[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3723-3732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 2177. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to change the 
effective date for paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit 
Plan from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2004; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.

[[Page 3724]]


  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military 
Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major 
inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups 
of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan.
  In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we 
keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This 
applies both while military members are serving, and as they move 
beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families 
have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They 
deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices.
  In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving 
career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in 
their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the 
surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her 
spouse.
  SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of 
thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the 
program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those 
spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a 
military career.
  Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by 
creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who 
are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP 
for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to 
continue paying in to receive benefits.
  This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to 
retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they 
may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other 
employment.
  However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here. 
The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take 
effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978 
will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six 
years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after.
  The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for 
the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the 
first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in 
order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as 
six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later.
  In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits 
but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its 
face and should be corrected.
  My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes 
the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and 
moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to 
October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes.
  This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand 
military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974 
and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated 
that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years.
  Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in 
the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no 
longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military 
retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the 
benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their 
service was just as worthy.
  The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a 
good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective 
date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact. 
Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not 
determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and 
women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or 
lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our 
national interest and should be fixed.
  The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it--
corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military 
retirees, and I urge its adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2177

       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 ``Military Survivors' Fairness 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR 
                   BENEFIT PLAN.

       Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2004''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2180. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 
certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the 
State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today 
that would effect a small land exchange to help the city of Golden, CO 
in its efforts to augment its water supply, that it might better 
prepare for a resumption of the drought which has plagued our State in 
the past several years. The bill I am proposing would direct that the 
U.S. Forest Service complete a land exchange with the city of Golden at 
the earliest possible date.
  In the land exchange, the city would receive approximately 10 acres 
of National Forest land near Empire, CO. The city needs this land to 
complete construction of a 140-foot stretch of water pipeline 
connecting the West Fork of Clear Creek with a brand new water storage 
reservoir, known as the Guanella Reservoir, which the city completed in 
December. The Guanella Reservoir will increase the city's existing 
water storage capacity by approximately 40 percent, and better enable 
it to cope with future water shortages.
  This legislation is critical, because while the Guanella Reservoir is 
now completed, as is the diversion dam, penstock, and all but 140 feet 
of the connecting pipeline, the reservoir remains dry. In short, the 
pipeline is completed up to the National Forest boundary, and 
authorization is needed from either the Forest Service or Congress to 
complete the small remaining stretch of pipeline that must cross 
National Forest land. Until that authorization is provided, the 
reservoir is sitting empty, and that is a situation we do not want to 
see continued into the dry summer months. Unfortunately, the Forest 
Service has indicated it would take quite some time, possibly several 
years, to authorize the pipeline, and we have agreed with them that 
this land exchange is the best approach to meet everyone's needs and 
time frames.
  For this reason, I am introducing this important legislation, and 
have asked the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to expedite it 
in every way possible.
  Additionally, I would like to note that while providing the city of 
Golden the ability to finish a critical water storage project, my 
proposal is also a beneficial deal for the United States. In return for 
the 10 acres it will give up, the Forest Service will receive up to 80 
acres of land near a popular trail and recreation area in Evergreen, 
CO, and will also receive 55 acres of land on and near the Continental 
Divide National Scenic Trail in Clear Creek and Summit Counties. The 55 
acres are located along one of the most popular stretches of the Trail, 
and are one of the ways hikers and other users can access the popular 
Greys and Torreys Peaks, two of the most heavily-climbed 14,000 foot 
peaks in our State. Further, my bill provides that all land values will 
be determined in accordance with Forest Service appraisal procedures, 
so we will be insuring that the United States will receive full market 
value for its land. In addition, the City is making a donation of 
Continental Divide Trail lands above which are required. I believe this 
is truly a ``win-win'' situation for all concerned, and

[[Page 3725]]

commend the City for making the additional donation to the Forest 
Service.
  Finally, I would like to note that my proposal has been endorsed by 
the County Commissioners of all three counties that have lands involved 
in the trade, the non-profit Continental Divide Trail Alliance, the 
City of Blackhawk Public Works Department, the Georgetown Loop Scenic 
Railroad, and by numerous others.
  Again, I would recommend this legislation for my colleagues' quick 
approval in order that the City of Golden can get on with its urgent 
needs to supply adequate additional water to its residents this summer.
  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. 2180

       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 ``Arapaho and Roosevelt 
     National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL 
                   FORESTS, COLORADO.

       (a) Conveyance by the City of Golden.--
       (1) Lands described.--The land exchange directed by this 
     section shall proceed if, within 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the City of Golden, Colorado (in 
     the section referred to as the ``City''), offers to convey 
     title acceptable to the United States to the following non-
     Federal lands:
       (A) Certain lands located near the community of Evergreen 
     in Park County, Colorado, comprising approximately 80 acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Non-Federal Lands--
     Cub Creek Parcel'', dated June, 2003.
       (B) Certain lands located near Argentine Pass in Clear 
     Creek and Summit Counties, Colorado, comprising approximately 
     55.909 acres in 14 patented mining claims, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Argentine Pass/Continental 
     Divide Trail Lands'', dated September 2003.
       (2) Conditions of conveyance.--The conveyance of lands 
     under paragraph (1)(B) to the United States shall be subject 
     to the absolute right of the City to permanently enter upon, 
     utilize, and occupy so much of the surface and subsurface of 
     the lands as may be reasonably necessary to access, maintain, 
     repair, modify, make improvements in, or otherwise utilize 
     the Vidler Tunnel to the same extent that the City would have 
     had such right if the lands had not been conveyed to the 
     United States and remained in City ownership. The exercise of 
     such right shall not require the City to secure any permit or 
     other advance approval from the United States. Upon 
     acquisition by the United States, such lands are hereby 
     permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry and 
     appropriation under the public land laws, including the 
     mining and mineral leasing laws, and the Geothermal Steam Act 
     of l970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (b) Conveyance by United States.--Upon receipt of 
     acceptable title to the non-Federal lands identified in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     simultaneously convey to the City all right, title and 
     interest of the United States in and to certain Federal 
     lands, comprising approximately 9.84 acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Empire Federal Lands--Parcel 
     12'', dated June 2003.
       (c) Equal Value Exchange.--
       (1) Appraisal.--The values of the Federal lands identified 
     in subsection (b) and the non-Federal lands identified in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be determined by the Secretary 
     through appraisals performed in accordance with the Uniform 
     Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (December 
     20, 2000) and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice. Except as provided in paragraph (3), the conveyance 
     of the non-Federal lands identified in subsection (a)(1)(B) 
     shall be considered a donation for all purposes of law.
       (2) Surplus of non-federal value.--If the final appraised 
     value, as approved by the Secretary, of the non-Federal lands 
     identified in subsection (a)(1)(A) exceeds the final 
     appraised value, as approved by the Secretary, of the Federal 
     land identified in subsection (b), the values may be 
     equalized--
       (A) by reducing the acreage of the non-Federal lands 
     identified in subsection (a) to be conveyed, as determined 
     appropriate and acceptable by the Secretary and the City;
       (B) the making of a cash equalization payment to the City, 
     including a cash equalization payment in excess of the amount 
     authorized by section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)); or
       (C) a combination of acreage reduction and cash 
     equalization.
       (3) Surplus of federal value.--If the final appraised 
     value, as approved by the Secretary, of the Federal land 
     identified in subsection (b) exceeds the final appraised 
     value, as approved by the Secretary, of the non-Federal lands 
     identified in subsection (a)(1)(A), the Secretary shall 
     prepare a statement of value for the non-Federal lands 
     identified in subsection (a)(1)(B) and utilize such value to 
     the extent necessary to equalize the values of the non-
     Federal lands identified in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the 
     Federal land identified in subsection (b). If the Secretary 
     declines to accept the non-Federal lands identified in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) for any reason, the City shall make a 
     cash equalization payment to the Secretary as necessary to 
     equalize the values of the non-Federal lands identified in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Federal land identified in 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Exchange Costs.--To expedite the land exchange under 
     this section and save administrative costs to the United 
     States, the City shall be required to pay for--
       (1) any necessary land surveys; and
       (2) the costs of the appraisals, which shall be performed 
     in accordance with Forest Service policy on approval of the 
     appraiser and the issuance of appraisal instructions.
       (e) Timing and Interim Authorization.--It is the intent of 
     Congress that the land exchange directed by this Act shall be 
     completed no later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. Pending completion of the land 
     exchange, the City is authorized, effective on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, to construct a water pipeline on 
     or near the existing course of the Lindstrom ditch through 
     the Federal land identified in subsection (b) without further 
     action or authorization by the Secretary, except that, prior 
     to initiating any such construction, the City shall execute 
     and convey to the Secretary a legal document that permanently 
     holds the United States harmless for any and all liability 
     arising from the construction of such water pipeline and 
     indemnifies the United States against all costs arising from 
     the United States' ownership of the Federal land, and any 
     actions, operations or other acts of the City or its 
     licensees, employees, or agents in constructing such water 
     pipeline or engaging in other acts on the Federal land prior 
     to its transfer to the City. Such encumbrance on the Federal 
     land prior to conveyance shall not be considered for purposes 
     of the appraisal.
       (f) Alternative Sale Authority.--If the land exchange is 
     not completed for any reason, the Secretary is hereby 
     authorized and directed to sell the Federal land identified 
     in subsection (b) to the City at its final appraised value, 
     as approved by the Secretary. Any money received by the 
     United States in such sale shall be considered money received 
     and deposited pursuant to Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 
     484(a); commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'', and may be used, 
     without further appropriation, for the acquisition of lands 
     for addition to the National Forest System in the State of 
     Colorado.
       (g) Incorporation, Management, and Status of Acquired 
     Lands.--Land acquired by the United States under the land 
     exchange shall become part of the Arapaho and Roosevelt 
     National Forests, and the exterior boundary of such forest is 
     hereby modified, without further action by the Secretary, as 
     necessary to incorporate the non-Federal lands identified in 
     subsection (a) and an additional 40 acres as depicted on a 
     map entitled ``Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Boundary 
     Adjustment--Cub Creek'', dated June 2003. Upon their 
     acquisition, lands or interests in land acquired under the 
     authority of this Act shall be administered in accordance 
     with the laws, rules and regulations generally applicable to 
     the National Forest System. For purposes of Section 7 of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of l965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     9), the boundaries of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National 
     Forests, as adjusted by this subsection shall be deemed to be 
     the boundaries of such forest as of January 1, 1965.
       (h) Technical Corrections.--The Secretary, with the 
     agreement of the City, may make technical corrections or 
     correct clerical errors in the maps referred to in this 
     section or adjust the boundaries of the Federal lands to 
     leave the United States with a manageable post-exchange or 
     sale boundary. In the event of any discrepancy between a map, 
     acreage estimate, or legal description, the map shall prevail 
     unless the Secretary and the City agree otherwise.
       (i) Revocation of Orders and Withdrawal.--Any public orders 
     withdrawing any of the Federal lands identified in subsection 
     (b) from appropriation or disposal under the public land laws 
     are hereby revoked to the extent necessary to permit disposal 
     of the Federal lands. Upon the enactment of this Act, if not 
     already withdrawn or segregated from the entry and 
     appropriation under the public land laws, including the 
     mining and mineral leasing laws and the Geothermal Steam Act 
     of l970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal lands are 
     hereby withdrawn until the date of their conveyance to the 
     City.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2181. A bill to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National 
Park in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.

[[Page 3726]]


  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that 
would authorize the exchange of lands between the Muriel MacGregor 
Trust and the National Park Service, and to amend the boundary of Rocky 
Mountain National Park to include the newly acquired land.
  Rocky Mountain National Park was established by Congress on January 
26, 1915, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United 
States and to protect the natural conditions and scenic beauties of 
this portion of the Rocky Mountains. The park currently encompasses 
approximately 266,000 acres and has some of the most beautiful mountain 
scenery to be found anywhere in our country. Each year the park draws 
over 3 million visitors.
  The MacGregor Ranch, located near Estes Park, CO, was homesteaded in 
1873, which predates the establishment of Rocky Mountain National Park. 
In 1917, shortly after the establishment of the national park, the 
National Park Service built a residence for park employees just inside 
the park boundary, with access via a one-lane dirt road which crosses 
the MacGregor Ranch for about \3/4\ of a mile. This access was provided 
with the permission of the MacGregor family, but no easement, right-of-
way, or other legal document was ever recorded.
  The MacGregor Ranch is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places and is owned by the charitable Muriel MacGregor Trust. The 
mission of the trust is to support youth education through the 
preservation and interpretation of the historic buildings and 
educational tours of this working high mountain cattle ranch. In 1980, 
the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park was amended to include 
much of the MacGregor Ranch, and in 1983 the National Park Service 
purchased a conservation easement covering 1,221 acres of the ranch. 
While the ranch is located within the authorized boundary of the 
national park, it remains private property.
  In the early 1970s, hikers and rock climbers began using the access 
road through the MacGregor Ranch to reach a small parking lot located 
just inside the park boundary. Known as the Twin Owls trailhead, the 
popularity of the area has grown steadily. In recent years, overflow 
parking has negatively impacted the ranch, and traffic on the one-lane 
access road has negatively affected the character of the historic 
homestead and has diminished the quality of the historic scene that 
visitors to the ranch come to experience.
  For several years, the National Park Service and the MacGregor Ranch 
have been working to find a solution to the traffic and parking 
problems. Several environmental assessments have been prepared to 
examine various alternatives and gather public input. In 2003, based on 
public input and an Environmental Assessment, the National Park Service 
decided to relocate the Twin Owls parking lot to the east end of the 
MacGregor Ranch, some distance away from the historic homestead. A new 
access road and a larger trailhead parking lot that can accommodate 80 
to 100 cars will be built at the new location.
  So that the rules and regulations governing Rocky Mountain National 
Park can be enforced at the new trailhead and along the access road, 
the land needs to be incorporated into the national park. To accomplish 
this, the MacGregor Trust and the National Park Service have agreed to 
a land exchange. The National Park Service will acquire three parcels 
of land containing 5.9 acres from the MacGregor Trust for the 
development of the new parking lot and access road. In exchange, the 
MacGregor Trust will acquire up to 70 acres from the National Park 
Service that will be used for growing hay and cattle grazing. A 
conservation easement will be placed on the 70 acres that is 
transferred to the MacGregor Trust. The conservation easement will 
ensure that the property is used solely for ranching.
  The land exchange is intended to be an equal value exchange. One of 
the three parcels currently owned by the MacGregor Trust is zoned for 
residential development and has a high monetary value. A conservation 
easement will be placed on the 70 acres currently owned by the National 
Park Service, which will diminish its monetary value. If the lands 
currently owned by the National Park Service are of higher value, less 
than 70 acres will be transferred to the MacGregor Ranch. If the three 
parcels owned by the MacGregor ranch are of higher value, the Ranch is 
willing to accept the unequal value and will only receive a maximum of 
70 acres from the National Park Service.
  This legislation is needed to authorize the land exchange, and to 
amend the park boundary to include the new lands to be added to park.
  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. 2181

       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 ``Rocky Mountain National Park 
     Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal parcel.--The term ``Federal parcel'' means the 
     parcel of approximately 70 acres of Federal land near 
     MacGregor Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the 
     map.
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map numbered 121/
     60,467, dated September 12, 2003.
       (3) Non-federal parcels.--The term ``non-Federal parcels'' 
     means the 3 parcels of non-Federal land comprising 
     approximately 5.9 acres that are located near MacGregor 
     Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
       (4) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Rocky Mountain National 
     Park in the State of Colorado.

     SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Exchange of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept an offer to 
     convey all right, title, and interest in and to the non-
     Federal parcels to the United States in exchange for the 
     Federal parcel.
       (2) Conveyance.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary receives an offer under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall convey the Federal parcel in exchange for 
     the non-Federal parcels.
       (3) Conservation easement.--As a condition of the exchange 
     of land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall reserve a 
     perpetual easement to the Federal parcel for the purposes of 
     protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values 
     of the Federal parcel.
       (b) Boundary Adjustment; Management of Land.--On 
     acquisition of the non-Federal parcels under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Secretary shall--
       (1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect the 
     acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and
       (2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of the Park, in 
     accordance with any laws (including regulations) applicable 
     to the Park.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2183. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to create 
team nutrition networks to promote the nutritional health of school 
children; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Federal child nutrition programs have 
long played a critical role in promoting healthy diets for American 
children. First conceived over 50 years ago in response to concerns 
about the impacts of the diets of American youth on their fitness for 
the armed forces, Federal child nutrition programs have since expanded 
and evolved to meet the needs of a diverse population.
  However, alarming increases in obesity rates for children and 
adolescents indicate that we are not doing enough in terms of nutrition 
education. The statistics are truly startling. Heart disease, cancer, 
stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two out of three deaths in the 
United States, and the major risk factors for those diseases and 
conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating 
habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. In the last two 
decades, obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in 
adolescents, and today, one in seven young people are obese, and one in 
three are overweight. Additionally, three out of four high school 
students in the United States do not eat the recommended five or more 
servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Finally,

[[Page 3727]]

a recent report by the Surgeon General estimated that obesity-related 
costs in the U.S. are close to $100 billion a year.
  Unfortunately, nutrition education programs have been chronically 
under-funded. We have authorized 50 cents for every child served 
through Federal child nutrition programs, which is equivalent to over 
$24 million. This amount refers not to 50 cents per day, per week, or 
per month--this is 50 cents per year! However, last year, the only 
nutrition education program specifically directed at our Nation's 
school children, Team Nutrition, was funded at $10 million. This is 
equivalent to spending 21 cents a year on each child, a woefully 
inadequate amount. In addition, no funds were appropriated to nutrition 
education programs specifically designed to help States implement Team 
Nutrition materials.
  The Early Attention to Nutrition (EATN) Act of 2004, which I am 
introducing today together with Senators Lugar and Dodd, would raise 
the total amount dedicated to nutrition education to $50 million a 
year. The funds would be used by the USDA to develop Team Nutrition 
materials, and to support Team Nutrition Networks in the States. 
Currently, only 21 States receive funding through Team Nutrition. This 
bill would allow all States to obtain Team Nutrition grants, and would 
fund a Team Nutrition Network in each State, which would be responsible 
for disseminating and coordinating nutrition education initiatives. The 
goal of the Team Nutrition Networks is to: instruct students with 
regard to the nutritional value of foods and the relationship between 
food and human health; provide assistance to schools in the adoption 
and implementation of school policies that promote healthy eating; 
foster community environments that support healthy eating and physical 
activities; provide training and technical assistance to teachers and 
school food service professionals consistent with this section; 
evaluate State and local nutrition education programs; disseminate 
educational materials statewide through the use of the Internet, 
mailings, conferences, and other communication channels; provide 
subgrants to school and school food authorities for carrying out 
nutrition education activities at the local level; and provide 
information to parents and caregivers regarding the nutritional value 
of food and the relationship between food and health.
  Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well-
being of our Nation's youth. The cost of improving the health of our 
children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to 
come if we do nothing.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and two letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2183

       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 Attention To Nutrition 
     (EATN) Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are 
     responsible for \2/3\ of deaths in the United States;
       (2) the major risk factors for those diseases and 
     conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy 
     eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use;
       (3) obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in 
     adolescents over the last 2 decades;
       (4) today, 1 in 7 young people are obese, and 1 in 3 are 
     overweight;
       (5) obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children 
     to become obese adults;
       (6) an overweight condition and obesity can result in 
     physical, psychological, and social consequences, including 
     heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-
     esteem, and discrimination;
       (7) only 2 percent of children consume a diet that meets 
     the 5 main recommendations for a healthy diet from the Food 
     Guide Pyramid published by the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (8) 3 out of 4 high school students in the United States do 
     not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and 
     vegetables each day; and
       (9) 3 out of 4 children in the United States consume more 
     saturated fat than is recommended in the Dietary Guidelines 
     for Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. TEAM NUTRITION NETWORK GRANTS.

       Section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1788) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 19. TEAM NUTRITION NETWORK GRANTS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to promote the nutritional health of school children 
     through nutrition education and other activities that support 
     healthy lifestyles for children;
       ``(2) to provide grants to States for the development of 
     statewide, comprehensive, and integrated nutrition education 
     programs; and
       ``(3) to provide training and technical assistance to 
     States, school and community nutrition programs, and child 
     nutrition food service professionals.
       ``(b) Definition of Team Nutrition Network.--In this 
     section, the term `team nutrition network' means a 
     multidisciplinary program to promote healthy eating to 
     children based on scientifically valid information and sound 
     educational, social, and marketing principles.
       ``(c) Grants.--The Secretary is authorized to make grants 
     to State educational agencies to promote the nutritional 
     health of school children through the establishment of team 
     nutrition networks.
       ``(d) Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsections 
     (g) and (h), the Secretary shall allocate funds made 
     available for a fiscal year under subsection (i) to make 
     grants to eligible State educational agencies for a fiscal 
     year in an amount determined by the Secretary, based on the 
     ratio that--
       ``(A) the number of lunches reimbursed through food service 
     programs under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) in schools, institutions, and 
     service institutions in the State that participate in the 
     food service programs; bears to
       ``(B) the number of lunches reimbursed through the food 
     service programs in schools, institutions, and service 
     institutions in all States that participate in the food 
     service programs.
       ``(2) Minimum grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount of a grant made to a State 
     educational agency for a fiscal year under this section shall 
     not be less than $500,000.
       ``(B) Insufficient funds.--If the amount made available for 
     any fiscal year is insufficient to pay the amount to which 
     each eligible State educational agency is entitled under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall select, on a 
     competitive basis, eligible State educational agencies that 
     will receive, at least, the minimum amount of grants required 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(e) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State educational agency shall submit a State 
     plan to the Secretary for approval, in such manner and at 
     such time as the Secretary determines, that includes 
     information regarding how the grant will be used in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(f) Uses of Grant.--Subject to subsection (g), a grant 
     made under this section may be used to--
       ``(1) instruct students with regard to the nutritional 
     value of foods and the relationship between food and human 
     health;
       ``(2) promote healthy eating by children;
       ``(3) provide assistance to schools in the adoption and 
     implementation of school policies that promote healthy 
     eating;
       ``(4) foster community environments that support healthy 
     eating and physical activities;
       ``(5) provide training and technical assistance to teachers 
     and school food service professionals consistent with this 
     section;
       ``(6) evaluate State and local nutrition education 
     programs;
       ``(7) disseminate educational materials statewide through 
     the use of the Internet, mailings, conferences, and other 
     communication channels;
       ``(8) provide subgrants to school and school food 
     authorities for carrying out nutrition education activities 
     at the local level; and
       ``(9) conduct programs and education for parents and 
     caregivers regarding healthy eating for children.
       ``(g) State Coordinators.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least 
     10 percent of a grant made to a State educational agency for 
     each fiscal year is used by the State educational agency to 
     appoint a team nutrition network coordinator for the State.
       ``(2) Role of state coordinators.--A team nutrition network 
     coordinator for a State shall--
       ``(A) develop and administer the team nutrition network in 
     the State; and
       ``(B) coordinate the team nutrition network of the State 
     with--
       ``(i) the Secretary (acting through the Food and Nutrition 
     Service);
       ``(ii) State agencies responsible for children's health 
     programs (including school-based children's health programs); 
     and
       ``(iii) other appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.
       ``(h) National Activities.--

[[Page 3728]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 20 percent 
     of the amount of funds made available for each fiscal year 
     under subsection (i) to promote team nutrition networks 
     nationally in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Activities.--Of the amount of funds that are reserved 
     for a fiscal year under this section, the Secretary shall 
     use--
       ``(A) 50 percent of the reserved funds for--
       ``(i) evaluation of activities funded under this section; 
     and
       ``(ii) development of a clearinghouse for collecting and 
     disseminating information on best practices for promoting 
     healthy eating in school and community child nutrition 
     programs; and
       ``(B) 50 percent of the reserved funds to carry out 
     national activities to support team nutrition networks 
     through the Secretary, acting through the Undersecretary of 
     Food and Nutrition Services.
       ``(i) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--On October 1, 2004, and on each October 
     1 thereafter through October 1, 2007, out of any funds in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1), 
     without further appropriation. ''.
                                  ____



                                American Dietetic Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: Congratulations on developing the 
     Early Attention to Nutrition Bill (EATN Bill) of 2004. ADA 
     believes that when fully funded this bill will provide 
     American children and their families with better nutrition 
     education, physical activity education, and an overall more 
     supportive environment that will help them develop healthy 
     eating and activity patterns for life.
       The American Dietetic Association is the world's largest 
     food and professional association, and bases its work on 
     evidence-based science to make recommendations that can 
     promote optimal nutritional health and well-being. With that 
     commitment to the public, our members are particularly 
     pleased that this bill give due focus to nutrition education.
       ADA supports the legislation's concept of the team 
     Nutrition Network. Once enacted, Congress will need to assure 
     funding for these programs so that they may genuinely 
     contribute to improved health for American children. Your 
     support for a funding level that would ensure that all 50 
     states receive at least a minimum level of funding is highly 
     commendable and right on target as to what is needed. The 
     nutrition education programs funded by these grants should be 
     made available to both School lunch and breakfast sites as 
     well as the CACFP programs governed by the Child Nutrition 
     Act. Nutrition education and physical activity are key 
     components to promoting healthy lifestyles and must be 
     addressed across programs.
       Thank you for introducing this very important legislation. 
     The ADA is pleased to endorse this important step toward 
     improving the health of our children.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald E. Smith,
     Director Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                         Center for Science in the


                                              Public Interest,

                                                    March 8, 2004.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Attention: Dr. Daniela Ligiero.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The Center for Science in the Public 
     Interest (CSPI) thanks you for your long-standing record of 
     leadership in promoting healthy eating among children. CSPI 
     is a nonprofit health organization specializing in nutrition 
     that has over 800,000 members and subscribers to its 
     Nutrition Action Healthletter. We are pleased to strongly 
     support your ``Early Attention to Nutrition Act.''
       As obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in 
     adolescents over the last two decades, the need for effective 
     nutrition education for children has become painfully 
     apparent. Your bill establishes a Team Nutrition Network that 
     would help educate children about the importance of healthy 
     eating to lifelong health. While the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture's current Team Nutrition education program has 
     been effective in helping states to develop innovative 
     nutrition education programs, it does not provide consistent 
     and reliable funding year-to-year, nor does it include a 
     central mechanism to facilitate information-sharing between 
     states on best practices and innovations. The Team Nutrition 
     Network that your bill would establish is needed as an 
     addition to the existing Team Nutrition program to develop 
     and deliver effective nutrition education programs and 
     activities in schools.
       Again, CSPI applauds your efforts to help ensure that 
     schoolchildren are taught valuable skills for lifelong 
     healthy eating. We look forward to continuing to work with 
     you and your staff to promote children's health.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Margo G. Wootan,
                               D. Sc., Director, Nutrition Policy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
  S. 2185. A bill to simplify the process for admitting temporary alien 
agricultural workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, to increase access to such workers, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I introduce the Temporary Agriculture 
Work Reform Act of 2004.
  American farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. 
Technologies have allowed farmers to produce higher quality products 
while increasing yields, and at the same time, reducing pesticide use. 
I applaud our farmers for their important role in our Nation's economy.
  One obstacle that agriculture producers continually grapple with is 
labor. For many years, migrant workers have been the main source of 
labor for agriculture. In fact, today migrant workers make up about 56 
percent of farm labor. A key issue for our American producers is having 
an efficient program to provide an agriculture workforce.
  Reforms to the H2A program are warranted and needed. The program 
should be user-friendly for both growers and workers with less 
bureaucratic hassle. The program should operate in such a way to ensure 
that American producers can have their crops harvested in a timely 
fashion and that willing workers can get access to job opportunities. 
We need a program that is easy to use and provides a stable, reliable 
workforce for America's farmers.
  My guest worker legislation reforms the cumbersome and uncompetitive 
aspects of the H2A temporary agriculture worker program--without 
providing amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. The bill gives farmers 
and workers a more functional program by simplifying the application 
process, providing a prevailing wage rate, and ensuring U.S. workers 
are not displaced.
  The Adverse Effect Wage Rate, known by its acronym AEWR, has 
consistently failed to provide competitive incentives for farmers to 
become users of the H2A program. Due to the current need for foreign 
workers and job protections in place for domestic workers, the AEWR is 
no longer necessary. By replacing the AEWR with a prevailing wage rate, 
legal workers will maintain a pay scale that is equal with their 
counterparts.
  The bill provides a labor attestation process to ensure that American 
workers are not displaced. This labor attestation process replaces the 
burdensome labor certification process currently in effect, which too 
often causes delays that have a detrimental effect on the seasonal 
agricultural industry. A similar labor attestation process has worked 
well for the H1B visa program, and I believe it can be used effectively 
for the H2A program. The bill also mandates stiff penalties on 
employers for misrepresentation and U.S. worker displacement. Bottom 
line, if a U.S. worker wants the job, under my bill he can have it.
  But when foreign workers are needed, the bill encourages workers to 
come to the United States through legal channels. A one-time waiver 
allows foreign workers to apply for the H2A program from their home 
country if that person is inadmissible to the U.S. due to prior 
authorized entry--this will deter the cycle of illegal entry that 
endangers our national security. My bill does not provide amnesty or a 
new way for illegal aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident status 
other than in accordance with current law.
  Finally, the bill includes a few narrow provisions, including re-
establishing language that Congress has repeatedly passed on 
appropriations bills, to protect against frivolous lawsuits. Our 
farmers should be providing for America's dinner table, not defending 
meritless lawsuits.
  There are a number of guest worker bills already introduced in the 
Senate, and in fact, my Subcommittee held the first hearing several 
weeks ago on the President's guest worker proposal. The bill I am 
introducing today is a good

[[Page 3729]]

first step to the kind of overall reform we need. It meets our economic 
interests, protects U.S. workers, and respects the rule of law without 
a broad amnesty for illegal aliens.
  This legislation establishes a common sense and competitive H2A 
program so that these employers can continue to produce the highest 
quality food supply in the world. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to pass a much needed reform to the H2A program this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2186. A bill to temporarily extend the programs under the Small 
Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, through May 
15, 2004, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business 
and Entrepreneurship.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that 
keeps the Small Business Administration and its financing and 
counseling assistance available to small businesses. Small businesses 
need us to act now to keep critical assistance available to our 
Nation's biggest job creators.
  There should not be any objections to this bill. It has broad support 
in the small business and the lending communities. The lending 
provisions of the bill have the support of small borrowers that 
testified before Congress over the past few weeks and the support of a 
coalition of small business trade associations, including the trade 
associations of 504 lenders and of 7(a) lenders, the American Bankers 
Association and the Independent Community Bankers Association, as well 
as the National Small Business Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and the women's business center provisions have the support 
of women's trade associations such as Women Impacting Public Policy and 
the Association of Women's Business Centers.
  This bill authorizes the SBA and most of its programs through the May 
15, 2004, which will allow time for the House to complete its work on 
the SBA's 3-year reauthorization bill, passed by the Senate in 
September 2003. In addition, this bill addresses several urgent issues 
that are critical to keep SBA programs operating and helping small 
businesses across the country.
  Let me outline these for you. The first provision authorizes the 
continued operation of the SBA's 504 loan guarantee program for the 
rest of fiscal year 2004. Unless we act, the authority to operate this 
program will expire on March 15, next Monday, and small businesses in 
need of financing for fixed assets will be turned away. These loans are 
for growing small businesses that need loans with long repayment terms 
and fixed interest rates to afford a new building or perhaps land to 
expand their business and their workforce, or equipment to improve or 
increase production. The lenders who make these loans serve a unique 
role in our economy--they develop economic opportunities where 
conventional lenders are not willing to take a risk. They are not a shy 
group, and care deeply about the communities where they live. I am sure 
most, if not all, Senators have received numerous calls and 
communications from them over the past few weeks. It is my hope that 
extending authorization will provide some stability to the industry so 
that they continue to fund our growing businesses, and then in the near 
future, the House will consider our more comprehensive SBA 
reauthorization legislation, bill number S. 1375, that we passed in 
September, to enact other important 504 program improvements that are 
supported by the small business community. This loan program requires 
no appropriations because it is funded entirely by fees that borrowers 
and lenders pay.
  The second provision keeps open the doors of our most experienced and 
successful Women's Business Centers, again without added cost to the 
Treasury. This bill contains a small adjustment to the Women's Business 
Center program that updates the current funding formula. The adjustment 
changes the portion of funding allowed for women's business centers in 
the sustainability part of the program to keep up with the increasing 
number of centers that will need funding this fiscal year. In short, 
this change directs the SBA to reserve 48 percent of the appropriated 
funds for the sustainability centers, instead of 30 percent, which will 
give the most experienced centers the greatest opportunity to receive 
sustainability funding, while still allowing for new centers and 
protecting existing ones.
  Currently there are 88 women's business centers. Of these, 35 are in 
the initial grant program and 53 will have graduated to the 
sustainability part of the program. These sustainability centers make 
up more than half of the total women's business centers, but under the 
current funding formula are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. 
Without the change to 48 percent, all grants to sustainability centers 
could be cut in half--or worse, 23 experienced centers could lose 
funding completely. Cutting funding for these, our most efficient and 
successful centers, would not only be detrimental to the centers 
themselves, but also to the women they serve, to their local 
communities, to their states, and to the national economy.
  As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 
1999, I can tell you that when the bill was signed into law, it was 
Congress's intent to protect the established and successful 
infrastructure of worth, performing centers. The law was designed to 
allow all graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain 
performance standards to receive continued funding under sustainability 
grants. This approach allows for new centers to be established--but not 
by penalizing those that have already demonstrated their worth. It was 
our intention to continue helping the most productive and well-equipped 
women's business centers, knowing that demand for such services was 
rapidly growing.
  Today, with women-owned businesses opening at one-and-a-half times 
the rate of all privately held firms, the demand and need for women's 
business centers is even greater. Until Congress makes permanent the 
Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot program, as intended in 
Senate-passed legislation, an extension of authority and increase in 
sustainability funds is vital--not only to the centers themselves, but 
to the women's business community and to the millions of workers 
employed by women-owned businesses around the country.
  The importance of the women's business centers to small business 
owners in communities across this country cannot be overstated. Take 
for instance the story of Melanie Marsden and Shannon Lawler, who 
recently opened A Better Place to Be Day Spa in Charlestown, MA. While 
working on a business plan last summer, the two hopeful entrepreneurs 
happened across the website of the Center for Women and Enterprise 
(CWE), a women's business center in Boston. Having just signed a lease 
and with a target opening for their spa quickly approaching, Melanie 
and Shannon were looking for help, and quick. At first, the process 
seemed overwhelming, but the experts at CWE were able to guide Melanie 
and Shannon through the complicated process--from business plan to 
long-term financing and management. CWE helped Melanie and Shannon open 
A Better Place to Be Day Spa and already see a steady stream of clients 
pass through their doors. Without CWE, Melanie and Shannon believe that 
they would not have opened their business on time, or at all. Last year 
alone, women's business centers like CWE helped over 100,000 
entrepreneurs just like Melanie and Shannon with their small business 
needs. The majority of these women have few resources and little access 
to business development assistance, and without the women's business 
centers, they might have none.
  As I have said on more than one occasion, women business owners do 
not get the recognition they deserve for the contribution to our 
economy: Eighteen million Americans would be without jobs today if it 
weren't for these entrepreneurs who had the courage and the vision to 
strike out on

[[Page 3730]]

their own. For 19 years, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to increase the 
opportunities for these enterprising women, leading to greater earning 
power, financial independence and asset accumulation. For these women, 
in addition to the challenge and experience of running their own 
business, it means having a bank account, buying a home, sending their 
children to college, and being in control of their own future.
  I want to again express my sincere and continuing support for the 
growing community of women entrepreneurs across the Nation and for the 
invaluable programs through which the SBA provides women business 
owners with the tools they need to succeed. For years, I have fought 
for increased funding for SBA assistance that helps women 
entrepreneurs, including measures that have sustained and expanded the 
Women's Business Centers, and give women entrepreneurs their deserved 
representation within the Federal procurement process.
  The third provision makes temporary changes to the SBA's largest loan 
program, the so-called 7(a) program, in order to compensate for the 
administration's budget gimmicks and program mismanagement that caused 
a substantial shortage in funding. This shortage led to a temporary 
shutdown of the program in January, followed by lending restrictions 
that created serious financial hardships for small businesses and 
reduced access to affordable capital for small businesses in general. 
For the remainder of fiscal year 2004, a coalition of 7(a) lenders and 
small business groups have worked with Congress to come up with some 
limited fees, paid by lenders and not borrowers, that will increase the 
amount of lending available. That extra funding will increase from $9.5 
billion to more than $11 billion the amount of loan guarantees 
available to small businesses. With more funding, Congress expects the 
SBA to lift the loan cap size of $750,000 and other restrictions, give 
priority in processing and approval to eligible small businesses that 
have been shut out this year, and require the SBA to renew export 
working capital loans to eligible small businesses.
  Of course, these changes would not be necessary if the administration 
had either requested adequate funding in its budget or used its 
authority to reprogram money to compensate for the shortfall. It also 
could have sent up a request for supplemental funding. On three 
different occasions, I wrote to the administration urging these 
actions, with the support of Senators Levin, Harkin, Lieberman, 
Landrieu, Edwards, Cantwell, Bayh, and Pryor, urging any of these 
solutions, but the administration refused to act. Instead, the 
insufficient funding was compounded by mismanagement and the program 
was completely shutdown from January 6 to January 14. When the 
administration reopened the program, it was with extreme restrictions. 
The restrictions were aimed at keeping the demand for the loans down 
without regard to their effect on the small businesses the Agency is 
intended to serve. Small businesses appealed to the administration and 
our committees for help because they were caught in the middle. For 
example, one company in Pennsylvania has a $1 million export working 
capital loan that needs to be renewed, but it can't because one of 
SBA's restrictions does not allow loans of more than $750,000. At risk 
is the home of one of the owners because it is part of the collateral 
securing the existing loan. This company is qualified; it's just 
trapped by the SBA's restrictions. With your help in passing this bill 
immediately, we can do the right thing for these small business owners 
and others who played by the rules. There is no cost to the Treasury in 
enacting these provisions.
  Last, the fourth provision, addresses an urgent need for some firms 
in New York needing disaster loan assistance. Many have said we should 
wait until we address other SBA legislation in the next 60 days. 
However, hundreds of jobs are at stake and these businesses do not have 
2 months. This language is included at the bipartisan request of the 
House Small Business Committee leadership. Their staffs worked closely 
with the SBA to develop this language, which is acceptable to all of 
them. In addition to the support of House Committee Chairman Don 
Manzullo and Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, this provision is also 
supported by Congresswoman Sue Kelly and Senator Charles Schumer.
  All four provisions address circumstances that require immediate 
action. Let me remind everyone: Without this legislation, the SBA's 
loan program for growing businesses, commonly referred to as the 504 
Loan Guarantee Program, would shut down next Monday, March 15, 2004. 
Without this legislation, the future of counseling and training for 
women starting and growing their businesses, through the most 
established SBA's Women's Business Centers, would be compromised. 
Without this legislation, small businesses with their homes and life 
savings at stake may face financial and personal devastation because of 
program mismanagement. Without this legislation, small business 
disaster victims may go out of business.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters relating to 
programs affected by this legislation and the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record. I thank my colleagues for their support of small 
businesses and for considering immediate passage of this important 
small business bill.
  There being no objection, the letters and the bill were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 A Better Place to Be Day Spa,

                                                  Charlestown, MA.
       Dear Senator Kerry: This past summer I had the opportunity 
     to work with the Center for Women & Enterprise when I was in 
     the beginning stages of writing a business plan for a small 
     day spa that had long been a dream. My business partner and 
     childhood friend and I were both born to working class 
     families and raised in Charlestown. I was educated in the 
     Boston Public School system and went on to attend Boston 
     University on one of their Boston Scholars full tuition 
     scholarships. While working full time after graduation, I 
     decided to enroll at the Muscular Therapy Institute in 
     Cambridge with the goal in mind of opening my own business 
     someday. My business partner held down a full time job and 
     attended The Elizabeth Grady School of Aesthetics in 
     preparation for our venture. While for many years we talked 
     about our dream, we know that making that dream become the 
     reality it is today, would not have been possible without 
     programs like the Center for Women & Enterprise and the Small 
     Business Administration.
       For the last 2 years we had been keeping our eyes and ears 
     open about commercial space in Charlestown, which is not easy 
     to come by and generally not affordable. Our goal was to open 
     by May 2004 (when I will turn 30 and my partner will be 31). 
     We hadn't even begun the business plan writing when the ideal 
     location became available in August. The 1,500 square foot 
     commercial space is located at Mishuwam Park Apartments on 
     Maine Street in Charlestown which is an apartment complex 
     funded through the HUD Section 236 program and is managed by 
     Peabody Properties. We had to move quickly on the space and 
     before we knew it we had signed a lease and incorporated in a 
     matter of days. Our target opening date then became November 
     1st which didn't leave us much time to pull things together 
     but we didn't even know how overwhelming the whole process 
     might have been if we had not found the Center for Women & 
     Enterprise.
       After contacting CWE, I received a call back within minutes 
     from Bea Chiem and she would prove to be an invaluable 
     resource to us during the following months. She took what was 
     very complicated and overwhelming for us and made it so much 
     easier to understand. Every time we would come to a part of 
     the financials that we thought we might never figure out, we 
     knew Bea was only a phone call away. I was most impressed by 
     her response time to each and every question I had. Her 
     patience, knowledge and belief in our vision played a major 
     role in us getting the financing we needed. CWE should be 
     proud to have such a caring and knowledgeable woman on the 
     team.
       The closing on our loan with Sovereign finally took place 
     last week and we got a $60,000 term loan and the $40,000 line 
     of credit we requested from Sovereign through an SBA loan. 
     Shannon and I cannot thank the Center for Women & Enterprise 
     enough for all of their help. We have no doubt that without 
     CWE (and Bea) in our corner the financial institutions we 
     approached would not have taken us as seriously.
       The way in which the center for Women & Enterprise reaches 
     out to help women in business inspired us to do the same. In 
     selecting suppliers and inventory for our gift shop within 
     the spa, we chose to carry products that were made by women 
     or by women

[[Page 3731]]

     owned businesses with a preference given to Massachusetts or 
     New England based businesses.
       A Better Place to Be Day Spa, was received well by the 
     Charlestown community, we had 400 people at our grand opening 
     open house on November 1st and have a steady stream of 
     clients coming through our doors each day. And in the short 
     time we have been open we have seen many repeat clients 
     already. Our business got off to a great start because of the 
     Center for Women & Enterprise and as we continue to grow I 
     will be sure to let our clients know that A Better Place to 
     Be Day Spa is here because of the guidance we received from 
     the Center for Women & Enterprise and the support of the 
     Small Business Administration.
       In closing I need you to know that what the Center for 
     Women & Enterprise and the SBA do for women in business is 
     truly incredible. I particularly enjoy the frequent 
     newsletters outlining upcoming events as well as educational 
     opportunities and workshops that I will be sure to take 
     advantage of in the future. A Better Place to Be Day Spa will 
     be represented at the upcoming State House Day and we will 
     continue to look for ways that we can give back to other 
     women in business through CWE.
       Thank you.
                                                  Melanie Marsden,
                                                   Shannon Lawler,
     Owners.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                        Women Business Owners,

                                    Kansas City MO, March 9, 2004.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the Kansas City chapter of 
     the National Assoc. of Women Business Owners (representing 
     200 members), I would like to request the following actions 
     be taken regarding the SBA 7(a) program.
       Absent the SBA asking congress for additional funding, 
     NAWBO supports increasing fees on lenders as an approach to 
     adequately fund the SBA 7(a) program and to lift 
     restrictions.
       Specifically, NAWBO would like the program to:
       Allow piggyback loans, but charge a 0.50 percent lender fee 
     for each;
       Raise lender fees by 0.10 percent; and
       For loans that are under $150,000, have lenders pay the SBA 
     the 0.25 percent fee that lenders currently keep for 
     themselves. This only applies to these small loans.
       Thank you.
                                                  Elaine Hamilton,
                                      Public Policy Chair.


                                S. 2186

       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 ``SBA Emergency Authorization 
     Extension Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. SBA PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of Public Law 108-172 (117 Stat. 
     2065) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``March 15'' each place 
     that term appears and inserting ``May 15''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Exception for Other Programs.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), title V of the Small Business Investment Act 
     of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and section 29 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656), including any pilot program, 
     shall remain authorized through September 30, 2004.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 503(f) of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 697(f)) is amended 
     by striking ``October 1, 2003'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2004''.

     SEC. 3. WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 29(k) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Funding priority.--Subject to available funds, and 
     reservation of funds, the Administration shall, for each 
     fiscal year, allocate--
       ``(i) $150,000 for each women's business center established 
     under subsection (b), except for any center that requests a 
     lesser amount;
       ``(ii) from the remaining funds, not more than $125,000, in 
     equal amounts, to each women's business center established 
     under subsection (l), to the extent such funds are reserved 
     under subsection (k)(4)(A), except for any center that 
     requests a lesser amount; and
       ``(iii) any funds remaining after allocations are made 
     under clauses (i) and (ii) to new eligible women's business 
     centers and eligible women's business centers that did not 
     receive funding in the prior fiscal year under subsection 
     (b).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) For fiscal year 2004, 48 percent.''.
       (b) Sunset Date.--The amendments made by this section are 
     repealed on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 4. 7(A) LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) Combination Loans.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(31) Combination loans.--
       ``(A) Defined term.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `combination loan' means a financing comprised of a loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection and a loan not guaranteed by 
     Federal, State, or local government.
       ``(B) Authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--A small business concern may combine a 
     loan guaranteed under this subsection with a loan that is not 
     guaranteed by Federal, State, or local government.
       ``(ii) Lender.--The nonguaranteed loan under clause (i) may 
     be made by--

       ``(I) the lender that provided the financing under this 
     subsection or a different lender; or
       ``(II) a lender in the Preferred Lenders Program.

       ``(iii) Security.--The nonguaranteed loan under clause (i) 
     may be secured by a senior lien and the guaranteed loan under 
     this subsection may be secured by a subordinated lien.
       ``(iv) Application.--A loan guarantee under this subsection 
     on behalf of a small business concern, which is approved 
     within 120 days of the date on which a nonguaranteed loan is 
     obtained by the same small business concern, shall be subject 
     to the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(C) Fee on combination loan.--The lender shall pay a one-
     time fee of 0.5 percent of the amount of the nonguaranteed 
     loan if the nonguaranteed portion of the loan has a senior 
     credit position to the guaranteed portion of the loan. This 
     fee shall be in addition to any other lender fees and shall 
     not be charged to the borrower.
       ``(D) Loan size.--
       ``(i) Preferred lenders program.--If the loan guaranteed 
     under this subsection is processed under delegated authority 
     under the Preferred Lenders Program, the maximum amount of 
     the nonguaranteed loan may not exceed--

       ``(I) $1,000,000; or
       ``(II) a combination of $2,000,000 gross loan amount of a 
     loan guaranteed by the Administration and an additional 
     nonguaranteed loan of $1,000,000.

       ``(ii) Small business administration.--If the loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection is processed and approved by 
     Administration staff, the amount of the nonguaranteed loan 
     may not exceed--

       ``(I) $2,000,000; or
       ``(II) a combination of $2,000,000 gross loan amount of a 
     loan guaranteed by the Administration and an additional 
     nonguaranteed loan of $2,000,000.

       ``(E) Use of proceeds.--All proceeds from the fee collected 
     under this subparagraph shall be used to offset the cost (as 
     defined in section 502 of the Credit Reform Act of 1990) to 
     the Administration of guaranteeing loans under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Termination of Lender Authority to Retain Guarantee 
     Fees.--Section 7(a)(18)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(a)(18)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Retention of certain fees.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided under clause (ii), 
     lenders participating in the programs established under this 
     subsection may retain not more than 25 percent of a fee 
     collected under subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(ii) Fiscal year 2004.--Beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this clause and ending on September 30, 2004, 
     the Administration or its agent shall collect all fees under 
     subparagraph (A)(i). All proceeds from fees collected under 
     this paragraph shall be used to offset the cost (as defined 
     in section 502 of the Credit Reform Act of 1990) to the Small 
     Business Administration of guaranteeing loans under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Temporary Modification of Annual Lender Fee.--Section 
     7(a)(23) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``0.25 percent'' and inserting ``0.35 
     percent''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``All proceeds from 
     the fee collected under this paragraph shall be used to 
     offset the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990) to the Administration of guaranteeing 
     loans under this subsection.''.
       (d) Lifting Loan Restrictions and Priority Processing of 
     Rejected Applications.--
       (1) In general.--The Small Business Administration shall--
       (A) eliminate the program restrictions imposed by policy 
     notices 5000-902 and 0000-1709 to allow for the processing 
     and approval of loan applications cancelled or returned 
     because of the program shutdown or restrictions imposed by 
     policy notices 5000-902, 0000-1707, or 0000-1709;
       (B) permit a small business or lender to resubmit any loan 
     application that was not considered or approved because of 
     the program shutdown or restrictions imposed by policy 
     notices 5000-902, 0000-1707, or 0000-1709;
       (C) give priority to processing any application submitted 
     before January 8, 2004, that was not considered because of 
     the program shutdown or loan restrictions imposed by policy 
     notices 5000-902, 0000-1707, or 0000-1709;
       (D) give priority, to the extent possible, to approving all 
     eligible loans that were cancelled or returned because of the 
     program shutdown or restrictions imposed by policy notices 
     5000-902, 0000-1707, or 0000-1709, in the

[[Page 3732]]

     order in which the applications were originally submitted; 
     and
       (E) give priority to processing all eligible loans to any 
     small business that has received financing under section 
     7(a)(14) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(14) and 
     requests a renewal of such financing, regardless of temporary 
     restrictions imposed by the Small Business Administration 
     through the policy notices referred to in this paragraph, and 
     approve such loans, if the small business is otherwise 
     eligible for such financing under that section.
       (2) Proof of application.--An application shall not be 
     denied consideration or approval because the Small Business 
     Administration failed to retain a record of receiving an 
     application if the lender or borrower supplies proof that the 
     application was submitted by mail, fax, or electronic means 
     before January 8, 2004.
       (3) Reservation and application of fee proceeds.--All 
     proceeds from fees authorized under section 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) shall be combined with any 
     amounts appropriated to carry out such section and used--
       (A) first, to process and fund loan guarantees approved 
     pursuant to paragraph (d)(1); and
       (B) second, to process and fund other loan guarantees under 
     section 7(a) of the Small Business Act.
       (4) Notification requirement.--The Small Business 
     Administration shall not make any significant policy or 
     administrative changes affecting the operation of the loan 
     program authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) unless, not later than 15 business 
     days before such change, the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration submits, under the Administrator's 
     signature, a report that specifically describes the proposed 
     changes and the duration of those changes to--
       (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
     Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate; and
       (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
     Small Business of the House of Representatives.
       (e) Sunset Date.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section are repealed on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 5. RESUBMISSION OF DISASTER LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR 
                   CERTAIN BUSINESSES.

       (a) Resubmission of Applications.--During the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, a small 
     business concern may resubmit an application for a loan that 
     was not approved under section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) if the following conditions are 
     met:
       (1) Original application.--The small business concern 
     originally submitted an application before January 1, 2003, 
     in response to the events associated with Small Business 
     Administration Disaster Declaration 3364.
       (2) Location.--On the date of the original submission of 
     the application and on the date of the resubmission, the 
     applicant operates a facility in Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New 
     York, Queens, Richmond, or Westchester county in the State of 
     New York.
       (3) Inability to operate.--Without regard to physical 
     damage to a facility, the applicant was unable to operate at 
     a facility because of a prohibition on the use of the 
     facility, in whole or in part, by an order or other action of 
     a Federal, State, or local government (or any instrumentality 
     of any of the foregoing) for 20 or more consecutive days, 
     occurring as a result of the events associated with Small 
     Business Administration Disaster Declaration 3364.
       (b) Standard for Approval.--The Administrator shall approve 
     (without regard to any requirements applicable under section 
     7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b))), a loan 
     with respect to any application resubmitted under subsection 
     (a) if the applicant has a debt coverage ratio, as attested 
     to by a qualified, independent, third-party auditor, of not 
     less than 1.15 for the applicant's last taxable year ending 
     before the date of the submission of the original 
     application. For purposes of determining the debt coverage 
     ratio under this subsection, the Administrator shall not take 
     into account any Federal or State tax lien or obligation 
     other than a judgment lien.
       (c) Minimum Loan Amount.--The Administrator shall not 
     approve a loan under this section for an amount that is less 
     than 80 percent of the documented losses shown on the 
     application submitted under subsection (a).
       (d) Coordination with Other Loan Limits.--No loan made 
     under this section shall be taken into account under section 
     7(b)(3)(E) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)(3)(E)).

                          ____________________