies and 
programs within agencies.
  The Senate is already on record strongly supporting this concept 
through an amendment that I offered to the Senate Budget Resolution. On 
March 21, the Senate passed S.A. 282 to the budget resolution by a 
voice vote. S.A. 282 briefly describes the CARFA Act, expressing the 
sense of the Senate that a commission should be established to review 
Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, and that the 
commission should submit to Congress: (1) recommendations to realign or 
eliminate wasteful agencies and programs within agencies; and (2) 
legislation to implement its recommendations.
  The CARFA Act is modeled on successful commissions of the past. If 
enacted, the 12-member presidentially appointed commission would 
conduct a 2-year review of Federal domestic agencies and programs 
within agencies, using a narrow set of criteria in its review.
  Upon completion of its evaluation, the commission would submit to 
Congress both its recommendations of agencies and programs that should 
be realigned or eliminated, and proposed legislation to implement its 
recommendations. As with successful commissions of the past, the 
Congress would consider this legislation on an expedited basis with a 
comment period from the committees of jurisdiction. Within the 
expedited timeframe, the Congress would take an up-or-down vote on the 
legislation as a whole without amendment.

[[Page 8923]]

  I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 840. A bill to establish the Great Basin National Heritage Route 
in the States of Nevada and Utah; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Ensign, 
Senator Hatch, and Senator Bennett to introduce this bill, which will 
establish a National Heritage Route in eastern Nevada and western Utah.
  National Heritage areas, corridors, and routes are regions in which 
residents and businesses, as well as local and tribal governments join 
together in partnership to conserve and celebrate cultural heritage and 
special landscapes. The Great Basin National Heritage Route includes 
historic mining camps and ghost towns, Mormon and other pioneer 
settlements, as well as Native American communities. The Route passes 
through classic Great Basin country along the trails of the Pony 
Express and the Overland Stage. Cultural resources within the route 
include Native American archaeological sites dating back to the Fremont 
Culture.
  Our bill will also help highlight some of the Great Basin's natural 
wonders. Passing through Millard County, Utah, and parts of the 
Duckwater Reservation and White Pine County in Nevada, the Route 
contains items of great biological and geological interest. In Nevada, 
it encompasses forests of bristlecone pine, the oldest living things on 
the earth. In Utah, the Route includes native Bonneville cutthroat 
trout as well as other distinctive species and ecological communities.
  Designation of the corridor as a Heritage Route will ensure the 
protection of key educational and recreational opportunities in 
perpetuity without compromising traditional local use of the land. The 
Great Basin National Heritage Route will provide a framework for 
celebrating Nevada's and Utah's rich historic, archeological, cultural, 
and natural resources for both visitors and residents.
  The bill will establish a board of directors consisting of local 
officials from both counties and tribes to manage the area designated 
by the route. The board will develop a management plan within 3 years 
of the bill's passage, and the Secretary of the Interior will enter 
into a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Directors for the 
management of the resources of the heritage route. Our legislation also 
authorizes up to $10 million to carry out the Act but limits Federal 
funding to no more then 50 percent of the project's cost. The bill 
allows the Secretary to provide assistance for 15 years after the bill 
is enacted.
  Our bill benefits not just the people of Nevada and Utah, but 
citizens of all States. It highlights an area of outstanding cultural 
and natural value and brings people together to celebrate values that 
they can be proud of. 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. 840

       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 ``Great Basin National 
     Heritage Route Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the natural, cultural, and historic heritage of the 
     North American Great Basin is nationally significant;
       (2) communities along the Great Basin Heritage Route 
     (including the towns of Delta, Utah, Ely, Nevada, and the 
     surrounding communities) are located in a classic western 
     landscape that contains long natural vistas, isolated high 
     desert valleys, mountain ranges, ranches, mines, historic 
     railroads, archaeological sites, and tribal communities;
       (3) the Native American, pioneer, ranching, mining, timber, 
     and railroad heritages associated with the Great Basin 
     Heritage Route include the social history and living cultural 
     traditions of a rich diversity of nationalities;
       (4) the pioneer, Mormon, and other religious settlements, 
     and ranching, timber, and mining activities of the region 
     played and continue to play a significant role in the 
     development of the United States, shaped by--
       (A) the unique geography of the Great Basin;
       (B) an influx of people of Greek, Chinese, Basque, Serb, 
     Croat, Italian, and Hispanic descent; and
       (C) a Native American presence (Western Shoshone, Northern 
     and Southern Paiute, and Goshute) that continues in the Great 
     Basin today;
       (5) the Great Basin housed internment camps for Japanese-
     American citizens during World War II, 1 of which, Topaz, was 
     located along the Heritage Route;
       (6) the pioneer heritage of the Heritage Route includes the 
     Pony Express route and stations, the Overland Stage, and many 
     examples of 19th century exploration of the western United 
     States;
       (7) the Native American heritage of the Heritage Route 
     dates back thousands of years and includes--
       (A) archaeological sites;
       (B) petroglyphs and pictographs;
       (C) the westernmost village of the Fremont culture; and
       (D) communities of Western Shoshone, Paiute, and Goshute 
     tribes;
       (8) the Heritage Route contains multiple biologically 
     diverse ecological communities that are home to exceptional 
     species such as--
       (A) bristlecone pines, the oldest living trees in the 
     world;
       (B) wildlife adapted to harsh desert conditions;
       (C) unique plant communities, lakes, and streams; and
       (D) native Bonneville cutthroat trout;
       (9) the air and water quality of the Heritage Route is 
     among the best in the United States, and the clear air 
     permits outstanding viewing of the night skies;
       (10) the Heritage Route includes unique and outstanding 
     geologic features such as numerous limestone caves, classic 
     basin and range topography with playa lakes, alluvial fans, 
     volcanics, cold and hot springs, and recognizable features of 
     ancient Lake Bonneville;
       (11) the Heritage Route includes an unusual variety of open 
     space and recreational and educational opportunities because 
     of the great quantity of ranching activity and public land 
     (including city, county, and State parks, national forests, 
     Bureau of Land Management land, and a national park);
       (12) there are significant archaeological, historical, 
     cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources in the 
     Great Basin to merit the involvement of the Federal 
     Government in the development, in cooperation with the Great 
     Basin Heritage Route Partnership and other local and 
     governmental entities, of programs and projects to--
       (A) adequately conserve, protect, and interpret the 
     heritage of the Great Basin for present and future 
     generations; and
       (B) provide opportunities in the Great Basin for education; 
     and
       (13) the Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership shall serve 
     as the management entity for a Heritage Route established in 
     the Great Basin.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to foster a close working relationship with all levels 
     of government, the private sector, and the local communities 
     within White Pine County, Nevada, Millard County, Utah, and 
     the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation;
       (2) to enable communities referred to in paragraph (1) to 
     conserve their heritage while continuing to develop economic 
     opportunities; and
       (3) to conserve, interpret, and develop the archaeological, 
     historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational 
     resources related to the unique ranching, industrial, and 
     cultural heritage of the Great Basin, in a manner that 
     promotes multiple uses permitted as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, without managing or regulating land use.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Great basin.--The term ``Great Basin'' means the North 
     American Great Basin.
       (2) Heritage route.--The term ``Heritage Route'' means the 
     Great Basin National Heritage Route established by section 
     4(a).
       (3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership established 
     by section 4(c).
       (4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the plan developed by the management entity under section 
     6(a).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. GREAT BASIN NATIONAL HERITAGE ROUTE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Great Basin 
     National Heritage Route to provide the public with access to 
     certain historical, cultural, natural, scenic, and 
     recreational resources in White Pine County, Nevada, Millard 
     County, Utah, and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in the 
     State of Nevada, as designated by the management entity.

[[Page 8924]]

       (b) Boundaries.--The management entity shall determine the 
     specific boundaries of the Heritage Route.
       (c) Management Entity.--
       (1) In general.--The Great Basin Heritage Route Partnership 
     shall serve as the management entity for the Heritage Route.
       (2) Board of directors.--The Great Basin Heritage Route 
     Partnership shall be governed by a board of directors that 
     consists of--
       (A) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County 
     Commissioners for Millard County, Utah;
       (B) 4 members who are appointed by the Board of County 
     Commissioners for White Pine County, Nevada; and
       (C) a representative appointed by each Native American 
     Tribe participating in the Heritage Route.

     SEC. 5. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada 
     and Utah and the tribal government of each Indian tribe 
     participating in the Heritage Route, shall enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding with the management entity.
       (b) Inclusions.--The memorandum of understanding shall 
     include information relating to the objectives and management 
     of the Heritage Route, including--
       (1) a description of the resources of the Heritage Route;
       (2) a discussion of the goals and objectives of the 
     Heritage Route, including--
       (A) an explanation of the proposed approach to 
     conservation, development, and interpretation; and
       (B) a general outline of the anticipated protection and 
     development measures;
       (3) a description of the management entity;
       (4) a list and statement of the financial commitment of the 
     initial partners to be involved in developing and 
     implementing the management plan; and
       (5) a description of the role of the States of Nevada and 
     Utah in the management of the Heritage Route.
       (c) Additional Requirements.--In developing the terms of 
     the memorandum of understanding, the Secretary and the 
     management entity shall--
       (1) provide opportunities for local participation; and
       (2) include terms that ensure, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, timely implementation of all aspects of the 
     memorandum of understanding.
       (d) Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review any amendments 
     of the memorandum of understanding proposed by the management 
     entity or the Governor of the State of Nevada or Utah.
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this Act 
     shall not be expended to implement a change made by a 
     proposed amendment described in paragraph (1) until the 
     Secretary approves the amendment.

     SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the management entity shall develop 
     and submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan 
     for the Heritage Route that--
       (1) specifies--
       (A) any resources designated by the management entity under 
     section 4(a); and
       (B) the specific boundaries of the Heritage Route, as 
     determined under section 4(b); and
       (2) presents clear and comprehensive recommendations for 
     the conservation, funding, management, and development of the 
     Heritage Route.
       (b) Considerations.--In developing the management plan, the 
     management entity shall--
       (1) provide for the participation of local residents, 
     public agencies, and private organizations located within the 
     counties of Millard County, Utah, White Pine County, Nevada, 
     and the Duckwater Shoshone Reservation in the protection and 
     development of resources of the Heritage Route, taking into 
     consideration State, tribal, county, and local land use plans 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) identify sources of funding;
       (3) include--
       (A) a program for implementation of the management plan by 
     the management entity, including--
       (i) plans for restoration, stabilization, rehabilitation, 
     and construction of public or tribal property; and
       (ii) specific commitments by the identified partners 
     referred to in section 5(b)(4) for the first 5 years of 
     operation; and
       (B) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Route; and
       (4) develop a management plan that will not infringe on 
     private property rights without the consent of the owner of 
     the private property.
       (c) Failure To Submit.--If the management entity fails to 
     submit a management plan to the Secretary in accordance with 
     subsection (a), the Heritage Route shall no longer qualify 
     for Federal funding.
       (d) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of a 
     management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Governors of the States of Nevada and 
     Utah, shall approve or disapprove the management plan.
       (2) Criteria.--In determining whether to approve a 
     management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether the 
     management plan--
       (A) has strong local support from a diversity of 
     landowners, business interests, nonprofit organizations, and 
     governments associated with the Heritage Route;
       (B) is consistent with and complements continued economic 
     activity along the Heritage Route;
       (C) has a high potential for effective partnership 
     mechanisms;
       (D) avoids infringing on private property rights; and
       (E) provides methods to take appropriate action to ensure 
     that private property rights are observed.
       (3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves a management plan under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons 
     for the disapproval;
       (B) make recommendations for revisions to the management 
     plan; and
       (C) not later than 90 days after the receipt of any 
     proposed revision of the management plan from the management 
     entity, approve or disapprove the proposed revision.
       (e) Implementation.--On approval of the management plan as 
     provided in subsection (d)(1), the management entity, in 
     conjunction with the Secretary, shall take appropriate steps 
     to implement the management plan.
       (f) Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review each amendment 
     to the management plan that the Secretary determines may make 
     a substantial change to the management plan.
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this Act 
     shall not be expended to implement an amendment described in 
     paragraph (1) until the Secretary approves the amendment.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Authorities.--The management entity may, for purposes 
     of preparing and implementing the management plan, use funds 
     made available under this Act to--
       (1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, a State (including a political subdivision), an Indian 
     tribe, a private organization, or any person; and
       (2) hire and compensate staff.
       (b) Duties.--In addition to developing the management plan, 
     the management entity shall--
       (1) give priority to implementing the memorandum of 
     understanding and the management plan, including taking steps 
     to--
       (A) assist units of government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
       (i) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits 
     along the Heritage Route;
       (ii) developing recreational resources along the Heritage 
     Route;
       (iii) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for 
     the archaeological, historical, cultural, natural, scenic, 
     and recreational resources and sites along the Heritage 
     Route; and
       (iv) if requested by the owner, restoring, stabilizing, or 
     rehabilitating any private, public, or tribal historical 
     building relating to the themes of the Heritage Route;
       (B) encourage economic viability and diversity along the 
     Heritage Route in accordance with the objectives of the 
     management plan; and
       (C) encourage the installation of clear, consistent, and 
     environmentally appropriate signage identifying access points 
     and sites of interest along the Heritage Route;
       (2) consider the interests of diverse governmental, 
     business, and nonprofit groups associated with the Heritage 
     Route;
       (3) conduct public meetings in the region of the Heritage 
     Route at least semiannually regarding the implementation of 
     the management plan;
       (4) submit substantial amendments (including any increase 
     of more than 20 percent in the cost estimates for 
     implementation) to the management plan to the Secretary for 
     approval by the Secretary; and
       (5) for any year for which Federal funds are received under 
     this Act--
       (A) submit to the Secretary a report that describes, for 
     the year--
       (i) the accomplishments of the management entity;
       (ii) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
       (iii) each entity to which any loan or grant was made;
       (B) make available for audit all records pertaining to the 
     expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
       (C) require, for all agreements authorizing the expenditure 
     of Federal funds by any entity, that the receiving entity 
     make available for audit all records pertaining to the 
     expenditure of the funds.
       (c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     management entity shall not use Federal funds made available 
     under this Act to acquire real property or any interest in 
     real property.
       (d) Prohibition on the Regulation of Land Use.--The 
     management entity shall not regulate land use within the 
     Heritage Route.

[[Page 8925]]



     SEC. 8. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may, on request of the 
     management entity, provide technical and financial assistance 
     to develop and implement the management plan and memorandum 
     of understanding.
       (2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, on request of the 
     management entity, give priority to actions that assist in--
       (A) conserving the significant archaeological, historical, 
     cultural, natural, scenic, and recreational resources of the 
     Heritage Route; and
       (B) providing education, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities, and other uses consistent with those 
     resources.
       (b) Application of Federal Law.--The establishment of the 
     Heritage Route shall have no effect on the application of any 
     Federal law to any property within the Heritage Route.

     SEC. 9. LAND USE REGULATION; APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW.

       (a) Land Use Regulation.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of the 
     Federal, State, tribal, or local government to regulate by 
     law (including by regulation) any use of land; or
       (2) grants any power of zoning or land use to the 
     management entity.
       (b) Applicability of Federal Law.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) imposes on the Heritage Route, as a result of the 
     designation of the Heritage Route, any regulation that is not 
     applicable to the area within the Heritage Route as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) authorizes any agency to promulgate a regulation that 
     applies to the Heritage Route solely as a result of the 
     designation of the Heritage Route under this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     activity assisted under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may 
     be in the form of in-kind contributions, donations, grants, 
     and loans from individuals and State or local governments or 
     agencies.

     SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under 
     this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 841. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, 
race, or national origin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, 
Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Akaka, Feingold and Boxer, I am 
introducing the Fair Pay Act.
  April 15, tax day, is also Equal Pay Day. If you add what women made 
last year and so far this year, that would be the same amount men made 
in all of last year. In other words, it takes women 16 months to make 
what men make in 12.
  There's been a lot of tax talk from Congress and the White House 
lately. We've got more than 1 million people out of work. And we've got 
millions of families struggling to make ends meet. The White House 
believes a new $750 billion tax cut for the rich is the solution.
  I disagree. One way we can put more money in the pockets of working 
families--pay women what they're worth. Nearly 40 years after the Equal 
Pay Act became law, women are still paid only 76 cents for every dollar 
a man earns.
  Working women at all income and education levels are affected by the 
wage gap. Last year, the GAO found that the pay gap continues to affect 
women in management and that, for these women, the pay gap has actually 
widened since 1995.
  Regardless of education, the impact is the same. These women work as 
hard as men, but have less money to pay the bills, to put food on the 
table, or to save for their retirement or their child's education. That 
is simply wrong and it must end. We must close the wage gap once and 
for all.
  First, we need to do a better job by enforcing and strengthening the 
penalties for the law that demands equal pay for equal work. That's why 
I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Daschle and 
Congresswoman DeLauro.
  Another part of discrimination against women in the work place is the 
historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ``women's 
jobs.''
  Millions of women today working in female-dominated jobs--as social 
workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are ``equivalent'' in 
skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs 
dominated by men. But these women aren't paid the same as men.
  That's what the Fair Pay Act--that Congresswoman Norton and I are 
reintroducing today--would address. Unfairly low pay in jobs dominated 
by women is un-American, it is discriminatory and our bill would make 
it illegal.
  20 States have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place for their 
employees, including my State of Iowa. And Iowa had a Republican 
legislature and Governor when this bill passed into law. So, ending 
wage discrimination against women is a nonpartisan issue.
  Some say we don't need any more laws; market forces will take care of 
the wage gap. If we had relied on market forces we would have never 
passed the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical 
Leave Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  I first introduced the Fair Pay Act in 1996 after the Iowa Business 
and Professional Women alerted me to this problem. And as long as I'm 
in the U.S. Senate I will continue to fight to pass this important 
legislation so we can end wage discrimination against women once and 
for all.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 841

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Pay 
     Act of 2003''.
       (b) Reference.--Except as provided in section 8, whenever 
     in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of 
     an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Wage rate differentials exist between equivalent jobs 
     segregated by sex, race, and national origin in Government 
     employment and in industries engaged in commerce or in the 
     production of goods for commerce.
       (2) The existence of such wage rate differentials--
       (A) depresses wages and living standards for employees 
     necessary for their health and efficiency;
       (B) prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor 
     resources;
       (C) tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, 
     affecting, and obstructing commerce;
       (D) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in 
     commerce; and
       (E) constitutes an unfair method of competition.
       (3) Discrimination in hiring and promotion has played a 
     role in maintaining a segregated work force.
       (4) Many women and people of color work in occupations 
     dominated by individuals of their same sex, race, and 
     national origin.
       (5)(A) A General Accounting Office analysis of wage rates 
     in the civil service of the State of Washington found that in 
     1985 of the 44 jobs studied that paid less than the average 
     of all equivalent jobs, approximately 39 percent were female-
     dominated and approximately 16 percent were male dominated.
       (B) A study of wage rates in Minnesota using 1990 Decennial 
     Census data found that 75 percent of the wage rate 
     differential between white and non-white workers was 
     unexplained and may be a result of discrimination.
       (6) Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     prohibits discrimination in compensation for ``equal work'' 
     on the basis of sex.
       (7) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
     discrimination in compensation because of race, color, 
     religion, national origin, and sex. The Supreme Court, in its 
     decision in County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 
     (1981), held that title VII's prohibition against 
     discrimination in compensation also applies to jobs that do 
     not constitute ``equal work'' as defined in section 6(d) of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Decisions of

[[Page 8926]]

     lower courts, however, have demonstrated that further 
     clarification of existing legislation is necessary in order 
     effectively to carry out the intent of Congress to implement 
     the Supreme Court's holding in its Gunther decision.
       (8) Artificial barriers to the elimination of 
     discrimination in compensation based upon sex, race, and 
     national origin continue to exist more than 3 decades after 
     the passage of section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Elimination of such 
     barriers would have positive effects, including--
       (A) providing a solution to problems in the economy created 
     by discrimination through wage rate differentials;
       (B) substantially reducing the number of working women and 
     people of color earning low wages, thereby reducing the 
     dependence on public assistance; and
       (C) promoting stable families by enabling working family 
     members to earn a fair rate of pay.

     SEC. 3. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUIVALENT JOBS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no 
     employer having employees subject to any provision of this 
     section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which 
     such employees are employed, between employees on the basis 
     of sex, race, or national origin by paying wages to employees 
     in such establishment in a job that is dominated by employees 
     of a particular sex, race, or national origin at a rate less 
     than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees 
     in such establishment in another job that is dominated by 
     employees of the opposite sex or of a different race or 
     national origin, respectively, for work on equivalent jobs.
       ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall prohibit the 
     payment of different wage rates to employees where such 
     payment is made pursuant to--
       ``(i) a seniority system;
       ``(ii) a merit system;
       ``(iii) a system that measures earnings by quantity or 
     quality of production; or
       ``(iv) a differential based on a bona fide factor other 
     than sex, race, or national origin, such as education, 
     training, or experience, except that this clause shall apply 
     only if--
       ``(I) the employer demonstrates that--
       ``(aa) such factor--

       ``(AA) is job-related with respect to the position in 
     question; or
       ``(BB) furthers a legitimate business purpose, except that 
     this item shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that 
     an alternative employment practice exists that would serve 
     the same business purpose without producing such differential 
     and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative 
     practice; and

       ``(bb) such factor was actually applied and used reasonably 
     in light of the asserted justification; and
       ``(II) upon the employer succeeding under subclause (I), 
     the employee fails to demonstrate that the differential 
     produced by the reliance of the employer on such factor is 
     itself the result of discrimination on the basis of sex, 
     race, or national origin by the employer.
       ``(C) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall 
     issue guidelines specifying criteria for determining whether 
     a job is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or 
     national origin. Such guidelines shall not include a list of 
     such jobs.
       ``(D) An employer who is paying a wage rate differential in 
     violation of subparagraph (A) shall not, in order to comply 
     with the provisions of such subparagraph, reduce the wage 
     rate of any employee.
       ``(2) No labor organization or its agents representing 
     employees of an employer having employees subject to any 
     provision of this section shall cause or attempt to cause 
     such an employer to discriminate against an employee in 
     violation of paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement of 
     this subsection, any amounts owing to any employee that have 
     been withheld in violation of paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime 
     compensation under this section or section 7.
       ``(4) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `labor organization' means any organization 
     of any kind, or any agency or employee representation 
     committee or plan, in which employees participate and that 
     exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with 
     employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates 
     of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
       ``(B) The term `equivalent jobs' means jobs that may be 
     dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when 
     viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and 
     working conditions.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 13(a) (29 U.S.C. 213(a)) 
     is amended in the matter before paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``section 6(d)'' and inserting ``sections 6(d) and 6(h)''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       Section 15(a) (29 U.S.C. 215(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(6) to discriminate against any individual because such 
     individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by 
     section 6(h) or because such individual made a charge, 
     testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 
     investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce section 
     6(h); or
       ``(7) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate 
     against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any 
     employee or any other person because the employee inquired 
     about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the 
     employee's wages or the wages of any other employee, or 
     because the employee exercised, enjoyed, aided, or encouraged 
     any other person to exercise or enjoy any right granted or 
     protected by section 6(h).''.

     SEC. 5. REMEDIES.

       (a) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Any employer who violates subsection (d) or (h) of section 
     6 shall additionally be liable for such compensatory or 
     punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the 
     United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.'';
       (2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking 
     ``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of 
     the preceding sentences of this subsection'';
       (3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees'', by striking 
     ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect to class 
     actions brought under subsection (f), no employee'';
       (4) in the sentence beginning ``The court in'', by striking 
     ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any action brought to 
     recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding 
     sentences of this subsection''; and
       (5) by striking ``section 15(a)(3)'' each place it occurs 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (3), (6), and (7) of section 
     15(a)''.
       (b) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of 
     subsection (d) or (h) of section 6, additional compensatory 
     or punitive damages,'' before ``and the agreement''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of 
     subsection (d) or (h) of section 6, additional compensatory 
     or punitive damages''; and
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first 
     sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence''.
       (c) Fees.--Section 16 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) In any action brought under this section for 
     violation of section 6(h), the court shall, in addition to 
     any other remedies awarded to the prevailing plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs, allow expert fees as part of the costs. Any such 
     action may be maintained as a class action as provided by the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.

     SEC. 6. RECORDS.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 11(c) (29 U.S.C. 211(c)) 
     is amended by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''.
       (b) Records.--Section 11(c) (as amended by subsection (a)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Every employer subject to section 6(h) shall 
     preserve records that document and support the method, 
     system, calculations, and other bases used by the employer in 
     establishing, adjusting, and determining the wage rates paid 
     to the employees of the employer. Every employer subject to 
     section 6(h) shall preserve such records for such periods of 
     time, and shall make such reports from the records to the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as shall be 
     prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by 
     regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the 
     enforcement of the provisions of section 6(h) or any 
     regulation promulgated pursuant to section 6(h).''.
       (c) Small Business Exemptions.--Section 11(c) (as amended 
     by subsections (a) and (b)) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(B)(i) Every employer subject to section 6(h) that has 25 
     or more employees on any date during the first or second year 
     after the effective date of this paragraph, or 15 or more 
     employees on any date during any subsequent year after such 
     second year, shall, in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     under subparagraph (F), prepare and submit to the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission for the year involved a 
     report signed by the president, treasurer, or corresponding 
     principal officer, of the employer that includes information 
     that discloses the wage rates paid to employees of the 
     employer in each classification, position, or job title, or 
     to employees in other wage groups employed by the employer, 
     including information with respect to the sex, race, and 
     national origin of employees at each wage rate in each 
     classification, position, job title, or other wage group.''.
       (d) Protection of Confidentiality.--Section 11(c) (as 
     amended by subsections (a)

[[Page 8927]]

     through (c)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ii) The rules and regulations promulgated by the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission under subparagraph (F), 
     relating to the form of such a report, shall include 
     requirements to protect the confidentiality of employees, 
     including a requirement that the report shall not contain the 
     name of any individual employee.''.
       (e) Use; Inspections; Examinations; Regulations.--Section 
     11(c) (as amended by subsections (a) through (d)) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may 
     publish any information and data that the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission obtains pursuant to the provisions of 
     subparagraph (B). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     may use the information and data for statistical and research 
     purposes, and compile and publish such studies, analyses, 
     reports, and surveys based on the information and data as the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may consider 
     appropriate.
       ``(D) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by regulation 
     make reasonable provision for the inspection and examination 
     by any person of the information and data contained in any 
     report submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       ``(E) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by 
     regulation provide for the furnishing of copies of reports 
     submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) to any person upon payment of a 
     charge based upon the cost of the service.
       ``(F) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall 
     issue rules and regulations prescribing the form and content 
     of reports required to be submitted under subparagraph (B) 
     and such other reasonable rules and regulations as the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission may find necessary to 
     prevent the circumvention or evasion of such reporting 
     requirements. In exercising the authority of the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission under subparagraph (B), the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may prescribe by 
     general rule simplified reports for employers for whom the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that because of 
     the size of the employers a detailed report would be unduly 
     burdensome.''.

     SEC. 7. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM; REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 4(d) (29 U.S.C. 204(d)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall 
     conduct studies and provide information and technical 
     assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general 
     public concerning effective means available to implement the 
     provisions of section 6(h) prohibiting wage rate 
     discrimination between employees performing work in 
     equivalent jobs on the basis of sex, race, or national 
     origin. Such studies, information, and technical assistance 
     shall be based on and include reference to the objectives of 
     such section to eliminate such discrimination. In order to 
     achieve the objectives of such section, the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission shall carry on a continuing program of 
     research, education, and technical assistance including--
       ``(A) conducting and promoting research with the intent of 
     developing means to expeditiously correct the wage rate 
     differentials described in section 6(h);
       ``(B) publishing and otherwise making available to 
     employers, labor organizations, professional associations, 
     educational institutions, the various media of communication, 
     and the general public the findings of studies and other 
     materials for promoting compliance with section 6(h);
       ``(C) sponsoring and assisting State and community 
     informational and educational programs; and
       ``(D) providing technical assistance to employers, labor 
     organizations, professional associations and other interested 
     persons on means of achieving and maintaining compliance with 
     the provisions of section 6(h).
       ``(5) The report submitted biennially by the Secretary to 
     Congress under paragraph (1) shall include a separate 
     evaluation and appraisal regarding the implementation of 
     section 6(h).''.

     SEC. 8. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Congressional Employees.--
       (1) Application.--Section 203(a)(1) of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsections (a)(1) and (d) of section 6'' 
     and inserting ``subsections (a)(1), (d), and (h) of section 
     6''; and
       (B) by striking ``206 (a)(1) and (d)'' and inserting ``206 
     (a)(1), (d), and (h)''.
       (2) Remedies.--Section 203(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1313(b)) is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or, in an appropriate case, under section 16(f) 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(f))''.
       (b) Executive Branch Employees.--
       (1) Application.--Section 413(a)(1) of title 3, United 
     States Code, as added by section 2(a) of the Presidential and 
     Executive Office Accountability Act (Public Law 104-331; 110 
     Stat. 4053), is amended by striking ``subsections (a)(1) and 
     (d) of section 6'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(1), (d), 
     and (h) of section 6''.
       (2) Remedies.--Section 413(b) of such title is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``or, in an 
     appropriate case, under section 16(f) of such Act''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 842. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of 
targeted, affordable tax relief provisions designed to help the 
Nation's small businesses during this time of economic stagnation. 
After the Easter recess, I know that the Finance Committee will be 
marking up a wide-ranging tax bill whose ultimate size is yet to be 
determined. I also know, however, that few of the proposals offered by 
the President will truly stimulate the economy or help the millions of 
struggling small businesses. Instead, the Bush tax proposal will reward 
the richest among us and pass the bill to our children. We can and must 
do better.
  As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have drafted legislation that will truly help small 
businesses and the Nation. It is a tax proposal with meaningful, 
affordable reforms that will make a difference without sticking our 
kids with a huge bill. I hope that all of part of this legislation can 
be incorporated into a Senate economic stimulus package. I have titled 
the bill that I am introducing today ``The Affordable Small Business 
Stimulus and Simplification Act of 2003,'' and it builds upon a bill 
that I introduced in the 107th Congress.
  I call my bill an ``affordable'' stimulus package for small business 
because it targets the policies that can make the biggest difference 
and uses our limited resources as wisely and efficiently as possible. 
It does not include everything that I would like to do for small 
business, but it includes enough to help stimulate this essential 
component of our economy. Moreover, the bill will help address the tax 
complexity concerns of small businesses because it includes the Single 
Point Tax Filing Act that has passed the Senate on two previous 
occasions and a new standard deduction that will benefit millions of 
small businesses.
  Let me briefly explain the contents of my bill.
  First, my bill increases the expensing limitation for small 
businesses. It raises it to $35,000, rising to $40,000 in 2008, and it 
increases the phase-out level, above which expensing is not allowed, to 
$350,000, rising to $400,000 in 2008. I know that others have proposed 
raising this limit as high as $75,000, but such an increase is simply 
unaffordable while we face huge budget deficits. Raising it to $35,000 
now, rising to $40,000 in 2008, is a more responsible approach and will 
provide an immediate investment incentive to many small businesses.
  Second, my bill creates a new standard deduction of $500 for sole 
proprietorships. This provision provides tax relief and real tax 
simplification to the smallest of small businesses because it would 
relieve these businesses of the paperwork burden of having to itemize 
the myriad of small expenses on IRS forms. Of course, businesses with 
expenses greater than $500 would retain the option of full itemization. 
But for the very smallest businesses, many of them home-based or part-
time, this new provision will be a significant step towards tax 
simplification.
  Third, the bill modifies and expands a provision that was signed into 
law in 1993 regarding new equity investments in small businesses' 
stock. Under my bill, new investments in companies with capitalization 
of up to $100 million at the time of investment will have a 75 percent 
capital gains exclusion if the investments are held at least four 
years. The exclusion for such investments will be 100 percent if they 
are made in a business involved in such critical technologies as 
transportation

[[Page 8928]]

or homeland security, defense-related technologies, anti-terrorism, 
pollution control, energy efficiency, or waste management. The 100-
percent exclusion would also be allowed for investments in specialized 
small business investment companies, or SSBICs, whose investments are 
made solely in disadvantaged small businesses. Both the 75 and 100 
percent exclusion levels would be available for investments made by 
both individuals and corporations. In addition, the rollover period for 
such investments would be increased from 60 days to 180 days. The 
provision passed in 1993 was crafted too narrowly to stimulate 
substantial new investment. I hope that this new, expanded capital 
gains treatment will prompt new investments in small and 
entrepreneurial businesses.
  Fourth, my bill recognizes that the current depreciation schedules 
for high-tech equipment and software are out of date, given how quickly 
such items become obsolete in our fast-changing economy. My bill would 
reduce the recovery period for computers or peripheral equipment from 
five years to three, and for software from three years to two. This 
change would be permanent.
  Fifth, my bill would fix a problem with the tax deductibility of 
health insurance expenses for the self-employed. Under current law, 
these expenses are fully deductible in 2003 for the first time--but the 
Internal Revenue Code denies the deduction to taxpayers who are 
eligible to participate in another plan, such as their spouse's 
employer's plan. My bill would clarify that the deduction is denied 
only if the taxpayer actually participates in the other plan.
  Sixth, to simplify tax filing, my bill would include the Single Point 
Tax Filing Act. This section would simplify the tax filing process for 
employers that choose to participate by allowing the Internal Revenue 
Service and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and 
Federal employment tax returns. This provision has been passed by the 
Senate twice before, but has not yet become law. There is currently a 
demonstration project along these lines in Montana, which is working 
very well. I believe such authority should extend to all States.
  Seventh, my bill clarifies that married couples who co-own a business 
can elect to be sole proprietors for purposes of filing their Federal 
income taxes. This provision aligns the law with the way many married 
couples actually do business. Under present law, married couples who 
co-own a business technically own that business as a partnership for 
Federal income tax purposes. This treatment carries with it all the 
complications of the partnership provisions of the Internal Revenue 
Code, including having to file partnership returns. But in reality, 
many married couples in this situation consider themselves sole 
proprietors and are incorrectly filing tax returns as such. While the 
IRS may not be strictly enforcing the law against these taxpayers, this 
technical non-compliance can cause trouble down the road. Upon divorce, 
for example, it may not be clear that the business had been jointly 
owned. This same ambiguity might complicate a spouse's ability to get 
the full Social Security and Medicare benefits to which they are 
entitled. My bill makes clear that for Federal income tax purposes, 
married couples who co-own a business can be treated as sole 
proprietors.
  Eighth, my bill would extend the existing income averaging provisions 
to cover fishing as well as farming. In other words, the choice to 
average income from a farming trade or business under present law would 
be extended to cover income from the trade or business of fishing as 
well. Under my bill, a farmer or fisherman electing to average his or 
her income would owe the alternative minimum tax, AMT, only to the 
extent he or she would have owed AMT had averaging not been elected. 
This is an important change that will benefit not only people in my 
state, but also throughout New England, the Pacific Northwest, the Gulf 
of Mexico region, Alaska, and in other areas of the country where 
fishing is an important industry.
  Finally, my bill would modify the tax treatment of investments in 
debenture small business investment companies, or SBICs, so they are 
less likely to create unrelated business taxable income, UBTI, 
liability. The current tax treatment of money borrowed from the 
government by a debenture SBIC creates taxable income for an otherwise 
tax-exempt investor, which makes it almost impossible to raise capital 
from these investors. Free to choose, tax-exempt investors opt to 
invest in venture capital funds that do not create any UBTI liability. 
Therefore, my bill would assure that money borrowed from the government 
by an SBIC does not subject tax-exempt investors to UBTI. In so doing, 
the bill would encourage greater investment in SBICs, which provide 
critically needed venture capital to emerging small businesses. These 
venture capital funds are sorely needed in today's stalled economy.
  I believe that ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus and Stimulus 
Act of 2003'' will provide a much-needed stimulus to small business in 
a way that we can afford, particularly if we can find offsets to pay 
for the bill. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Finance Committee to have some or all of its provisions 
enacted into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 843. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish a national 
uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric 
generating sector; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today along with Senators Lincoln Chafee 
and Judd Gregg, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to reduce 
harmful emissions from our Nation's power plants. Developed after 
extensive input from electric generators who would be affected by such 
legislation, leaders in the environmental community, and State and 
local regulators who will enforce any new requirements, the Clean Air 
Planning Act is a balanced approach to a difficult challenge.
  The Clean Air Planning Act takes a market-based approach that would 
aggressively reduce electric power generators' emissions of sulfur 
dioxide, SO2, by 80 percent, nitrogen oxides, 
NOX, by 69 percent, mercury by 80 percent, and return carbon 
dioxide, CO2, emissions to 2001 levels within a decade. It 
provides planning and regulatory certainty to electric generators who 
would be required to achieve these regulations.
  The negative public health and environmental impacts of 
SO2, NOX and mercury emissions have been well 
documented. While there is bipartisan agreement that emissions of these 
three pollutants from power plants need further control, there is 
disagreement over how much and how fast. The bill includes a flexible 
trading system that allows for attainment of the caps in the most 
efficient manner and updates the new source review program to help 
encourage emission reductions to occur.
  There is also a growing consensus that greenhouse gases such as 
CO2 emissions from power plants are contributing to climate 
change. The time has come to set up mechanisms that will address these 
emissions without impeding economic growth. The Clean Air Planning Act 
establishes modest goal of capping CO2 emissions from 
electrical generators at 2001 levels by 2013. Generators could meet 
that goal with a flexible system that allows both trading between 
generators and earning credits through off-system reductions of 
greenhouse gases.
  Today, America's power plants will emit over 6 million tons of 
harmful emissions. They will also power the world's most productive 
economy. Reducing emissions while retaining affordable electricity is 
the goal of the Clean Air Planning Act, and I urge others to join in 
this effort.
  In the months ahead, this clean air bill and others will be compared 
and debated. Opponents and supporters will be heard, but at the outset 
I believe we should agree on a set of guiding principles.
  Four is better than three: A comprehensive four-emission strategy 
that

[[Page 8929]]

includes carbon reductions provides regulatory certainty and offers the 
greatest environmental and economic benefits.
  Markets work: Cape and trade based emission standards provide the 
maximum incentive to achieve cleaner power.
  Stairs are better than cliffs: Prompt but gradual reductions through 
multi-phase or declining caps are more desirable than single phased 
cuts.
  Eliminate redundancy: Existing regulatory programs will need some 
modernization in light of tight emission caps.
  Clean air is a basic right all Americans deserve. The responsibility 
to ensure that right falls to Congress and the President. By putting 
our differences aside and focusing on the challenge at hand the result 
will be healthy citizens breathing clean air, a vibrant economy with 
abundant affordable electricity, and a model for the rest of the world 
to follow.
  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. 843

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Air 
     Planning Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Integrated air quality planning for the electric generating 
              sector.
Sec. 4. New source review program.
Sec. 5. Revisions to sulfur dioxide allowance program.
Sec. 6. Air quality forecasts and warnings.
Sec. 7. Relationship to other law.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities, 
     consisting of facilities fueled by coal, fuel oil, and 
     natural gas, produce nearly \2/3\ of the electricity 
     generated in the United States;
       (2) fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities 
     produce approximately \2/3\ of the total sulfur dioxide 
     emissions, \1/3\ of the total nitrogen oxides emissions, \1/
     3\ of the total carbon dioxide emissions, and \1/3\ of the 
     total mercury emissions, in the United States;
       (3)(A) many electric generating facilities have been exempt 
     from the emission limitations applicable to new units based 
     on the expectation that over time the units would be retired 
     or updated with new pollution control equipment; but
       (B) many of the exempted units continue to operate and emit 
     pollutants at relatively high rates;
       (4) pollution from existing electric generating facilities 
     can be reduced through adoption of modern technologies and 
     practices;
       (5) the electric generating industry is being restructured 
     with the objective of providing lower electricity rates and 
     higher quality service to consumers;
       (6) the full benefits of competition will not be realized 
     if the environmental impacts of generation of electricity are 
     not uniformly internalized; and
       (7) the ability of owners of electric generating facilities 
     to effectively plan for the future is impeded by the 
     uncertainties surrounding future environmental regulatory 
     requirements that are imposed inefficiently on a piecemeal 
     basis.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to protect and preserve the environment and safeguard 
     public health by ensuring that substantial emission 
     reductions are achieved at fossil fuel-fired electric 
     generating facilities;
       (2) to significantly reduce the quantities of mercury, 
     carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides that 
     enter the environment as a result of the combustion of fossil 
     fuels;
       (3) to encourage the development and use of renewable 
     energy;
       (4) to internalize the cost of protecting the values of 
     public health, air, land, and water quality in the context of 
     a competitive market in electricity;
       (5) to ensure fair competition among participants in the 
     competitive market in electricity that will result from fully 
     restructuring the electric generating industry;
       (6) to provide a period of environmental regulatory 
     stability for owners and operators of electric generating 
     facilities so as to promote improved management of existing 
     assets and new capital investments; and
       (7) to achieve emission reductions from electric generating 
     facilities in a cost-effective manner.

     SEC. 3. INTEGRATED AIR QUALITY PLANNING FOR THE ELECTRIC 
                   GENERATING SECTOR.

       The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``TITLE VII--INTEGRATED AIR QUALITY PLANNING FOR THE ELECTRIC 
                           GENERATING SECTOR

``Sec. 701. Definitions.
``Sec. 702. National pollutant tonnage limitations.
``Sec. 703. Nitrogen oxide and mercury allowance trading programs.
``Sec. 704. Carbon dioxide allowance trading program.

     ``SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Affected unit.--
       ``(A) Mercury.--The term `affected unit', with respect to 
     mercury, means a coal-fired electric generating facility 
     (including a cogenerating facility) that--
       ``(i) has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts; 
     and
       ``(ii) generates electricity for sale.
       ``(B) Nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.--The term 
     `affected unit', with respect to nitrogen oxides and carbon 
     dioxide, means a fossil fuel-fired electric generating 
     facility (including a cogenerating facility) that--
       ``(i) has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts; 
     and
       ``(ii) generates electricity for sale.
       ``(C) Sulfur dioxide.--The term `affected unit', with 
     respect to sulfur dioxide, has the meaning given the term in 
     section 402.
       ``(2) Carbon dioxide allowance.--The term `carbon dioxide 
     allowance' means an authorization allocated by the 
     Administrator under this title to emit 1 ton of carbon 
     dioxide during or after a specified calendar year.
       ``(3) Covered unit.--The term `covered unit' means--
       ``(A) an affected unit;
       ``(B) a nuclear generating unit with respect to incremental 
     nuclear generation; and
       ``(C) a renewable energy unit.
       ``(4) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means--
       ``(A) carbon dioxide;
       ``(B) methane;
       ``(C) nitrous oxide;
       ``(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
       ``(E) perfluorocarbons; and
       ``(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(5) Incremental nuclear generation.--The term 
     `incremental nuclear generation' means the difference 
     between--
       ``(A) the quantity of electricity generated by a nuclear 
     generating unit in a calendar year; and
       ``(B) the quantity of electricity generated by the nuclear 
     generating unit in calendar year 1990;

     as determined by the Administrator and measured in megawatt 
     hours.
       ``(6) Mercury allowance.--The term `mercury allowance' 
     means an authorization allocated by the Administrator under 
     this title to emit 1 pound of mercury during or after a 
     specified calendar year.
       ``(7) New renewable energy unit.--The term `new renewable 
     energy unit' means a renewable energy unit that has operated 
     for a period of not more than 3 years.
       ``(8) New unit.--The term `new unit' means an affected unit 
     that has operated for not more than 3 years and is not 
     eligible to receive--
       ``(A) sulfur dioxide allowances under section 417(b);
       ``(B) nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances under 
     section 703(c)(2); or
       ``(C) carbon dioxide allowances under section 704(c)(2).
       ``(9) Nitrogen oxide allowance.--The term `nitrogen oxide 
     allowance' means an authorization allocated by the 
     Administrator under this title to emit 1 ton of nitrogen 
     oxides during or after a specified calendar year.
       ``(10) Nuclear generating unit.--The term `nuclear 
     generating unit' means an electric generating facility that--
       ``(A) uses nuclear energy to supply electricity to the 
     electric power grid; and
       ``(B) commenced operation in calendar year 1990 or earlier.
       ``(11) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electricity generated from--
       ``(A) wind;
       ``(B) organic waste (excluding incinerated municipal solid 
     waste);
       ``(C) biomass (including anaerobic digestion from farm 
     systems and landfill gas recovery);
       ``(D) fuel cells; or
       ``(E) a hydroelectric, geothermal, solar thermal, 
     photovoltaic, or other nonfossil fuel, nonnuclear source.
       ``(12) Renewable energy unit.--The term `renewable energy 
     unit' means an electric generating facility that uses 
     exclusively renewable energy to supply electricity to the 
     electric power grid.
       ``(13) Sequestration.--The term `sequestration' means the 
     action of sequestering carbon by--
       ``(A) enhancing a natural carbon sink (such as through 
     afforestation); or
       ``(B)(i) capturing the carbon dioxide emitted from a fossil 
     fuel-based energy system; and
       ``(ii)(I) storing the carbon in a geologic formation; or

[[Page 8930]]

       ``(II) converting the carbon to a benign solid material 
     through a biological or chemical process.
       ``(14) Sulfur dioxide allowance.--The term `sulfur dioxide 
     allowance' has the meaning given the term `allowance' in 
     section 402.

     ``SEC. 702. NATIONAL POLLUTANT TONNAGE LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) Sulfur Dioxide.--The annual tonnage limitation for 
     emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected units in the United 
     States shall be equal to--
       ``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, 
     4,500,000 tons;
       ``(2) for each of calendar years 2013 through 2015, 
     3,500,000 tons; and
       ``(3) for calendar year 2016 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 2,250,000 tons.
       ``(b) Nitrogen Oxides.--The annual tonnage limitation for 
     emissions of nitrogen oxides from affected units in the 
     United States shall be equal to--
       ``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, 
     1,870,000 tons; and
       ``(2) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 1,700,000 tons.
       ``(c) Mercury.--
       ``(1) In general.--The annual tonnage limitation for 
     emissions of mercury from affected units in the United States 
     shall be equal to--
       ``(A) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, 24 
     tons; and
       ``(B) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 10 tons.
       ``(2) Maximum emissions of mercury from each affected 
     unit.--
       ``(A) Calendar years 2009 through 2012.--For each of 
     calendar years 2009 through 2012, the emissions of mercury 
     from each affected unit shall not exceed either, at the 
     option of the operator of the affected unit--
       ``(i) 50 percent of the total quantity of mercury present 
     in the coal delivered to the affected unit in the calendar 
     year; or
       ``(ii) an annual output-based emission rate for mercury 
     that shall be determined by the Administrator based on an 
     input-based rate of 4 pounds per trillion British thermal 
     units.
       ``(B) Calendar year 2013 and thereafter.--For calendar year 
     2013 and each calendar year thereafter, the emissions of 
     mercury from each affected unit shall not exceed--
       ``(i) 30 percent of the total quantity of mercury present 
     in the coal delivered to the affected unit in the calendar 
     year; or
       ``(ii) an annual output-based emission rate for mercury 
     that shall be determined by the Administrator.
       ``(d) Carbon Dioxide.--Subject to section 704(d), the 
     annual tonnage limitation for emissions of carbon dioxide 
     from covered units in the United States shall be equal to--
       ``(1) for each of calendar years 2009 through 2012, the 
     quantity of emissions projected to be emitted from affected 
     units in calendar year 2006, as determined by the Energy 
     Information Administration of the Department of Energy based 
     on the projections of the Administration the publication of 
     which most closely precedes the date of enactment of this 
     title; and
       ``(2) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, the quantity of emissions emitted from affected 
     units in calendar year 2001, as determined by the Energy 
     Information Administration of the Department of Energy.
       ``(e) Review of Annual Tonnage Limitations.--
       ``(1) Period of effectiveness.--The annual tonnage 
     limitations established under subsections (a) through (d) 
     shall remain in effect until the date that is 20 years after 
     the date of enactment of this title.
       ``(2) Determination by administrator.--Not later than 15 
     years after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator, after considering impacts on human health, the 
     environment, the economy, and costs, shall determine whether 
     1 or more of the annual tonnage limitations should be 
     revised.
       ``(3) Determination not to revise.--If the Administrator 
     determines under paragraph (2) that none of the annual 
     tonnage limitations should be revised, the Administrator 
     shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the 
     determination and the reasons for the determination.
       ``(4) Determination to revise.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Administrator determines under 
     paragraph (2) that 1 or more of the annual tonnage 
     limitations should be revised, the Administrator shall 
     publish in the Federal Register--
       ``(i) not later than 15 years and 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this title, proposed regulations implementing 
     the revisions; and
       ``(ii) not later than 16 years and 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this title, final regulations implementing 
     the revisions.
       ``(B) Effective date of revisions.--Any revisions to the 
     annual tonnage limitations under subparagraph (A) shall take 
     effect on the date that is 20 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title.
       ``(f) Reduction of Emissions From Specified Affected 
     Units.--Subject to the requirements of this Act concerning 
     national ambient air quality standards established under part 
     A of title I, notwithstanding the annual tonnage limitations 
     established under this section, the Federal Government or a 
     State government may require that emissions from a specified 
     affected unit be reduced to address a local air quality 
     problem.

     ``SEC. 703. NITROGEN OXIDE AND MERCURY ALLOWANCE TRADING 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Promulgation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish for 
     affected units in the United States--
       ``(i) a nitrogen oxide allowance trading program; and
       ``(ii) a mercury allowance trading program.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Regulations promulgated under 
     subparagraph (A) shall establish requirements for the 
     allowance trading programs under this section, including 
     requirements concerning--
       ``(i)(I) the generation, allocation, issuance, recording, 
     tracking, transfer, and use of nitrogen oxide allowances and 
     mercury allowances; and
       ``(II) the public availability of all information 
     concerning the activities described in subclause (I) that is 
     not confidential;
       ``(ii) compliance with subsection (e)(1);
       ``(iii) the monitoring and reporting of emissions under 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e); and
       ``(iv) excess emission penalties under subsection (e)(4).
       ``(2) Mixed fuel, co-generation facilities and combined 
     heat and power facilities.--The Administrator shall 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to ensure the 
     equitable issuance of allowances to--
       ``(A) facilities that use more than 1 energy source to 
     produce electricity; and
       ``(B) facilities that produce electricity in addition to 
     another service or product.
       ``(3) Report to congress on use of captured or recovered 
     mercury.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the public health and environmental 
     impacts from mercury that is or may be--
       ``(i) captured or recovered by air pollution control 
     technology; and
       ``(ii) incorporated into products such as soil amendments 
     and cement.
       ``(B) Required elements.--The report shall--
       ``(i) review--

       ``(I) technologies, in use as of the date of the report, 
     for incorporating mercury into products; and
       ``(II) potential technologies that might further minimize 
     the release of mercury; and

       ``(ii)(I) address the adequacy of legal authorities and 
     regulatory programs in effect as of the date of the report to 
     protect public health and the environment from mercury in 
     products described in subparagraph (A)(ii); and
       ``(II) to the extent necessary, make recommendations to 
     improve those authorities and programs.
       ``(b) New Unit Reserves.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish by 
     regulation a reserve of nitrogen oxide allowances and a 
     reserve of mercury allowances to be set aside for use by new 
     units.
       ``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine, 
     based on projections of electricity output for new units--
       ``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of 
     nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances required to 
     be held in reserve for new units for each of calendar years 
     2009 through 2013; and
       ``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year 
     thereafter, the quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and 
     mercury allowances required to be held in reserve for new 
     units for the following 5-calendar year period.
       ``(c) Nitrogen Oxide and Mercury Allowance Allocations.--
       ``(1) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances to 
     affected units--
       ``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year 
     2009; and
       ``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and 
     each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year 
     that begins after that December 31.
       ``(2) Allocations to affected units that are not new 
     units.--
       ``(A) Quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances allocated.--The 
     Administrator shall allocate to each affected unit that is 
     not a new unit a quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances that 
     is equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) 1.5 pounds of nitrogen oxides per megawatt hour; and
       ``(ii) the quotient obtained by dividing--

       ``(I) the average annual net quantity of electricity 
     generated by the affected unit during the most recent 3-
     calendar year period for which data are available, measured 
     in megawatt hours; by
       ``(II) 2,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides per ton.

       ``(B) Quantity of mercury allowances allocated.--The 
     Administrator shall allocate to each affected unit that is 
     not a new

[[Page 8931]]

     unit a quantity of mercury allowances that is equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) 0.0000227 pounds of mercury per megawatt hour; and
       ``(ii) the average annual net quantity of electricity 
     generated by the affected unit during the most recent 3-
     calendar year period for which data are available, measured 
     in megawatt hours.
       ``(C) Adjustment of allocations.--
       ``(i) In general.--If, for any calendar year, the total 
     quantity of allowances allocated under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) is not equal to the applicable quantity determined under 
     clause (ii), the Administrator shall adjust the quantity of 
     allowances allocated to affected units that are not new units 
     on a pro-rata basis so that the quantity is equal to the 
     applicable quantity determined under clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Applicable quantity.--The applicable quantity 
     referred to in clause (i) is the difference between--

       ``(I) the applicable annual tonnage limitation for 
     emissions from affected units specified in subsection (b) or 
     (c) of section 702 for the calendar year; and
       ``(II) the quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury 
     allowances, respectively, placed in the applicable new unit 
     reserve established under subsection (b) for the calendar 
     year.

       ``(3) Allocation to new units.--
       ``(A) Methodology.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish a methodology for allocating 
     nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances to new 
     units.
       ``(B) Quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury 
     allowances allocated.--The Administrator shall determine the 
     quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances 
     to be allocated to each new unit based on the projected 
     emissions from the new unit.
       ``(4) Allowance not a property right.--A nitrogen oxide 
     allowance or mercury allowance--
       ``(A) is not a property right; and
       ``(B) may be terminated or limited by the Administrator.
       ``(5) No judicial review.--An allocation of nitrogen 
     allowances or mercury allowances by the Administrator under 
     this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(d) Nitrogen Oxide Allowance and Mercury Allowance 
     Transfer System.--
       ``(1) Use of allowances.--The regulations promulgated under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) shall--
       ``(A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance 
     with paragraph (3)) of any nitrogen oxide allowance or 
     mercury allowance before the calendar year for which the 
     allowance is allocated;
       ``(B) provide that unused nitrogen oxide allowances and 
     mercury allowances may be carried forward and added to 
     nitrogen oxide allowances and mercury allowances, 
     respectively, allocated for subsequent years; and
       ``(C) provide that unused nitrogen oxide allowances and 
     mercury allowances may be transferred by--
       ``(i) the person to which the allowances are allocated; or
       ``(ii) any person to which the allowances are transferred.
       ``(2) Use by persons to which allowances are transferred.--
     Any person to which nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury 
     allowances are transferred under paragraph (1)(C)--
       ``(A) may use the nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury 
     allowances in the calendar year for which the nitrogen oxide 
     allowances or mercury allowances were allocated, or in a 
     subsequent calendar year, to demonstrate compliance with 
     subsection (e)(1); or
       ``(B) may transfer the nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury 
     allowances to any other person for the purpose of 
     demonstration of that compliance.
       ``(3) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a nitrogen 
     oxide allowance or mercury allowance shall not take effect 
     until a written certification of the transfer, authorized by 
     a responsible official of the person making the transfer, is 
     received and recorded by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Permit requirements.--An allocation or transfer of 
     nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances to an 
     affected unit shall, after recording by the Administrator, be 
     considered to be part of the federally enforceable permit of 
     the affected unit under this Act, without a requirement for 
     any further review or revision of the permit.
       ``(e) Compliance and Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--For calendar year 2009 and each calendar 
     year thereafter, the operator of each affected unit shall 
     surrender to the Administrator--
       ``(A) a quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances that is equal 
     to the total tons of nitrogen oxides emitted by the affected 
     unit during the calendar year; and
       ``(B) a quantity of mercury allowances that is equal to the 
     total pounds of mercury emitted by the affected unit during 
     the calendar year.
       ``(2) Monitoring system.--The Administrator shall 
     promulgate regulations requiring the accurate monitoring of 
     the quantities of nitrogen oxides and mercury that are 
     emitted at each affected unit.
       ``(3) Reporting.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less often than quarterly, the owner 
     or operator of an affected unit shall submit to the 
     Administrator a report on the monitoring of emissions of 
     nitrogen oxides and mercury carried out by the owner or 
     operator in accordance with the regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Authorization.--Each report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be authorized by a responsible 
     official of the affected unit, who shall certify the accuracy 
     of the report.
       ``(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall make 
     available to the public, through 1 or more published reports 
     and 1 or more forms of electronic media, data concerning the 
     emissions of nitrogen oxides and mercury from each affected 
     unit.
       ``(4) Excess emissions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of an affected 
     unit that emits nitrogen oxides or mercury in excess of the 
     nitrogen oxide allowances or mercury allowances that the 
     owner or operator holds for use for the affected unit for the 
     calendar year shall--
       ``(i) pay an excess emissions penalty determined under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) offset the excess emissions by an equal quantity in 
     the following calendar year or such other period as the 
     Administrator shall prescribe.
       ``(B) Determination of excess emissions penalty.--
       ``(i) Nitrogen oxides.--The excess emissions penalty for 
     nitrogen oxides shall be equal to the product obtained by 
     multiplying--

       ``(I) the number of tons of nitrogen oxides emitted in 
     excess of the total quantity of nitrogen oxide allowances 
     held; and
       ``(II) $5,000, adjusted (in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the 
     Department of Labor.

       ``(ii) Mercury.--The excess emissions penalty for mercury 
     shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the number of pounds of mercury emitted in excess of 
     the total quantity of mercury allowances held; and
       ``(II) $10,000, adjusted (in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the 
     Department of Labor.

     ``SEC. 704. CARBON DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE TRADING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish a 
     carbon dioxide allowance trading program for covered units in 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Required elements.--Regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (1) shall establish requirements for the carbon 
     dioxide allowance trading program under this section, 
     including requirements concerning--
       ``(A)(i) the generation, allocation, issuance, recording, 
     tracking, transfer, and use of carbon dioxide allowances; and
       ``(ii) the public availability of all information 
     concerning the activities described in clause (i) that is not 
     confidential;
       ``(B) compliance with subsection (f)(1);
       ``(C) the monitoring and reporting of emissions under 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (f);
       ``(D) excess emission penalties under subsection (f)(4); 
     and
       ``(E) standards, guidelines, and procedures concerning the 
     generation, certification, and use of additional carbon 
     dioxide allowances made available under subsection (d).
       ``(b) New Unit Reserve.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish by 
     regulation a reserve of carbon dioxide allowances to be set 
     aside for use by new units and new renewable energy units.
       ``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine, 
     based on projections of electricity output for new units and 
     new renewable energy units--
       ``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of carbon 
     dioxide allowances required to be held in reserve for new 
     units and new renewable energy units for each of calendar 
     years 2009 through 2013; and
       ``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year 
     thereafter, the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances 
     required to be held in reserve for new units and renewable 
     energy units for the following 5-calendar year period.
       ``(c) Carbon Dioxide Allowance Allocation.--
       ``(1) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate carbon dioxide allowances to covered units--
       ``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year 
     2009; and
       ``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and 
     each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year 
     that begins after that December 31.
       ``(2) Allocations to covered units that are not new 
     units.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall allocate to each 
     affected unit that is not a new unit, to each nuclear 
     generating unit with respect to incremental nuclear 
     generation, and to each renewable energy unit that is not a 
     new renewable energy unit, a quantity of carbon dioxide 
     allowances that is

[[Page 8932]]

     equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances available 
     for allocation under subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) the quotient obtained by dividing--

       ``(I) the average net quantity of electricity generated by 
     the unit in a calendar year during the most recent 3-calendar 
     year period for which data are available, measured in 
     megawatt hours; and
       ``(II) the total of the average net quantities described in 
     subclause (I) with respect to all such units.

       ``(B) Quantity to be allocated.--For each calendar year, 
     the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances allocated under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the difference between--
       ``(i) the annual tonnage limitation for emissions of carbon 
     dioxide from affected units specified in section 702(d) for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(ii) the quantity of carbon dioxide allowances placed in 
     the new unit reserve established under subsection (b) for the 
     calendar year.
       ``(3) Allocation to new units and new renewable energy 
     units.--
       ``(A) Methodology.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish a methodology for allocating carbon 
     dioxide allowances to new units and new renewable energy 
     units.
       ``(B) Quantity of carbon dioxide allowances allocated.--The 
     Administrator shall determine the quantity of carbon dioxide 
     allowances to be allocated to each new unit and each new 
     renewable energy unit based on the unit's projected share of 
     the total electric power generation attributable to covered 
     units.
       ``(d) Issuance and Use of Additional Carbon Dioxide 
     Allowances.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Allowances for projects certified by independent 
     review board.--In addition to carbon dioxide allowances 
     allocated under subsection (c), the Administrator shall make 
     carbon dioxide allowances available to projects that are 
     certified, in accordance with paragraph (3), by the 
     independent review board established under paragraph (2) as 
     eligible to receive the carbon dioxide allowances.
       ``(B) Allowances obtained under other programs.--The 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       ``(i) allow covered units to comply with subsection (f)(1) 
     by purchasing and using carbon dioxide allowances that are 
     traded under any other United States or internationally 
     recognized carbon dioxide reduction program that is specified 
     under clause (ii);
       ``(ii) specify, for the purpose of clause (i), programs 
     that meet the goals of this section; and
       ``(iii) apply such conditions to the use of carbon dioxide 
     allowances traded under programs specified under clause (ii) 
     as are necessary to achieve the goals of this section.
       ``(2) Independent review board.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish an 
     independent review board to assist the Administrator in 
     certifying projects as eligible for carbon dioxide allowances 
     made available under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(ii) Review and approval.--Each certification by the 
     independent review board of a project shall be subject to the 
     review and approval of the Administrator.
       ``(iii) Requirements.--Subject to this subsection, 
     requirements relating to the creation, composition, duties, 
     responsibilities, and other aspects of the independent review 
     board shall be included in the regulations promulgated by the 
     Administrator under subsection (a).
       ``(B) Membership.--The independent review board shall be 
     composed of 12 members, of whom--
       ``(i) 10 members shall be appointed by the Administrator, 
     of whom--

       ``(I) 1 member shall represent the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (who shall serve as chairperson of the independent 
     review board);
       ``(II) 3 members shall represent State governments;
       ``(III) 3 members shall represent the electric generating 
     sector; and
       ``(IV) 3 members shall represent environmental 
     organizations;

       ``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Energy to represent the Department of Energy; and
       ``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to represent the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(C) Staff and other resources.--The Administrator shall 
     provide such staff and other resources to the independent 
     review board as the Administrator determines to be necessary.
       ``(D) Development of guidelines.--
       ``(i) In general.--The independent review board shall 
     develop guidelines for certifying projects in accordance with 
     paragraph (3), including--

       ``(I) criteria that address the validity of claims that 
     projects result in the generation of carbon dioxide 
     allowances;
       ``(II) guidelines for certifying incremental carbon 
     sequestration in accordance with clause (ii); and
       ``(III) guidelines for certifying geological sequestration 
     of carbon dioxide in accordance with clause (iii).

       ``(ii) Guidelines for certifying incremental carbon 
     sequestration.--The guidelines for certifying incremental 
     carbon sequestration in forests, agricultural soil, 
     rangeland, or grassland shall include development, reporting, 
     monitoring, and verification guidelines, to be used in 
     quantifying net carbon sequestration from land use projects, 
     that are based on--

       ``(I) measurement of increases in carbon storage in excess 
     of the carbon storage that would have occurred in the absence 
     of such a project;
       ``(II) comprehensive carbon accounting that--

       ``(aa) reflects net increases in carbon reservoirs; and
       ``(bb) takes into account any carbon emissions resulting 
     from disturbance of carbon reservoirs in existence as of the 
     date of commencement of the project;

       ``(III) adjustments to account for--

       ``(aa) emissions of carbon that may result at other 
     locations as a result of the impact of the project on timber 
     supplies; or
       ``(bb) potential displacement of carbon emissions to other 
     land owned by the entity that carries out the project; and

       ``(IV) adjustments to reflect the expected carbon storage 
     over various time periods, taking into account the likely 
     duration of the storage of the carbon stored in a carbon 
     reservoir.

       ``(iii) Guidelines for certifying geological sequestration 
     of carbon dioxide.--The guidelines for certifying geological 
     sequestration of carbon dioxide produced by a covered unit 
     shall--

       ``(I) provide that a project shall be certified only to the 
     extent that the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide 
     produced by a covered unit is in addition to any carbon 
     dioxide used by the covered unit in 2009 for enhanced oil 
     recovery; and
       ``(II) include requirements for development, reporting, 
     monitoring, and verification for quantifying net carbon 
     sequestration--

       ``(aa) to ensure the permanence of the sequestration; and
       ``(bb) to ensure that the sequestration will not cause or 
     contribute to significant adverse effects on the environment.
       ``(iv) Deadlines for development.--The guidelines under 
     clause (i) shall be developed--

       ``(I) with respect to projects described in paragraph 
     (3)(A), not later than January 1, 2005; and
       ``(II) with respect to projects described in paragraph 
     (3)(B), not later than January 1, 2006.

       ``(v) Updating of guidelines.--The independent review board 
     shall periodically update the guidelines as the independent 
     review board determines to be appropriate.
       ``(E) Certification of projects.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), and paragraph (3), the independent review board 
     shall certify projects as eligible for additional carbon 
     dioxide allowances.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The independent review board shall not 
     certify a project under this subsection if the carbon dioxide 
     emission reductions achieved by the project will be used to 
     satisfy any requirement imposed on any foreign country or any 
     industrial sector to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases 
     emitted by the foreign country or industrial sector.
       ``(3) Projects eligible for additional carbon dioxide 
     allowances.--
       ``(A) Projects carried out in calendar years 1990 through 
     2008.--
       ``(i) In general.--The independent review board may certify 
     as eligible for carbon dioxide allowances a project that--

       ``(I) is carried out on or after January 1, 1990, and 
     before January 1, 2009; and
       ``(II) consists of--

       ``(aa) a carbon sequestration project carried out in the 
     United States or a foreign country;
       ``(bb) a project reported under section 1605(b) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)); or
       ``(cc) any other project to reduce emissions of greenhouse 
     gases that is carried out in the United States or a foreign 
     country.
       ``(ii) Maximum quantity of additional carbon dioxide 
     allowances.--The Administrator may make available to projects 
     certified under clause (i) a quantity of allowances that is 
     not greater than 10 percent of the tonnage limitation for 
     calendar year 2009 for emissions of carbon dioxide from 
     affected units specified in section 702(d)(1).
       ``(iii) Use of allowances.--Allowances made available under 
     clause (ii) may be used to comply with subsection (f)(1) in 
     calendar year 2009 or any calendar year thereafter.
       ``(B) Projects carried out in calendar year 2009 and 
     thereafter.--The independent review board may certify as 
     eligible for carbon dioxide allowances a project that--
       ``(i) is carried out on or after January 1, 2009; and
       ``(ii) consists of--

       ``(I) a carbon sequestration project carried out in the 
     United States or a foreign country; or
       ``(II) a project to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (on 
     a carbon dioxide equivalency

[[Page 8933]]

     basis determined by the independent review board) of a source 
     of greenhouse gases that is not an affected unit.

       ``(e) Carbon Dioxide Allowance Transfer System.--
       ``(1) Use of allowances.--The regulations promulgated under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall--
       ``(A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance 
     with paragraph (3)) of any carbon dioxide allowance before 
     the calendar year for which the carbon dioxide allowance is 
     allocated;
       ``(B) provide that unused carbon dioxide allowances may be 
     carried forward and added to carbon dioxide allowances 
     allocated for subsequent years;
       ``(C) provide that unused carbon dioxide allowances may be 
     transferred by--
       ``(i) the person to which the carbon dioxide allowances are 
     allocated; or
       ``(ii) any person to which the carbon dioxide allowances 
     are transferred; and
       ``(D) provide that carbon dioxide allowances allocated and 
     transferred under this section may be transferred into any 
     other market-based carbon dioxide emission trading program 
     that is--
       ``(i) approved by the President; and
       ``(ii) implemented in accordance with regulations developed 
     by the Administrator or the head of any other Federal agency.
       ``(2) Use by persons to which carbon dioxide allowances are 
     transferred.--Any person to which carbon dioxide allowances 
     are transferred under paragraph (1)(C)--
       ``(A) may use the carbon dioxide allowances in the calendar 
     year for which the carbon dioxide allowances were allocated, 
     or in a subsequent calendar year, to demonstrate compliance 
     with subsection (f)(1); or
       ``(B) may transfer the carbon dioxide allowances to any 
     other person for the purpose of demonstration of that 
     compliance.
       ``(3) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a carbon 
     dioxide allowance shall not take effect until a written 
     certification of the transfer, authorized by a responsible 
     official of the person making the transfer, is received and 
     recorded by the Administrator.
       ``(4) Permit requirements.--An allocation or transfer of 
     carbon dioxide allowances to a covered unit, or for a project 
     carried out on behalf of a covered unit, under subsection (c) 
     or (d) shall, after recording by the Administrator, be 
     considered to be part of the federally enforceable permit of 
     the covered unit under this Act, without a requirement for 
     any further review or revision of the permit.
       ``(f) Compliance and Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--For calendar year 2009 and each calendar 
     year thereafter--
       ``(A) the operator of each affected unit and each renewable 
     energy unit shall surrender to the Administrator a quantity 
     of carbon dioxide allowances that is equal to the total tons 
     of carbon dioxide emitted by the affected unit or renewable 
     energy unit during the calendar year; and
       ``(B) the operator of each nuclear generating unit that has 
     incremental nuclear generation shall surrender to the 
     Administrator a quantity of carbon dioxide allowances that is 
     equal to the total tons of carbon dioxide emitted by the 
     nuclear generating unit during the calendar year from 
     incremental nuclear generation.
       ``(2) Monitoring system.--The Administrator shall 
     promulgate regulations requiring the accurate monitoring of 
     the quantity of carbon dioxide that is emitted at each 
     covered unit.
       ``(3) Reporting.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less often than quarterly, the owner 
     or operator of a covered unit, or a person that carries out a 
     project certified under subsection (d) on behalf of a covered 
     unit, shall submit to the Administrator a report on the 
     monitoring of carbon dioxide emissions carried out at the 
     covered unit in accordance with the regulations promulgated 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Authorization.--Each report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be authorized by a responsible 
     official of the covered unit, who shall certify the accuracy 
     of the report.
       ``(C) Public reporting.--The Administrator shall make 
     available to the public, through 1 or more published reports 
     and 1 or more forms of electronic media, data concerning the 
     emissions of carbon dioxide from each covered unit.
       ``(4) Excess emissions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The owner or operator of a covered unit 
     that emits carbon dioxide in excess of the carbon dioxide 
     allowances that the owner or operator holds for use for the 
     covered unit for the calendar year shall--
       ``(i) pay an excess emissions penalty determined under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) offset the excess emissions by an equal quantity in 
     the following calendar year or such other period as the 
     Administrator shall prescribe.
       ``(B) Determination of excess emissions penalty.--The 
     excess emissions penalty shall be equal to the product 
     obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) the number of tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 
     excess of the total quantity of carbon dioxide allowances 
     held; and
       ``(ii) $100, adjusted (in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Administrator) for changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the 
     Department of Labor.
       ``(g) Allowance Not a Property Right.--A carbon dioxide 
     allowance--
       ``(1) is not a property right; and
       ``(2) may be terminated or limited by the Administrator.
       ``(h) No Judicial Review.--An allocation of carbon dioxide 
     allowances by the Administrator under subsection (c) or (d) 
     shall not be subject to judicial review.''.

     SEC. 4. NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM.

       Section 165 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7475) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Revisions to New Source Review Program.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered unit.--The term `covered unit' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 701.
       ``(B) New source review program.--The term `new source 
     review program' means the program to carry out section 111 
     and this part.
       ``(2) Regulations.--In accordance with this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations revising the new 
     source review program.
       ``(3) Applicability criteria.--Beginning January 1, 2009, 
     the new source review program shall apply only to--
       ``(A) construction of a new covered unit (which 
     construction shall include the replacement of an existing 
     boiler); and
       ``(B) an activity that results in any increase in the 
     maximum hourly rate of emissions from a covered unit of air 
     pollutants regulated under the new source review program 
     (measured in pounds per megawatt hour), after netting among 
     covered units at a source.
       ``(4) Performance standards.--Beginning in 2020, each 
     affected unit (as defined in section 701(1)(B)) on which 
     construction commenced before August 17, 1971, shall meet 
     performance standards of--
       ``(A) 4.5 lbs/MWh for sulfur dioxide; and
       ``(B) 2.5 lbs/MWh for nitrogen oxides.
       ``(5) Biennial identification of best available control 
     technologies and lowest achievable emission rates.--
     Notwithstanding the definitions of `best available control 
     technology' under section 169 and `lowest achievable emission 
     rate' under section 171, the Administrator shall identify the 
     best available control technologies and lowest achievable 
     emission rates, on a biennial basis, as those rates and 
     technologies apply to covered units.
       ``(6) Revision of lowest achievable emission rate with 
     respect to considered costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the definition of 
     `lowest achievable emission rate' under section 171, with 
     respect to technology required to be installed by the 
     electric generating sector, costs may be considered in the 
     determination of the lowest achievable emission rate, so 
     that, beginning January 1, 2009, a covered unit (as defined 
     in section 701) shall not be required to install technology 
     required to meet a lowest achievable emission rate if the 
     cost of the technology exceeds the maximum amount determined 
     under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Maximum amount of cost.--The maximum amount referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) shall be an amount (in dollars per 
     ton) that--
       ``(i) is determined by the Administrator; but
       ``(ii) does not exceed an amount equal to twice the amount 
     of the applicable cost guideline for best available control 
     technology.
       ``(7) Emission offsets.--No source within the electric 
     generating sector that locates in a nonattainment area after 
     December 31, 2008, shall be required to obtain offsets for 
     emissions of air pollutants.
       ``(8) Adverse local air quality impacts.--The regulations 
     shall require each State--
       ``(A) to identify areas in the State that adversely affect 
     local air quality; and
       ``(B) to impose such facility-specific and other measures 
     as are necessary to remedy the adverse effects in accordance 
     with the national pollutant tonnage limitations under section 
     702.
       ``(9) No effect on other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     subsection affects the obligation of any State or local 
     government to comply with the requirements established under 
     this section concerning--
       ``(A) national ambient air quality standards;
       ``(B) maximum allowable air pollutant increases or maximum 
     allowable air pollutant concentrations; or
       ``(C) protection of visibility and other air quality-
     related values in areas designated as class I areas under 
     part C of title I.''.

     SEC. 5. REVISIONS TO SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Clean Air Act (relating to 
     acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417. REVISIONS TO SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `affected 
     unit' and `new unit' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 701.

[[Page 8934]]

       ``(b) Regulations.--Not later than January 1, 2004, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate such revisions to the 
     regulations to implement this title as the Administrator 
     determines to be necessary to implement section 702(a).
       ``(c) New Unit Reserve.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Subject to the annual tonnage 
     limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected 
     units specified in section 702(a), the Administrator shall 
     establish by regulation a reserve of allowances to be set 
     aside for use by new units.
       ``(2) Determination of quantity.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall determine, 
     based on projections of electricity output for new units--
       ``(A) not later than June 30, 2005, the quantity of 
     allowances required to be held in reserve for new units for 
     each of calendar years 2009 through 2013; and
       ``(B) not later than June 30 of each fifth calendar year 
     thereafter, the quantity of allowances required to be held in 
     reserve for new units for the following 5-calendar year 
     period.
       ``(3) Allocation.--
       ``(A) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish a methodology for allocating 
     allowances to new units.
       ``(B) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by 
     the Administrator under this subsection shall not be subject 
     to judicial review.
       ``(d) Existing Units.--
       ``(1) Allocation.--
       ``(A) Regulations.--Subject to the annual tonnage 
     limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected 
     units specified in section 702(a), and subject to the reserve 
     of allowances for new units under subsection (c), the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to govern the 
     allocation of allowances to affected units that are not new 
     units.
       ``(B) Required elements.--The regulations shall provide 
     for--
       ``(i) the allocation of allowances on a fair and equitable 
     basis between affected units that received allowances under 
     section 405 and affected units that are not new units and 
     that did not receive allowances under that section, using for 
     both categories of units the same or similar allocation 
     methodology as was used under section 405; and
       ``(ii) the pro-rata distribution of allowances to all units 
     described in clause (i), subject to the annual tonnage 
     limitation for emissions of sulfur dioxide from affected 
     units specified in section 702(a).
       ``(2) Timing of allocations.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate allowances to affected units--
       ``(A) not later than December 31, 2005, for calendar year 
     2009; and
       ``(B) not later than December 31 of calendar year 2006 and 
     each calendar year thereafter, for the fourth calendar year 
     that begins after that December 31.
       ``(3) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by 
     the Administrator under this subsection shall not be subject 
     to judicial review.
       ``(e) Western Regional Air Partnership.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered state.--The term `covered State' means each 
     of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
     Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
       ``(B) Covered year.--The term `covered year' means--
       ``(i)(I)(aa) the third calendar year after the first 
     calendar year in which the Administrator determines by 
     regulation that the total of the annual emissions of sulfur 
     dioxide from all affected units in the covered States is 
     projected to exceed 271,000 tons in calendar year 2018 or any 
     calendar year thereafter; but
       ``(bb) not earlier than calendar year 2016; or
       ``(II) if the Administrator does not make the determination 
     described in subclause (I)(aa)--

       ``(aa) the third calendar year after the first calendar 
     year with respect to which the total of the annual emissions 
     of sulfur dioxide from all affected units in the covered 
     States first exceeds 271,000 tons; but
       ``(bb) not earlier than calendar year 2021; and

       ``(ii) each calendar year after the calendar year 
     determined under clause (i).
       ``(2) Maximum emissions of sulfur dioxide from each 
     affected unit.--In each covered year, the emissions of sulfur 
     dioxide from each affected unit in a covered State shall not 
     exceed the number of allowances that are allocated under 
     paragraph (3) and held by the affected unit for the covered 
     year.
       ``(3) Allocation of allowances.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2013, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to establish--
       ``(i) a methodology for allocating allowances to affected 
     units in covered States under this subsection; and
       ``(ii) the timing of the allocations.
       ``(B) No judicial review.--An allocation of allowances by 
     the Administrator under this paragraph shall not be subject 
     to judicial review.''.
       (b) Definition of Allowance.--Section 402 of the Clean Air 
     Act (relating to acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. 7651a) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Allowance.--The term `allowance' means an 
     authorization, allocated by the Administrator to an affected 
     unit under this title, to emit, during or after a specified 
     calendar year, a quantity of sulfur dioxide determined by the 
     Administrator and specified in the regulations promulgated 
     under section 417(b).''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Title IV of the Clean Air Act (relating to noise 
     pollution) (42 U.S.C. 7641 et seq.)--
       (A) is amended by redesignating sections 401 through 403 as 
     sections 801 through 803, respectively; and
       (B) is redesignated as title VIII and moved to appear at 
     the end of that Act.
       (2) The table of contents for title IV of the Clean Air Act 
     (relating to acid deposition control) (42 U.S.C. prec. 7651) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 417. Revisions to sulfur dioxide allowance program.''.

     SEC. 6. AIR QUALITY FORECASTS AND WARNINGS.

       (a) Requirement for Forecasts and Warnings.--The Secretary 
     of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in cooperation with 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     shall issue air quality forecasts and air quality warnings as 
     part of the mission of the Department of Commerce.
       (b) Regional Warnings.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall establish within the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a program to provide 
     region-oriented forecasts and warnings regarding air quality 
     for each of the following regions of the United States:
       (1) The Northeast, composed of Connecticut, Maine, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and 
     Vermont.
       (2) The Mid-Atlantic, composed of Delaware, the District of 
     Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 
     West Virginia.
       (3) The Southeast, composed of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
     North Carolina, and South Carolina.
       (4) The South, composed of Arkansas, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.
       (5) The Midwest, composed of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
     Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
       (6) The High Plains, composed of Kansas, Nebraska, North 
     Dakota, and South Dakota.
       (7) The Northwest, composed of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, 
     Washington, and Wyoming.
       (8) The Southwest, composed of Arizona, California, 
     Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah.
       (9) Alaska.
       (10) Hawaii.
       (c) Priority Area.--In establishing the program described 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary of Commerce and the 
     Administrator shall identify and expand, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, Federal air quality forecast and warning 
     programs in effect as of the date of establishment of the 
     program.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.

       (a) Exemption From Hazardous Air Pollutant Requirements 
     Relating to Mercury.--Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Mercury emitted from certain affected units.--Not 
     later than 8 years after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall carry out the duties of 
     the Administrator under this subsection with respect to 
     mercury emitted from affected units (as defined in section 
     701).''; and
       (2) in subsection (n)(1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``(A) The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Study, report, and regulations.--
       ``(i) Study and report to congress.--The Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``The Administrator'' in the fourth 
     sentence and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Regulations.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Administrator''; and

       (C) in clause (ii) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by 
     adding at the end the following:

       ``(II) Exemption for certain affected units relating to 
     mercury.--An affected unit (as defined in section 701) that 
     would otherwise be subject to mercury emission standards 
     under subclause (I) shall not be subject to mercury emission 
     standards under subclause (I) or subsection (c).''.

       (b) Temporary Exemption From Visibility Protection 
     Requirements.--Section 169A(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7491(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Temporary exemption for certain affected units.--An 
     affected unit (as defined in section 701) shall not be 
     subject to subsection (b)(2)(A) during the period--
       ``(A) beginning on the date of enactment of this paragraph; 
     and

[[Page 8935]]

       ``(B) ending on the date that is 20 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (c) No Effect on Other Federal and State Requirements.--
     Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, 
     nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act--
       (1) affects any permitting, monitoring, or enforcement 
     obligation of the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
     seq.) or any remedy provided under that Act;
       (2) affects any requirement applicable to, or liability of, 
     an electric generating facility under that Act;
       (3) requires a change in, affects, or limits any State law 
     that regulates electric utility rates or charges, including 
     prudency review under State law; or
       (4) precludes a State or political subdivision of a State 
     from adopting and enforcing any requirement for the control 
     or abatement of air pollution, except that a State or 
     political subdivision may not adopt or enforce any emission 
     standard or limitation that is less stringent than the 
     requirements imposed under that Act.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper 
today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs 
to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for 
broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The 
testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for 
controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time 
recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through 
experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we 
find middle ground.
  The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say 
this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the 
legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory 
control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of 
fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated. 
The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration 
last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem. 
The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio 
Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In 
1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. 
It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990 
levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any 
action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions 
without harming the economy.
  The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant 
reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For 
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish 
emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved 
under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we 
will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved. 
By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to 
address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a 
three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs.
  I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to 
break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that 
will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward 
to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill 
that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious 
health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Allard, 
        Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 844. A bill to subject the United States to imposition of fees and 
costs in proceedings relating to State water rights adjudications; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication 
Fee Fairness Act. This bill would require the Federal Government to pay 
the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights 
adjudications as is currently required of States and private parties.
  To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of 
many States, particularly in the West--States must conduct lengthy, 
complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications. 
In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring 
Federal claims to be adjudicated in these State proceedings by adopting 
the McCarran Amendment. The McCarran Amendment waives the sovereign 
immunity of the United States and requires the Federal Government to 
submit to State court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in 
State general adjudication proceedings.
  These Federal claims are typically among the most complicated and 
largest of claims in State adjudications, and Federal agencies are 
often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states 
officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992, 
the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S. 
need not pay fees for processing Federal claims.
  When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the 
costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the 
proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays 
completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary 
to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the 
inability to protect private and public property interests or determine 
how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important 
environmental and economic development priorities.
  Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like 
other water users in the adjudication, Federal agencies can file 
questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of 
their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel 
playing field favoring the Federal agencies and places a further 
financial and resources burden on the system.
  I recognize the Federal Government has a legitimate right to some 
water rights; however, the Federal Government should play by the same 
rules as the States and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee 
Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting 
the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same 
fees and costs as State and private users in water rights 
adjudications.
  This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council 
and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me 
in supporting water users, taxpayers, the States, and welcome their co-
sponsorship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Landrieu, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, and 
        Mr. Nelson of Florida):
  S. 845. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to provide States with the option to cover certain legal immigrants 
under the medicaid and State children's health insurance programs; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and a bipartisan group of co-
sponsors to introduce the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act 
of 2003.
  This legislation will give states the option to provide Medicaid and 
State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, coverage to legal 
immigrant children and pregnant women during their first five years in 
this country.
  Medicaid and CHIP are vital components of our nation's health care 
safety net. They provide coverage to over 40 million non-elderly, low-
income Americans, most of them children. These programs have helped 
dramatically reduce infant mortality, and they have provided health 
care financing for millions

[[Page 8936]]

of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private 
health insurance.
  However, for many low-income families that are eligible for Medicaid 
and CHIP, these safety net programs are little more than a mirage in a 
desert--an illusion to those who need them most. The Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 
commonly known as the welfare reform law, arbitrarily barred states 
from using federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal 
immigrants during their first five years in the United States. While 
the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, 
the legislation unintentionally punished children.
  Prior to 1996, Medicaid coverage was available to qualified children, 
parents, seniors, and people with disabilities in both citizen and 
legal immigrant families alike. After passage of the 1996 welfare 
reform law, many low-income and working legal immigrant families were 
left without a viable option for health insurance coverage.
  In fact, while the percentage of our nation's children with health 
insurance has risen in recent years, the percentage of children in 
immigrant families with health insurance has fallen. According to the 
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, in 2000, half of low-
income children in such families were uninsured.
  Florida is home to over half a million uninsured children, many of 
whom are legal immigrants. Take the Sardinas family of Miami.
  The Sardinas family immigrated to the United States from Cuba in 
2001. Mr. Sardinas works in a factory assembling airplanes while Mrs. 
Sardinas maintains a low-wage job. The family's four children--Swani, 
17; Sinai, 13; Samuel, 8; and Sentia, 5--have been on a State waiting 
list for health insurance for almost two years. Sentia has allergies 
and Swani suffers from asthma. Mrs. Sardinas worries about not having 
access to regular check-ups for her children, but she has no choice. 
She does not know what the family will do if Sentia has a severe 
allergic reaction or Swani is hospitalized after an asthma attack.
  The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act eliminates the 
arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as a cutoff date for allowing 
children to get health care. More than 155,000 children like Swani, 
Sinai, Samuel, and Sentia will have access to health coverage each 
year, allowing them to receive preventive services, have their chronic 
conditions properly diagnosed and treated, and receive timely care for 
acute conditions.
  States have asked for this option. In its 2003 Winter Policy Report, 
the National Governors Association endorsed this common-sense policy 
proposal. The National Council of State Legislators has also endorsed 
this bill.
  Twenty-two States are already providing health coverage for legal 
immigrants through State-funded replacement programs. However, severe 
budget shortfalls may prevent such states from being able to continue 
these important programs in the future. Our bill provides immediate 
fiscal relief for these States by allowing them to draw down federal 
matching funds. It also gives states that are not currently providing 
health coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women the 
flexibility to do so.
  Legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same 
social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children 
are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It 
is important that all children, both citizen children and legal 
immigrant children alike, start off on the right foot towards full 
civil participation.
  Our bill is supported by Senators McCain, Daschle, Jeffords, 
Bingaman, Lincoln, Collins, Kennedy, Feinstein, Corzine, Levin, 
Sarbanes, Dodd, Landrieu, Boxer, Kerry, and Bill Nelson.
  Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Henry Waxman of 
California have also introduced bipartisan companion legislation in the 
House.
  We call upon Congress and the President to act this year and pass 
this important bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Graham 
and Senator Chafee in introducing the Immigrant Children's Health 
Insurance Act, which will benefit tens of thousands of immigrant 
children and families across the Nation.
  The 1996 welfare reform legislation disqualified legal, taxpaying 
immigrants from major Federal assistance programs, including health 
coverage through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program. As a result, many of these individuals and families go without 
needed care or rely on hospital emergency rooms for their care.
  This bill will enable States to provide health insurance coverage for 
legal immigrant children and pregnant women under Medicaid and SCHIP. 
This is an important step in alleviating the health disparities that 
exist for immigrant children. Research shows that children of immigrant 
are twice as likely to be uninsured as children of U.S. citizens. They 
are more than three times as likely not to have regular care, and more 
than twice as likely to be in fair or poor health. Enacting this 
legislation will help to eliminate these inequalities.
  This bill will also help to reduce the number of uninsured in our 
country. Today, there are 42 million uninsured, and 10 million are 
children. Most of the uninsured are earning incomes below or near the 
poverty line, and can't afford the high cost of private insurance. The 
1996 legislation barring legal immigrants from federally funded health 
care has contributed to the increase in the number of uninsured. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cover an 
additional 155,000 children and 60,000 pregnant women this year alone.
  Throughout our history, immigrants have made important contributions 
to our country. They work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules. In 
fact, immigrants and their children make significant contributions to 
our long-term economic well-being by adding an estimated $10 billion 
annually to our economy. However, they are disproportionately employed 
in low-wage, low-benefit jobs, and are more likely to be uninsured. 
This bill will enable legal immigrant families to receive the services 
they are paying for as taxpayers. It is a matter of basic fairness.
  The bill makes good economic sense, as well. Twenty-six states and 
the District of Columbia already use their own State funds to provide 
medical coverage for legal immigrants, but continuing these programs is 
becoming increasingly difficult as state budget constraints worsen. In 
fact, Massachusetts, which currently provides health coverage at State 
expense, is proposing to eliminate Medicaid for adult immigrants. 
Allowing States to use Federal funds to support their health care 
initiatives will provide needed fiscal relief, and ensure that these 
children receive a health start.
  Both good nutrition and adequate health care are fundamental for 
health child development. Last year, with President Bush's support, 
Congress restored food stamp benefits to legal immigrants in the farm 
bill. It is long past time for Congress to guarantee that legal 
immigrants also have access to health care.
  America has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, and we must 
live up to our history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. 
Restoring these health benefits will ensure that children in immigrant 
families have the same opportunities for good health as every other 
child in the Nation. The Immigrant Children's Health Insurance Act is a 
needed step to achieve this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 846. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for premiums on mortgage insurance, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my Finance Committee 
colleague, Senator Lincoln, to introduce

[[Page 8937]]

the The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will extend 
the mortgage interest tax deduction to mortgage insurance payment 
premiums, both government and private. It will make mortgage insurance 
payments tax-deductible and will boost homeownership in Oregon and 
across the Nation, for those lower-income, minority and veteran 
borrowers that typically need mortgage insurance to purchase a home.
  It is widely recognized that homeownership helps create stable and 
safe communities. Thus, the Federal Government has long sought to 
increase homeownership. The Bush Administration has announced a target 
of 5.5 million new homeowners by the year 2010. To achieve that goal, 
groups that have typically had difficulty purchasing homes--young 
people, low-income families, members of minority groups--must be able 
to participate in the housing market.
  Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, 
low-income and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The 
Veterans Affairs, VA, Federal Housing Authority, FHA, Regional Housing 
Authority, RHA, and Private Mortgage Insurance, PMI, programs allow 
buyers to make a down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised 
value. Mortgage insurance is a critical factor in allowing middle-
income families and minorities to become homeowners. In Oregon, more 
than 137,000 families held mortgages with either FHA or private 
mortgage insurance at the end of 2002 and insured mortgages covered 25 
percent of home purchase loans originating in 2001. Sixty-two percent 
of the insured home purchases in Oregon in 2001 were low-income 
borrowers. The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act will bring tax relief to 
those who need it the most.
  In 2001, nationwide, mortgage insurance covered 57-percent of 
mortgage purchase loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers 
and 54 percent percent of the loans to borrowers with incomes below the 
median income. The people who use mortgage insurance are regular 
working families who live in every community throughout the country. 
Currently, twelve million American families use mortgage insurance.
  Presently, these borrowers cannot deduct the cost of their mortgage 
insurance payments for Federal tax purposes. If mortgage insurance 
payments were made deductible, the cost of homeownership would be 
further reduced for these borrowers, enabling new buyers to get into a 
home that they might not have been able to afford. It is estimated that 
the Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act would increase the number of 
homeowners by 300,000 per year.
  Extending the tax deduction for home mortgage interest payments to 
mortgage insurance payments will significantly contribute to making the 
American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our 
citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important bi-partisan 
legislation and join us in working towards its enactment at the 
earliest opportunity this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 846

       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 ``Mortgage Insurance Fairness 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PREMIUMS FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 163(h) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     residence interest) is amended by adding after subparagraph 
     (D) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Mortgage insurance premiums treated as interest.--
       ``(i) In general.--Premiums paid or accrued for qualified 
     mortgage insurance by a taxpayer during the taxable year in 
     connection with acquisition indebtedness with respect to a 
     qualified residence of the taxpayer shall be treated for 
     purposes of this subsection as qualified residence interest.
       ``(ii) Phaseout.--The amount otherwise allowable as a 
     deduction under clause (i) shall be reduced (but not below 
     zero) by 10 percent of such amount for each $1,000 ($500 in 
     the case of a married individual filing a separate return) 
     (or fraction thereof) that the taxpayer's adjusted gross 
     income for the taxable year exceeds $100,000 ($50,000 in the 
     case of a married individual filing a separate return).''.
       (b) Definition and Special Rules.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     other definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) Qualified mortgage insurance.--The term `qualified 
     mortgage insurance' means--
       ``(i) mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans 
     Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, or the 
     Rural Housing Administration, and
       ``(ii) private mortgage insurance (as defined by section 2 
     of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), as 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph).
       ``(F) Special rules for prepaid qualified mortgage 
     insurance.--Any amount paid by the taxpayer for qualified 
     mortgage insurance that is properly allocable to any mortgage 
     the payment of which extends to periods that are after the 
     close of the taxable year in which such amount is paid shall 
     be chargeable to capital account and shall be treated as paid 
     in such periods to which so allocated. No deduction shall be 
     allowed for the unamortized balance of such account if such 
     mortgage is satisfied before the end of its term. The 
     preceding sentences shall not apply to amounts paid for 
     qualified mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans 
     Administration or the Rural Housing Administration.''.

     SEC. 3. INFORMATION RETURNS RELATING TO MORTGAGE INSURANCE.

       Section 6050H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to returns relating to mortgage interest received 
     in trade or business from individuals) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Returns Relating to Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may prescribe, by 
     regulations, that any person who, in the course of a trade or 
     business, receives from any individual premiums for mortgage 
     insurance aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year, 
     shall make a return with respect to each such individual. 
     Such return shall be in such form, shall be made at such 
     time, and shall contain such information as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       ``(2) Statement to be furnished to individuals with respect 
     to whom information is required.--Every person required to 
     make a return under paragraph (1) shall furnish to each 
     individual with respect to whom a return is made a written 
     statement showing such information as the Secretary may 
     prescribe. Such written statement shall be furnished on or 
     before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for 
     which the return under paragraph (1) was required to be made.
       ``(3) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) rules similar to the rules of subsection (c) shall 
     apply, and
       ``(B) the term `mortgage insurance' means--
       ``(i) mortgage insurance provided by the Veterans 
     Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, or the 
     Rural Housing Administration, and
       ``(ii) private mortgage insurance (as defined by section 2 
     of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), as 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     subparagraph).''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to amounts paid 
     or accrued after the date of enactment of this Act in taxable 
     years ending after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 847. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
permit States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for low income 
individuals infected with HIV; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early 
Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, of 2003. Senator Clinton joins me in 
introducing this bill, and I want to thank her for her steadfast 
support for people living with HIV. HIV knows no party affiliation, and 
I am pleased to say that ETHA cosponsors sit on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Simply stated, ETHA gives States the opportunity to extend Medicaid 
coverage to low-income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop 
full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that AIDS must 
disable most patients before they can qualify for

[[Page 8938]]

Medicaid coverage. We can do better, and we should do everything 
possible to ensure that all people living with HIV can get early, 
effective medical care.
  Current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the 
progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and 
quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. That is 
why it was so devastating for people in Oregon when, just a few weeks 
ago, the state announced that its Medically Needy program ran out of 
money, and that many patients, including those living with HIV, would 
have to go elsewhere for their treatments. The fact of the matter is 
that safety net programs all over the country are running out of money, 
and are generally unable to cover all of the people who need paying for 
their medical care. As other programs are failing, ETHA gives States 
another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals.
  Importantly, ETHA also offers states an enhanced Federal Medicaid 
match, which means more money for States that invest in treatments for 
HIV. This provision models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer 
Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows states to provide 
early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. 
Even in these difficult times, forty-five states are now offering early 
Medicaid coverage to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can 
build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early 
intervention treatments to people with HIV.
  HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of people living in every 
State in the Union. Some get the proper medications, and too many do 
not. This is literally a life and death issue, and ETHA can help many 
more Americans enjoy long, healthy lives.
  I want to thank Senators Collins, Bingaman, Cantwell, Corzine, 
Feinstein, Landrieu, Murray, and Wyden for joining us as cosponsors of 
ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country 
that have expressed support for this bill. I have received a stack of 
support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent 
that those letters be printed in the Congressional Record. In 
particular, I want to thank the ADAP Working Group and the Treatment 
Access Expansion Project, led by Robert Greenwald, for helping bring so 
much attention to ETHA. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in 
supporting this critical, life-saving legislation.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               American Foundation


                                            for Aids Research,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you for your 
     sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003 
     (ETHA), which would allow states to extend Medicaid coverage 
     to low-income people living with HIV.
       Currently, Medicaid coverage is limited to people who meet 
     very strict income requirements and meet other 
     qualifications, such as being disabled. The disability 
     requirements for Medicaid are such that many low-income 
     uninsured people living with HIV are unable to qualify for 
     Medicaid until their disease has progressed to the point 
     where they are fully disabled by AIDS. Since individuals who 
     are HIV-positive generally do not qualify for Medicaid, many 
     do not have access to the early intervention and treatment 
     that can help slow the progression of HIV and prevent the 
     onset of opportunistic infections.
       There are many benefits to providing access to early 
     intervention and treatment to low-income HIV-positive people. 
     By delaying the progression from HIV to AIDS, savings in 
     treatment costs are realized. Most important, however, the 
     health and quality of life of individuals living with HIV is 
     greatly improved.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with 
     the option of extending Medicaid coverage to low-income, non-
     disabled people living with HIV. As a result, ETHA could help 
     provide early access to care for thousands of individuals 
     around the country.
       We thank you for your leadership and sponsorship of this 
     very important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jerome J. Radwin,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                        Human Rights Campaign,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of 
     the more than 500,000 members of the Human Rights Campaign, 
     for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 
     2003.
       Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only 
     qualify for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is 
     not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person 
     with asymptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid 
     until he or she has progressed to full-blown AIDS. Since HIV-
     positive individuals do not qualify for Medicaid, many lack 
     the ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow 
     the progression of the HIV and to prevent the onset of 
     opportunistic infections.
       Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the 
     progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By 
     making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will 
     diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the 
     lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be 
     able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of 
     savings, and most importantly, the quality of life for 
     countless HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply 
     put, providing coverage earlier rather than later is the 
     right thing to do.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with 
     the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as 
     `categorically needy'. In this way, this legislation is very 
     similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide states 
     with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to women 
     diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with breast or 
     cervical cancer.
       On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be 
     improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for 
     your leadership and your sponsoring this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Winnie Stachelberg,
     Political Director.
                                  ____



                                    L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, April 4, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian 
     Center, I am writing to thank you for agreeing to be the lead 
     sponsors of the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We 
     wholeheartedly support your efforts to ensure that low-income 
     people with HIV have access to health care by allowing States 
     the option to expand Medicaid programs to cover non-disabling 
     HIV disease.
       ETHA represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to 
     care for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. 
     Current HIV treatments are successfully delaying the 
     progression from HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health 
     and quality of life for many people living with the disease. 
     However, without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       Research has shown that providing highly active 
     antiretroviral therapy produces significant cost-savings in 
     reduced hospital costs. By preserving the health of people 
     living with HIV, preventing opportunistic infections 
     associated with the disease, and slowing the progression to 
     AIDS, the Early Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save 
     taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, should ETHA become law, 
     the United States will take an important step towards 
     ensuring that all people living with HIV can get the medical 
     care they need to stay healthy for as long as possible, 
     enabling individuals to lead productive lives.
       Increasing need as people with HIV live longer and the rise 
     in new infections demand additional resources to provide care 
     and treatment. It is unconscionable that low-income people 
     with HIV should not have access to care and treatment. The 
     demographics of the HIV epidemic have shifted into more 
     impoverished and marginalized communities. Rates of HIV 
     infection are staggeringly high in some communities, with one 
     in ten gay men infected and one in three African American gay 
     men living with HIV.
       In an era of constrained federal resources for health care 
     spending, we must aggressively fight for effective means to 
     finance care for people with HIV. This bill will begin to 
     address these challenges through a permanent funding 
     solution, allowing states to expand the safety net to cover 
     eligible persons with early-stage HIV disease.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me

[[Page 8939]]

     know if there is anything I can do to help secure passage of 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Rebecca Isaacs,
     Interim Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                San Francisco AIDS Foundation,

                                 San Francisco, CA, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: The San Francisco AIDS 
     Foundation would like to thank you for your sponsorship of 
     the Early Treatment for HIV Act 2003.
       The Act would provide states with the option of covering 
     low-income people living with HIV as `categorically needy' 
     provide them with medical care and treatment, reduce long 
     term health care costs to states, and address a serious gap 
     in public health care access. Recent breakthroughs in medical 
     science and clinical practice have transformed the 
     possibilities in HIV/AIDS care in the United States. Today, 
     we know that early intervention with medical care and 
     treatment for HIV disease slows the progression of HIV and 
     prevents the onset of opportunistic infections. Application 
     of this knowledge lengthens the life expectancy and 
     dramatically improves the quality of life for many. These 
     changes in science and medical practice demand revisions in 
     the treatment of HIV disease under Medicaid.
       Currently Medicaid eligibility for childless adults is tied 
     to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility. The 
     result of this determination is that people living with HIV 
     must wait for Medicaid access until their disease has 
     progressed to a disabling AIDS diagnosis. The cruel irony of 
     this practice is that individuals are forced to incur often-
     irreparable damage to their immune systems before receiving 
     treatments that could have delayed or avoided the damage. 
     This is counter to sound public health practices and all but 
     guarantees higher cost of care for thousands of affected 
     individuals. This serious anomaly in public health care 
     coverage must be rectified by the enactment of this 
     legislation.
       The AIDS Foundation thanks you both for your leadership and 
     sponsorship of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ernest Hopkins,
     Director of Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                  Treatment Access


                                            Expansion Project,

                                        Boston, MA, April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Treatment Access Expansion Project (TAEP) 
     would like to thank you on behalf of our broad-based 
     coalition of members. Your leadership and support of the 
     Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA) and your commitment to 
     AIDS and to the HIV community are greatly appreciated.
       As you are well aware, ETHA would allow states to extend 
     Medicaid coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. 
     This breakthrough in assuring early access to care for 
     thousands of low-income people living with HIV is imperative. 
     Under current law, AIDS must disable most patients before 
     they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. Enacting ETHA into 
     law would represent an important step toward ensuring that 
     all people living with HIV could get the medical care 
     necessary to remain healthy for as long as possible.
       Current HIV treatments are successful in delaying the 
     progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and thus help improve 
     the health and quality of life for many people living with 
     the disease. By preserving the health of people living with 
     HIV, preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the ETHA would 
     ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
       The members of TAEP fully endorse the Early Treatment for 
     HIV Act and thank you again for your dedication to the 
     passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert Greenwald,
                                                 Project Director.

  Endorsers of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, as of February 6, 2003


                               background

       The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) is currently pending 
     in Congress. ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. 
     Currently, most individuals with HIV must become disabled by 
     AIDS in orders to receive Medicaid coverage.
       HIV/AIDS treatments are successfully delaying the 
     progression from HIV infection to full-blown AIDS. These 
     advancements have improved both the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with this disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for thousands 
     of non-disabled, low-income people living with HIV.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections, and slowing the 
     progression to AIDS, ETHA could ultimately save taxpayer 
     dollars. Most importantly, if ETHA can garner the bipartisan 
     support needed to become law, the United States will take an 
     important step towards ensuring that all people living with 
     HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy for as 
     long as possible.


                              endorsements

       The following organizations support passage of the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act:

     ACT UP Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
     ACT UP Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
     ADAP Working Group, Washington, D.C.
     AIDS Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
     AIDS Action, Washington, D.C.
     AIDS Action Baltimore, Baltimore, MD
     AIDS Alabama, Birmingham, AL
     AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families, Washington, 
         D.C.
     AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Chicago, IL
     AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Los Angeles, CA
     AIDS Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
     AIDS Project Rhode Island, Providence, RI
     AIDS Services Foundation Orange County, Irvine, CA
     AIDS Survival Project, Atlanta, GA
     AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland, Cleveland, OH
     AIDS Treatment Data Network, New York, NY
     AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, New York, NY
     AIDS Volunteers of Northern Kentucky, Covington, KY
     Africa Eridge, Inc., West Linn, OR
     American Foundation for AIDS Research, Washington, D.C.
     American Society of Addiction Medicine, Chevy Chase, MD
     Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, 
         Washington, D.C.
     Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Washington, 
         D.C.
     AsUR Volunteer Services, Oakland, CA
     Beaver County AIDS Service Organization, Aliquippa, PA
     Center for AIDS: Hope & Remembrance Project, Houston, TX
     Center for Women Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.
     Community Advisory Board of the Miriam ACTG, Providence, RI
     Community Care Management, Johnstown, PA
     Council on AIDS In Rockland, Rockland, NY
     Critical Path AIDS Project, Philadelphia, PA
     District of Columbia Primary Care Association, Washington, 
         D.C.
     Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington, D.C.
     Florida AIDS Action, Tampa, FL
     Florida Keys HIV Community Planning Partnership, Key West, FL
     Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research, Brooklyn, NY
     Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, San Francisco, CA
     Gay Men's Health Crisis, New York, NY
     Georgia AIDS Coalition, Inc., Snellville, GA
     HIV/AIDS Alliance for Region Two, Inc. (HAART), Baton Rouge, 
         LA
     HIV/AIDS Dietetic Practice Group, American Dietetic 
         Association, Chicago, IL/Washington, D.C.
     HIV/AIDS Women's Caucus of Long Beach and South Bay, Long 
         Beach, CA
     HIV/Hepatitis C in Prison Committee/California Prison Focus, 
         San Francisco, CA
     HIV Medicine Association, Alexandria, VA
     HUG-M3 Program at Orlando Regional Healthcare, Orlando, FL
     Human Rights Campaign, Washington, D.C.
     International AIDS Empowerment, El Paso, TX
     Kitsap Human Rights Network, Silverdale, WA
     Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Seattle, WA
     Louisiana Lesbian and Gay Political Action Caucus, New 
         Orleans, LA
     Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, Los Angeles, CA
     Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Inc., Henderson, KY
     Michigan Advocates Exchange, Ypsilanti, MI
     Michigan Persons Living With AIDS Task Force, Okemos, MI
     Montrose Clinic, Houston, TX
     National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, 
         Washington, D.C.
     National Association of People With AIDS, Washington, D.C.
     National Association for Victims of Transfusion-Acquired 
         AIDS, Bethesda, MD
     National Coalition for LGBT Health, Washington, D.C.
     National Center on Poverty Law, Chicago, IL
     National Health Law Program, Los Angeles, CA
     National Minority AIDS Council, Washington, D.C.
     New York City AIDS Housing Network, New York, NY
     NO/AIDS Task Force, New Orleans, LA
     North Carolina Council for Positive Living, Raleigh, NC
     Northern Manhattan Women & Children HIV Project, Mailman 
         School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, 
         NY
     Northland Cares, Flagstaff, AZ

[[Page 8940]]

     Okaloosa AIDS Support and Informational Services (OASIS), 
         Fort Walton Beach, FL
     Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), 
         Washington, D.C.
     Philadelphia FIGHT, Philadelphia, PA
     Pierce County AIDS Foundation, Tacoma, WA
     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office, Washington, 
         D.C.
     Primary Health Care, Inc., Des Moines, IA
     Program for Wellness Restoration, Houston, TX
     Project Inform, San Francisco, CA
     Provincetown AIDS Support Group, Provincetown, MA
     Power of Love Foundation, San Diego, CA
     San Antonio AIDS Foundation, San Antonio, TX
     San Francisco AIDS Foundation, San Francisco, CA
     San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium, San Francisco, CA
     Shelter Resources, Inc. d.b.a. Belle Reve New Orleans, New 
         Orleans, LA
     STOP AIDS Project, San Francisco, CA
     Test Positive Aware Network, Chicago, IL
     Title II Community AIDS Action Network, Washington, D.C.
     Treatment Action Group, New York, NY
     United Communities AIDS Network, Olympia, WA
     University of IOWA HIV Program, Iowa City, IA
     Vermont People With AIDS Coalition, Montpelier, VT
     Visionary Health Concepts, New York, NY
     Whitmar Walker Clinic, Washington, D.C.
     Williamsburg/Greenpoint/Bushwick HIV CARE Network, Brooklyn, 
         NY
     Women Accepting Responsibility, Baltimore, MD
     Women's HIV Collaborative of New York, New York, NY.
                                  ____



                                                         ADAP,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2003.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

               RE: ETHA--The Early Treatment for HIV Act

       Dear Senator Clinton and Senator Smith: I write on behalf 
     of our membership to express our support and appreciation for 
     your bipartisan efforts in introducing the Early Treatment 
     for HIV Act.
       Passage of this act into law is a priority for this 
     coalition and we believe ETHA can eventually be a major step 
     towards providing the medically desirable early access to 
     treatment, medical care, support services and prevention 
     education for Americans with HIV disease.
       While we recognize that budgetary resources are constrained 
     we also recognize the cost effectiveness potential ETHA would 
     present to state government resources. Naturally we also 
     realize the extreme health importance of insuring proper 
     medical attention and access to care at the earliest possible 
     moment for HIV + patients.
       Thank you for your leadership in this very important effort 
     to deliver health care to HIV + positive Americans who 
     otherwise are likely to have to wait until diagnosed with 
     full blown AIDS before receiving access to Medicare which 
     would then be able to provide them with the care and 
     treatment which could prevent them from progressing to full 
     blown AIDS--in the first place.
       Our membership intends to devote time and energy towards 
     passing ETHA into law as this session of Congress proceeds. 
     We are aware of hundreds of other organizations that are 
     equally committed to the passage of ETHA. We look forward to 
     actively supporting your efforts and to a final passage of 
     ETHA during the 108th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                William E. Arnold,
     Director.
                                  ____



                                        Whitman-Walker Clinic,

                                                    April 8, 2003.
     The Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     The Hon. Hilary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: On behalf of the thousands 
     of men and women with HIV served by Whitman-Walker Clinic, 
     the board of directors, staff and volunteers thank you for 
     introducing the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We 
     strongly support the goals of this legislation and are 
     grateful for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, as well as improving the health and 
     quality of life for many people living with the disease. 
     However, without access to early intervention, health care 
     and treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many 
     non-disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars. 
     Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States 
     will take an important step towards ensuring that all people 
     living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay 
     healthy for as long as possible.
       Whitman-Walker Clinic provides a broad range of services 
     including HIV testing and counseling, medical and dental 
     care, substance abuse and mental health services and housing. 
     Yet maintaining access to these services for those in need is 
     increasingly difficult.
       Despite nearly two decades of success in HIV prevention and 
     care which has kept tens of thousands alive and healthy in 
     our community, Washington, DC has a rate of AIDS ten times 
     the national average. And, our region, including Northern 
     Virginia and Suburban Maryland, ranks 5th in reported number 
     of cases.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. We look forward to working with you to 
     secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Mark M. Levin,
       Board Chair.
     A. Cornelius Baker,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                National Coalition


                                              for LGBT Health,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of 
     the more than 75 organizations of the National Coalition for 
     Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health, for your 
     sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003.
       Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only 
     qualify for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is 
     not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person 
     with a symptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid 
     until he or she has progressed to AIDS. Since HIV-positive 
     individuals do not qualify for Medicaid, many lack the 
     ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow the 
     progression of the HIV and to prevent the onset of 
     opportunistic infections.
       Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the 
     progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By 
     making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will 
     diminish, due to cost savings the AIDS Drug Assistance 
     Program will be able to provide care to more individuals with 
     HIV, and most importantly, the quality of life for countless 
     HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply put, 
     providing coverage earlier rather than later improved lives 
     and reduces cost for all.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with 
     the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as 
     ``categorically needy.'' In this way, this legislation is 
     very similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide 
     states with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to 
     women diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with 
     breast or cervical cancer.
       On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be 
     improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for 
     your leadership and your sponsoring this important 
     legislation.
           Very truly yours,
     A. Cornelius Baker,
       Co-Chair, Executive Committee.
     Eugenia Handler,
       Co-Chair, Executive Committee.
                                  ____



                            Gay & Lesbian Medical Association,

                                 San Francisco, CA, April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: Thank you, on behalf of 
     the more than 1,500 members of the Gay & Lesbian Medical 
     Association, for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for 
     HIV Act of 2003.
       Currently, childless adults living with HIV generally only 
     qualified for Medicaid coverage once they become eligible for 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because an individual is 
     not eligible for SSI until they become disabled, a person 
     with asymptomatic HIV infection is not eligible for Medicaid 
     until he or she has progressed to full-blown AIDS. Since HIV-
     positive individuals do not qualify for Medicaid, many lack 
     the ability to receive medical care and medicine to help slow 
     the progression of the HIV

[[Page 8941]]

     and to prevent the onset of opportunistic infections.
       Treating those who are HIV-positive early in the 
     progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By 
     making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will 
     diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the 
     lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be 
     able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of 
     savings, and most importantly, the quality of life for 
     countless HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply 
     put, providing coverage earlier rather than later is the 
     right thing to do.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with 
     the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as 
     `categorically needy'. In this way, this legislation is very 
     similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide states 
     with the option of providing Medicaid coverage, through a 
     federally funded program, to women diagnosed with breast or 
     cervical cancer.
       On behalf of the countless people whose lives will be 
     improved by enactment of this legislation, we thank you for 
     your leadership and your sponsoring this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Kenneth Haller Jr.,
     President.
                                  ____



                                        Vermont PWA Coalition,

                                    Montpelier, VT, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Vermont People with 
     AIDS Coalition, I am writing to thank you for agreeing to be 
     the lead sponsor of the Early Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). 
     We strongly support this legislation and are grateful for 
     your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       Access to health care is an important issue for all 
     Vermonters. Any program that will give people who are HIV+ 
     early access to medical care gets our enthusiastic support. 
     In the long run, early treatment will save money and, more 
     importantly, keep people healthy and productive.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars. 
     Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States 
     will take an important step towards ensuring that all people 
     living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay 
     healthy for as long as possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I 
     can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kathy Kilcourse,
     Program Administrator.
                                  ____

                                                Beaver County AIDS


                                         Service Organization,

                                     Aliquippa, PA, April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Beaver County AIDS 
     Service Organization (BCASO), I am writing to thank you for 
     agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment for 
     HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are 
     grateful for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars. 
     Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States 
     will take an important step towards ensuring that all people 
     living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay 
     healthy for as long as possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I 
     can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Adkins,
     Program Coordinator.
                                  ____

                                                      AIDS Council


                                     of Northeastern New York,

                                        Albany, NY, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gordon: On behalf of the AIDS Council of 
     Northeastern New York, I am writing to thank you for agreeing 
     to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment for HIV Act 
     (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are grateful 
     for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars. 
     Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States 
     will take an important step towards ensuring that all people 
     living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay 
     healthy for as long as possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I 
     can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Julie M. Harris,
     Deputy Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              Morrison Center,

                                      Portland, OR, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the thousands of parents 
     and children served by Parents Anonymous' of 
     Oregon, I wish to thank you for the support you have provided 
     to the Parents Anonymous' Programs in your State. 
     These vital federal funds and support from Parents 
     Anonymous' Inc. allow us to meet the ever 
     increasing demand and ensure that the proven effective, child 
     abuse prevention programs of Parents Anonymous' 
     are available to strengthen families here at home.
       For over twenty-five years, Parents Anonymous' 
     of Oregon (PAO) has been dedicated to the prevention of child 
     abuse and neglect by strengthening families in our community. 
     Currently we provide 14 free weekly Parent Support Groups and 
     Children's Programs to parents experiencing challenges and 
     stress in their family and who have the courage to seek help. 
     PAO is committed to providing services to anyone in parenting 
     role, but particularly to at risk populations, including low 
     income Latino families, women transitioning from federal 
     prison and women in residential treatment for substance 
     abuse.
       I respectfully request your support and advocacy for two 
     funding initiatives for Parents Anonymous' Inc. 
     for fiscal year 2004.
       $4 million in the current level of appropriations under the 
     Commerce-Justice-State (``CJS'') appropriations bill, for 
     strengthening and expanding nationwide services to families 
     in local communities to prevent child abuse, neglect, and 
     juvenile delinquency.
       $3 million under the Labor-Health and Human Services 
     (``LHHS'') appropriations bill for establishing, operating, 
     and maintaining a national parent helpline.
       Research demonstrates that child abuse and neglect is often 
     a precursor to delinquent and adult criminal behavior and 
     that children who are abused or neglected are 40% more likely 
     to engage in delinquency or adult criminal behavior. In fact, 
     being abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood 
     of an arrest as a juvenile by 59%, as an adult by 28%, and 
     for a violent crime by 30%. The requested CJS funding will 
     enable us to continue Parents Anonymous' Programs 
     and address the needs of at-risk populations. In addition, 
     this funding will help, in the long run, to reduce 
     expenditures in other Department of Justice programs.
       The requested LHHS funding for a national parent helpline 
     run by Parents Anonymous' Inc. will enable parents 
     throughout the country, in all states, on reservations, in 
     urban and rural areas, to obtain immediate support and help, 
     24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Currently, there is no 
     national toll-free telephone system aimed at providing 
     immediate support to parents seeking help with their child-
     raising crises and connecting them with effective community-
     based programs for assistance--the first cry for help needs 
     to be answered in order to prevent child abuse and neglect.
       Given your strong commitment and leadership to addressing 
     the needs of families in

[[Page 8942]]

     your State, we wish to thank you in advance for championing 
     these two FY 04 funding initiatives.
           Very truly yours,

                                                  Ruth Taylor,

                                                 Program Director,
     Parents Anonymous' of Oregon.
                                  ____

                                     Metropolitan Community Church


                                                   of Portland

                                     Portlands, OR, April 9, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton, I want to take this 
     opportunity to thank you for your sponsorship of the Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act of 2003. Esther's Pantry has been a 
     food bank for individuals living with AIDS since 1985. As 
     funding for AIDS programs such as ours continue to decline 
     and disappear, it very important that individuals diagnosed 
     with HIV receive medical benefits as soon as possible so they 
     may maintain some level of health and be able to provide for 
     themselves long term. We have learned so much about HIV/AIDS 
     over the past several years and the most important lesson has 
     been early detection and treatment. Your bill will address 
     that further piece of the solution by providing some 
     resources to enable those infected to follow through.
       At Esther's Pantry, we regularly provide individually 
     shopped food boxes to approximately 150 clients every month 
     for a total annual population of clients numbering 250. We 
     recently lost Ryan White Title 1 funding and now provide our 
     service through local donation and grant funding from a 
     variety of sources. All clients must have AIDS and be at less 
     than twice the federal poverty level. We are a provider for 
     these clients who are struggling to cope with increased 
     medical costs. Earlier treatment of all these clients would 
     have helped to maintain their health, and enable them to 
     expend their resources for other life necessities. Failure to 
     do this has only created a dire situation.
       This is certainly a bill that takes the necessary steps to 
     improve the situation for so many men, women and children 
     suffering from this disease. Thank you for your continuing 
     efforts.
           In Gratitude,
                                                 David R. Beckley,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                  Parents, Families and Friends of


                                            Lesbians and Gays,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Re: Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: I am the executive 
     director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and 
     Gays (PFLAG), the nation's foremost family organization 
     dedicated to fair treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and 
     transgender (GLBT) persons. Founded in 1973 by heterosexual 
     parents who were brought together by their deep desire to 
     understand and accept their GLBT loved ones, PFLAG consists 
     of almost 500 chapters and represents over 250,000 members 
     and supporters--Republicans and Democrats--throughout the 
     country. On behalf of our national membership, I write to 
     thank you for your sponsorship of the Early Treatment for HIV 
     Act of 2003.
       As a national organization whose mission focuses on the 
     health and well-being of GLBT persons, PFLAG strongly 
     believes that treating those who are HIV-positive early in 
     the progression of the disease provides numerous benefits. By 
     making therapeutics available earlier, treatment costs will 
     diminish, new HIV infections will decrease because of the 
     lower viral loads, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program will be 
     able to provide care to more individuals with HIV because of 
     savings, and most importantly, the quality of life for 
     countless HIV-positive individuals will be improved. Simply 
     put, providing coverage earlier rather than later is the 
     right thing to do.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act would provide states with 
     the option of covering low-income HIV-infected individuals as 
     ``categorically needy''. In this way, this legislation is 
     very similar to the successful effort in 2000 to provide 
     states with the option of providing Medicaid coverage to 
     women diagnosed, through a federally funded program, with 
     breast or cervical cancer.
       PFLAG is proud to support you in calling for these critical 
     steps to be taken in our national fight against AIDS/HIV, and 
     we applaud you for your leadership in this important battle 
     we must all win.
           Sincerely,
                                                      David Tseng,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                        Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric


                                              Aids Foundation,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: On behalf of the Elizabeth 
     Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, I would like to express my 
     strong support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003. 
     We applaud your efforts to give states the option to extend 
     critical Medicaid benefits to low-income HIV-infested 
     individuals.
       For children and adults infected with HIV the recent 
     dramatic advances in treatment offer great hope for living 
     long and healthy lives. Unfortunately, for too many low-
     income and uninsured individuals the cost of these life-
     saving medications is out of reach. A ``catch-22'' in the 
     current Medicaid rules requires that they must be disabled by 
     AIDS before Medicaid will begin to cover the drugs that would 
     have prevented or delayed their becoming disabled in the 
     first place.
       Improving the access of HIV-positive individuals to 
     treatment early in the progression of the disease is not only 
     humane, but also cost-effective. Early treatment lowers the 
     need for expensive medical interventions and, by decreasing 
     viral loads, reduces the likelihood of new infections. Just 
     as importantly, by preserving the ability of HIV-infected 
     individuals to be productive and healthy workers, parents and 
     citizens, early treatment also reduces the attendant social 
     costs of AIDS.
       Thank you for your leadership and commitment to this issue. 
     We look forward to working with you toward passage of the 
     Early Treatment for HIV Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Mark Isaac,

                                   Vice President for Governmental
     and Public Affairs.
                                  ____

         National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS 
           Directors,
                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the National Alliance of 
     State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), I am writing 
     to offer our support for the ``Early Treatment for HIV Act.'' 
     NASTAD represents the nation's chief state and territorial 
     health agency staff who are responsible for HIV/AIDS 
     prevention, care and treatment programs funded by state and 
     federal governments. This legislation would give states an 
     important option in providing care and treatment services to 
     low-income Americans living with HIV.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) would allow states 
     to expand their Medicaid programs to cover HIV positive 
     individuals, before they become disabled, without having to 
     receive a waiver. NASTAD believes this legislation would 
     allow HIV positive individuals to access the medical care 
     that is widely recommended, can postpone or avoid the onset 
     of AIDS, and can enormously increase the quality of life for 
     people living with HIV.
       State AIDS directors continue to develop innovative and 
     cost-effective HIV/AIDS programs in the face of devastating 
     state budget cuts and federal contributions that fail to keep 
     up with need. ETHA provides a solution to states by 
     increasing health care access for those living with HIV/AIDS. 
     ETHA will also save states money in the long-run by treating 
     HIV positive individuals earlier in the disease's progression 
     and providing states with a federal match for the millions of 
     dollars they are presently spending on HIV/AIDS care.
       Thank you very much for your continued commitment to 
     persons living with HIV/AIDS. I look forward to working with 
     you to gain support for this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Julie M. Scofield,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               Southern California


                                       HIV Advocacy Coalition,

                                                    April 7, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of the Southern California 
     HIV Advocacy Coalition, I am writing to thank you for 
     agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment For 
     HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are 
     grateful for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV. The delay in getting 
     individuals into a system of care is having a huge 
     detrimental impact on the HIV delivery system and the entire 
     health safety net in the Southern California area.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, the Early

[[Page 8943]]

     Treatment for HIV Act could ultimately save taxpayer dollars. 
     Most importantly, should ETHA become law, the United States 
     will take an important step towards ensuring that all people 
     living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay 
     healthy for as long as possible.
       In an era of constrained federal resources for health care 
     spending, we must aggressively fight for effective means to 
     finance care for people with HIV. This bill will begin to 
     address these challenges through a permanent funding 
     solution, allowing states to expand the safety net to cover 
     eligible persons with early-stage HIV disease.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I 
     can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tom Peterson,
     Co-Chair, Southern California HIV Advocacy Coalition.
                                  ____

                                              The Center for Aids,
                                       Houston, Tx, April 4, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of The Center for AIDS: Hope 
     & Remembrance Project (CFA), I am writing to thank you for 
     agreeing to be the lead sponsors of the Early Treatment For 
     HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this legislation and are 
     grateful for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV. Moreover, without these 
     treatments to stave off disease progression, hospitalizations 
     and associated costs would unnecessarily add millions of 
     dollars in burdens to the U.S. health care system.
       The CFA has the largest collection HIV/AIDS-specific 
     treatment information in the southwestern U.S. The CFA 
     specializes in research/treatment information and advocacy. 
     The proposed ETHA legislation will help The CFA's clients--
     those affected by HIV/AIDS both locally in Houston and 
     nationally--stay healthier and lead productive lives in 
     society.
       By preserving the health of people living with HIV, 
     preventing opportunistic infections associated with the 
     disease, and slowing the progression to AIDS, ETHA could 
     ultimately save taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, should 
     ETHA become law, the United States will take an important 
     step towards ensuring that all people living with HIV can get 
     the medical care they need to stay healthy for as long as 
     possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of people 
     living with HIV. Please let me know if there is anything I 
     can do to help secure passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Gegeny,
     MS, ELS, Editor & Interim Director.
                                  ____

                                           Association of Maternal


                                        Child Health Programs,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: on behalf of the Association of 
     Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), I am writing to 
     thank you for agreeing to be a lead sponsor of the Early 
     Treatment For HIV Act (ETHA). We strongly support this 
     legislation and are grateful for your leadership.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to extend Medicaid 
     coverage to pre-disabled people living with HIV. It 
     represents a breakthrough in assuring early access to care 
     for thousands of low-income people living with HIV. Current 
     HIV treatments are successfully delaying the progression from 
     HIV infection to AIDS, improving the health and quality of 
     life for many people living with the disease. However, 
     without access to early intervention health care and 
     treatment, these advances remain out of reach for many non-
     disabled, low-income people with HIV.
       AMCHP represents the directors and staff of state public 
     health programs for maternal and child health (funded by the 
     Federal Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant), 
     including children with special health care needs. These 
     programs provided services to over 27 million Americans in FY 
     1999, including 18 million children between the ages of 1 and 
     22, 16% of whom had no known source of health insurance.
       With this legislation, the United States will take an 
     important step towards ensuring that all people living with 
     HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy for as 
     long as possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. Please 
     let me know how I can help support your efforts to secure 
     passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Deborah Dietrich,
     Acting Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                     San Francisco


                                              AIDS Foundation,

                                 San Francisco, CA, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: the San Francisco AIDS 
     Foundation would like to thank you for your sponsorship of 
     the Early Treatment for HIV Act 2003.
       The Act would provide states with the option of covering 
     low-income people living with HIV as `categorically needy' 
     provide them with medical care and treatment, reduce long 
     term health care costs to states, and address a serious gap 
     in public health care access. Recent breakthroughs in medical 
     science and clinical practice have transformed the 
     possibilities in HIV/AIDS care in the United States. Today, 
     we know that early intervention with medical care and 
     treatment for HIV disease slows the progression of HIV and 
     prevents the onset of opportunistic infections. Application 
     of this knowledge lengthens the life expectancy and 
     dramatically improves the quality of life for many. These 
     changes in science and medical practice demand revisions in 
     the treatment of HIV disease under Medicaid.
       Currently Medicaid eligibility for childless adults is tied 
     to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility. The result 
     of this determination is that people living with HIV must 
     wait for Medicaid access until their disease has progressed 
     to a disabling AIDS diagnosis. The cruel irony of this 
     practice is that individuals are forced to incur often-
     irreparable damage to their immune systems before receiving 
     treatments that could have delayed or avoided the damage. 
     This is counter to sound public health practices and all but 
     guarantees higher cost of care for thousands of affected 
     individuals. This serious anomaly in public health care 
     coverage must be rectified by the enactment of this 
     legislation.
       The AIDS Foundation thanks you both for your leadership and 
     sponsorship of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ernest Hopkins,
                                      Director of Federal Affairs.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Early 
Treatment for HIV Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 847

       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 ``Early Treatment for HIV Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. OPTIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LOW-INCOME HIV-INFECTED 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVII);
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(XIX) who are described in subsection (cc) (relating to 
     HIV-infected individuals);''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(cc) HIV-infected individuals described in this 
     subsection are individuals not described in subsection 
     (a)(10)(A)(i)--
       ``(1) who have HIV infection;
       ``(2) whose income (as determined under the State plan 
     under this title with respect to disabled individuals) does 
     not exceed the maximum amount of income a disabled individual 
     described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain 
     medical assistance under the plan; and
       ``(3) whose resources (as determined under the State plan 
     under this title with respect to disabled individuals) do not 
     exceed the maximum amount of resources a disabled individual 
     described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain 
     medical assistance under the plan.''.
       (b) Enhanced Match.--The first sentence of section 1905(b) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)'' and inserting 
     ``subclause (XVIII) or (XIX) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xii);
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (xiii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:

[[Page 8944]]

       ``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(cc);''.
       (d) Exemption From Funding Limitation for Territories.--
     Section 1108(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1308(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Disregarding medical assistance for optional low-
     income hiv-infected individuals.--The limitations under 
     subsection (f) and the previous provisions of this subsection 
     shall not apply to amounts expended for medical assistance 
     for individuals described in section 1902(cc) who are only 
     eligible for such assistance on the basis of section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIX).''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     or not final regulations to carry out such amendments have 
     been promulgated by such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 849. A bill to provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona 
between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited 
Partnership; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl 
today to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange 
Act of 2003. This bill facilitates an exchange of over 50,000 acres of 
Federal and private land in Arizona for the primary purpose of 
consolidating National Forest lands currently in checkerboard ownership 
in the northwestern portion of the State. Included in the exchange are 
a number of other Federal land parcels located in the communities of 
Flagstaff, Williams, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde and other 
lands currently leased by six different camps.
  This is a complex land exchange because of its size, the diverse 
nature of the lands involved, and the range of potential benefits and 
impacts that would result. The Forest Service has stated that the 
consolidation of the checkerboard in the Prescott National Forest will 
yield significant benefits and cost-savings to the public. In putting 
forth this exchange with the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the 
Forest Service has identified opportunities to achieve better and more 
cost-effective management of Federal lands and resources, to acquire 
lands that will meet the important public objectives of protection of 
wildlife habitat, cultural resources, watershed, wilderness and 
aesthetic values, and also meet the needs of State and local residents 
and their economies.
  The communities of Flagstaff and Williams and the camps are strongly 
in favor of this bill as it will allow them to acquire federal lands 
that will be exchanged to Yavapai Ranch, providing them beneficial 
economic and land use management opportunities. The communities of 
Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are also an important part of 
this exchange. Inclusion of these parcels, totaling more than 300 
acres, has focused discussion on essential issues of available water 
supply, the limits of sustainable growth, and quality of life concerns.
  The issue of potential adverse impacts of new development on limited 
water resources has been addressed in this bill through the 
establishment of conservation easements which limit water use on the 
Verde Valley parcels after private acquisition. This foresighted 
provision is intended to conserve precious surface and ground water 
resources and protect the water users and State water right holders 
dependent upon them. Given the uncertainty about available water 
supplies and future uses, I believe this is a responsible measure which 
is in the interest of both Arizona citizens and the American public.
  Of primary importance to me are the procedural terms and conditions 
by which the land exchange will be conducted. The Forest Service has 
stated that the procedures set forth in this bill represent standard 
practice and will allow for the desired outcome of a fair and equal 
value exchange of public property. I have also made an effort to 
solicit public input on the exchange in order to appreciate the 
potential benefits and costs involved. I held several public meetings 
in Arizona on the exchange and have heard and read the differing views 
of hundreds of interested Arizonans.
  After careful consideration, I believe it is appropriate that the 
bill be introduced at this time. While the proposed exchange has the 
support of the Forest Service, the elected representatives of the 
affected communities, and the camps, introduction of this bill advances 
us to the next phase of public consideration of key aspects and 
procedural issues associated with the legislation.
  I expect that public hearings will be held here and in Arizona on the 
bill in the near future. The Forest Service will have an opportunity to 
provide public statements concerning the specific provisions of the 
bill, as will other parties affected by the exchange. I anticipate that 
in the next phase of the legislative process, our state delegation will 
receive the information needed to address any remaining issues and 
ensure that this exchange will be conducted in a manner that benefits 
the citizens of Arizona and Federal taxpayers alike.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator 
McCain to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange 
Act of 2003. This bill, which facilitates a large and very complex land 
exchange in Arizona, is the product of months of discussions between 
the Forest Service, community groups, local officials, and other 
stakeholders. It will allow communities to accommodate growth and 
improve the management of our forests; it will also yield many 
environmental benefits to the public.
  This bill will protect some of Arizona's most beautiful ponderosa 
pine forests from future development by placing approximately 35,000 
acres of private land into public use. It consolidates a 110-square 
mile area in the Prescott National Forest near the existing Juniper 
Mesa Wilderness under Forest Service ownership, to preserve the area in 
its natural state and prevent its subdivision. This land has old growth 
ponderosa pine that is at least 250 years old and juniper that is 500 
years old or older. Consolidation will preserve the area for watershed 
management, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation. Without 
consolidation, these tracts would be open to future development. I am 
pleased that this bill will preserve them for future generations.
  This bill significantly improves management of the Prescott National 
Forest. The existing checkerboard ownership pattern in the Prescott 
makes management and access difficult. The exchange improves management 
of the forest by consolidating this land, and allowing the Forest 
Service to effectively apply forest-restoration treatments designed to 
improve forest health and reduce hazardous fuels. In turn, better 
management will help decrease the fire risk in Arizona's forests. The 
importance of improved management and efficient restoration treatments 
cannot be overstated given last year's devastating Rodeo-Chediski fire.
  In addition to protecting Arizona's natural resources, this bill 
allows several Northern Arizona communities to accommodate future 
growth and economic development, and to meet other municipal needs. The 
exchange will allow the Cities of Williams and Flagstaff to expand 
their airports and water-treatment facilities, and develop town parks 
and recreation areas. The town of Camp Verde will have the opportunity 
to acquire lands for view shed protection. Several youth organizations 
throughout northern Arizona will be able to acquire land for their 
camps.
  Even as it addresses environmental and community needs, this bill 
saves significant taxpayer dollars. It obviates the administrative 
route for land exchange--doing an exchange of this size 
administratively would require considerable financial and personnel 
resources within the Forest Service. The agency estimates that the 
legislative approach will cost half as much as the administrative 
alternative--resulting in potential savings to the taxpayers in excess 
of $500,000.
  This land exchange is supported and endorsed by many municipalities, 
religious institutions, environmental groups, and other nongovernmental 
organizations in Arizona. Experts from

[[Page 8945]]

the Arizona Game and Fish Department have reviewed the lands to be 
exchanged and strongly support the proposal. I have received hundreds 
of letters and petitions from residents expressing support for it. This 
exchange is extremely important to the residents of Arizona.
  This land exchange is a unique opportunity to protect Arizona's 
natural resources while accommodating the tremendous growth that my 
State is experiencing. This bill is good for the state of Arizona and I 
plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that we pass this important 
legislation this year.

                          ____________________