[Pages S7834-S7842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Pryor,
Mr. Allard, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1245. A bill to provide for homeland security grand coordination
and simplification, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation,
the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and
strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first
responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number
of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich,
Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.
Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland
Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the
Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland
security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions
the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a
result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates
billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from
the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on
how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be
allocated for another day. Today is that day.
Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders
of State and local officials across America, especially our first
responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on
the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental
Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with
constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also
listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at
the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the
legislation we introduce today.
At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our
firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical
technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our
communities.
Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the
Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received
little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also
underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many
law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland,
ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations
about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of
coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.
Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the
ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States,
communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to
help first responders get the resources they need.
Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way
the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs
are organized within the Department, and the way the Department
distributes these grants.
The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who
expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and
simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.
Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of
homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may
be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of
forms and planning documents.
Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts,
outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the
Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can
access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six
different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two
Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs,
FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State
homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these
grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under
no requirement to coordinate their efforts.
While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate
programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and
localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or
directly to the local level.
I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on
this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local
organizations including the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which
have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through
States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the
local level.
Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our
front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate
duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to
apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide
homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to
homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the
approach we have taken.
The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of
coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and
localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well-
marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that
enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to
emergencies.
Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland
security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security
funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse
to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing
homeland security grant information and other resources within the new
department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security
grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability
and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security
best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security
equipment purchased with Federal funds.
The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on
existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides
funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a
competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to
continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate
its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make
sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE
Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of
communications equipment.
The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office
for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by
simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland
security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.
The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State
and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step
odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant
program. And this program is just one of several homeland security
grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department
can apply.
The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from
twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency
responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that
outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating
resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require
the development of

[[Page S7835]]

measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local
jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second,
States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which
they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.
This legislation would ensure that local government officials and
first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning
process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an
efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these
resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant
allocation.
When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about
the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the
area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland
security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's
firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at
the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the
overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at
the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.
Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be
used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but
also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.
Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have
critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This
legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total
funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities.
While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct
funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this
legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness
Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency
management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under
this program.
While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our
Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant
program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security
assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not
based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments
undertaken for each State.
Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland
security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks.
Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities
answering the same question six different ways.
That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by
requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards
to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.
When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency,
they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant
programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure
communities across our State.
In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's
homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each
State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus
leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In
allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that
Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security
dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus
funds from one category to another to meet their needs.
As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland
Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula
used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all
States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland
security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this
legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that
have already been appropriated but remain unspent.
The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable.
Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of
dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and
with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of
cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight
path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the
mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line
defenders.
I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to
build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months
and years ahead.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine,
Ms. Collins, in introducing the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act
of 2003, legislation that greatly improves the method currently used to
distribute much-needed first responder aid.
When my colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee worked
last year under Senator Lieberman's leadership to create the Department
of Homeland Security, we all hoped that what we were setting up would
help the Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to
terrorist attacks. As of March 1st of this year, we have in place the
skeleton of an organization that aims to pull together under one roof
information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to
improve security and prepare first responders.
As I've pointed out a number of times, however, no matter how well
Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal level, we will not be much
safer than we were on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders
are better prepared to do their work on the local level. While homeland
security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally
important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each
State and its first responders with the assistance necessary to ensure
that the citizens they serve are adequately protected. The Homeland
Security Grant Enhancement Act is an important step toward making this
happen.
Today, States, localities and first responders can receive Federal
assistance from a number of different aid programs administered by
several different agencies. All of the programs serve different
purposes and require different applications. The Homeland Security
Grant Enhancement Act sets up a process to streamline these programs to
allow them to work well together and avoid imposing redundant or
duplicative requirements on applicants. The aim is not to eliminate
programs, but to ensure that existing homeland security and homeland
security-related grant programs are well coordinated and impose as
small an administrative burden on applicants as possible.
The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also creates a ``one-stop
shop'' for grant information within the Department of Homeland Security
by moving the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, the agency within
the Department of Homeland Security charged with administering the
current state homeland security grant program, from the Directorate for
Border and Transportation Security to the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination. In its new location, ODP will operate a
``clearinghouse'' for grant information that would offer services such
as a toll-free hotline and a list of recommended first responder
equipment. ODP will also maintain a compilation of ``best practices''
made up of successful homeland security programs from across the
country and offer states technical assistance in developing the
terrorism risk assessments that will be a part of the new State grant
program.
Most importantly, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also
makes key improvements to the formula for distributing first responder
aid among the States. The new formula maintains the requirement that
all money go to State governments and that 80 percent of that money be
passed through to cities and localities. It also maintains the current
small state minimum in which each State receives an equal share of 40
percent of funds made available for state grants. It makes a major
improvement, however, by dividing the remaining 60 percent of the money
among the states according to an analysis of potential threats in each
State.

[[Page S7836]]

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the
fact that Delaware, though small in population, is located in the
Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the fact
that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical
plants. It ignores the fact that Delaware every day hosts scores of
ships, trains and trucks on their way to destinations up and down the
East Coast. It also ignores the fact that Delaware is home to the Dover
Air Force Base, a facility that played a crucial role in the recent
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with
densely populated urban areas, enough resources to protect their larger
populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors
simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government
should be working to bring every state and locality to the point where
they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. I
am concerned that the current formula, based mostly on population does
not prepare all States adequately.
The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act still requires that
population be taken into account when distributing first responder aid.
However, it adds the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland
Security also account for threats and risk to critical infrastructure
identified in State risk assessments that would be submitted to the
department as part of the grant application process. The bill also
ensures that all localities within States get their fair share of money
by requiring that local leaders be included in the planning and
application process in each state and that the distribution method a
given state will use once it receives its money is approved by the
department before a check is cut.
Finally, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act gives states new
flexibility in spending their first responder aid by incorporating
provisions from S. 838, legislation Ms. Collins and I introduced in
April. That bill allows States to apply for a waiver from the
Department of Homeland Security so that they can move their first
responder aid around between the four categories--equipment, training,
exercises and planning--in which it is sent to them. This change will
allow States to better meet needs identified in their State terrorism
response plans.
I applaud the Senator from Maine for her leadership on these
important issues. I look forward to working with her and all of my
colleagues in getting this important legislation passed and signed into
law as soon as possible.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bond, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Levin, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Corzine, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1247. A bill to increase the amount to be reserved during fiscal
year 2003 for sustainability grants under section 29(1) of the Small
Business Act; considered and passed.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1247

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 ``Women's Business Centers
Preservation Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS FOR WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

Section 29(k)(4)(A)(iv) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 656(k)(4)(A)(iv)) is amended by striking ``30.2
percent'' and inserting ``36 percent''.
______

By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 1248. A bill to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003.
In the past, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA,
bills received bipartisan votes at the end of a long, divisive and
arduous process. What makes today's introduction of a bipartisan IDEA
bill so unique is that it is bipartisan in its inception.
The reason this is a bipartisan bill is because it strikes the
appropriate balance between protecting the educational rights of
children with disabilities while simultaneously making IDEA less
litigious and compliance based. Above all, the bill is designed to
ensure that IDEA resources are directed to help children with
disabilities obtain the same opportunity to succeed as all other
students.
The bill streamlines State and local requirements to ensure that
paperwork focuses on improved results for children with disabilities.
By eliminating the need for an 800+ procedural checklist, these
amendments favor the improvement of educational and functional results
for children with disabilities over burdensome bureaucratic rules.
The bill responds to concerns that we've heard from both parents and
school administrators alike on how the law has evolved into a full
employment government program for lawyers. Over and over again, we hear
of fights about past procedural issues and technical errors instead of
making sure that the children are being well served in the here and
now.
The bill includes many common sense provisions to alleviate the
stress in disagreements between schools and parents and encourages them
to seek out mediation to address their concerns before they move to
formal hearings. The bill restores trust by; providing parents with
better access to information and resources to understand their rights
and work through conflicts; making clear that parents can request an
initial evaluation of a child for IDEA services and making it easier
for parents to make changes to their child's individual education plan;
requiring complaints of either the school or parents to be clear and
specific before going to due process; and requiring hearing officers to
make decisions based upon substantive grounds not technical issues that
have no bearing on a child's education.
This bill currently does not specifically address the issue of full
funding, because Senator Kennedy and I decided at the very outset to
postpone that issue to the floor, since that is an issue that merits
the attention and active participation of the entire Senate. However,
in addition to simplifying funding formulas so that both States and
local school districts have a better indication of the funding
available, the bill includes 2 key provisions that will provide
additional fiscal relief for school districts than what is provided to
them under current law.
First, we allow school districts to treat 8 percent of their IDEA
funds as local funds. This will allow school districts to better align
funding among programs based on local priorities. Second, we require
States to reserve 2 percent of their overall IDEA Part B grant to
establish risk pool accounts to provide new resources to assist local
school districts and charter schools in addressing the costs of
providing services to high-need children and unanticipated enrollment
of students with disabilities.
Finally, the bill addresses the discipline provisions in current law
that schools and parents have found to be confusing, hard to
administer, and have resulted in outcomes that were not always fair to
every child. The bill simplifies the framework for schools to
administer the law, while ensuring the rights and the safety of all
children.
Importantly, the bill will require schools to consider whether a
child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering
disciplinary action, and ensure that individualized education plans
contain positive behavioral interventions and supports when a child's
behavior impedes his or her own learning, or that of others.
Senator Kennedy and I were determined to make this a bipartisan
process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we're confident
will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and
most importantly by parents, the disabled community and the school
community.

[[Page S7837]]

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator
Gregg to introduce the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Act. Our goal is a quality education for every disabled
child.
We know that education opens the golden door of opportunity for every
child, and it is especially important for children with disabilities.
Since it was first enacted, IDEA has opened that door and helped
millions of children with disabilities to lead independent and
productive lives. For them, IDEA has been the difference between
dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive
careers.
The need for IDEA is greater now than ever. Over 6 million children
with disabilities rely on the Act to obtain the same learning
opportunities as their non-disabled fellow students.
We know that schools need Federal help to make IDEA work. Over the
last two years we have listened to students, parents, teachers, and
school administrators. We have weighed thousands of comments on the
most effective ways to live up to the great promise of this law.
They told us they needed stronger enforcement of IDEA. This bill
provides it, by giving the Secretary of Education and State education
agencies greater power and new ways to measure compliance and impose
sanctions when schools fail to live up the standards we've set.
They told us they needed stronger accountability. This bill provides
it, by requiring schools to meet strict benchmarks for student
achievement, by providing better delivery of transition services, and
by dealing with the over-representation of minorities in IDEA.
They told us they wanted a stronger and more flexible Individualized
Education Program. This bill provides it, by requiring that every
student's plan contain positive ways to support the child and to
increase parental involvement.
They told us they wanted to protect students from being expelled from
school because of their disability. This bill provides it, by requiring
schools to determine whether a child's behavior is the result of the
disability, or the lack of other supports that should have been
provided.
They told us they wanted better teachers in the classroom--as well-
trained as other teachers. This bill provides it, by requiring all
special education teachers to be highly qualified by 2007, and by
designating 100 percent of State improvement grants to support
professional development of teachers.
They told us they wanted more help for their children in the
transition from school to college or to work. This bill provides it, by
giving greater access to the vocational rehabilitation system and
taking other steps to assist the child in meeting post-secondary goals.
The debate over how best to fund these reforms goes on. Schools
urgently need the resources to make the IDEA a reality. It is not
enough to provide only some of the promised federal aid. We must find a
way to fully fund IDEA, because every dollar lost is another child that
slips through the cracks.
We will have an opportunity to debate this issue and others in our
committee and in the Senate in the weeks ahead. I look forward to these
debates and to working with Senator Gregg and all our colleagues to
make this bill even stronger.
______

By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 1249. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
waive the part B late enrollment penalty for military retirees who
enroll December 31, 2004, and to provide a special part B enrollment
period for such retirees; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
``The TRICARE Retirees Opportunity 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. 1249

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 ``The TRICARE Retirees
Opportunity Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF MEDICARE PART B LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY FOR
CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES; SPECIAL ENROLLMENT
PERIOD.

(a) Waiver of Penalty.--
(1) In general.--Section 1839(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395r(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``No increase in the premium shall be
effected for a month in the case of an individual who is 65
years of age or older, who enrolls under this part during
2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 and who demonstrates to the
Secretary before December 31, 2004, that the individual is a
covered beneficiary (as defined in section 1072(5) of title
10, United States Code). The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall consult with the Secretary of Defense in
identifying individuals described in the previous
sentence.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to premiums for months beginning with January
2001. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
establish a method for providing rebates of premium penalties
paid for months on or after January 2001 for which a penalty
does not apply under such amendment but for which a penalty
was previously collected.
(b) Medicare Part B Special Enrollment Period.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any individual who, as of
the date of the enactment of this Act, is 65 years of age or
older, is eligible to enroll but is not enrolled under part B
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and is a covered
beneficiary (as defined in section 1072(5) of title 10,
United States Code), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall provide for a special enrollment period during
which the individual may enroll under such part. Such period
shall begin as soon as possible after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall end on December 31, 2004.
(2) Coverage period.--In the case of an individual who
enrolls during the special enrollment period provided under
paragraph (1), the coverage period under part B of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act shall begin on the first day
of the month following the month in which the individual
enrolls.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1250. A bill to improve, enhance, and promote the Nation's
homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency
response capabilities through the use of enhanced 911 services, to
further upgrade Public Safety Answering Point capabilities and related
functions in receiving E-911 calls, and to support the construction and
operation of a ubiquitous and reliable citizen activated system and
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1250

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 ``Enhanced 911 Emergency
Communications Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) for the sake of our Nation's homeland security and
public safety, a universal emergency telephone number (911)
that is enhanced with the most modern and state-of-the-art
telecommunications capabilities possible should be available
to all citizens in all regions of the Nation;
(2) enhanced emergency communications require Federal,
State, and local government resources and coordination;
(3) any funds that are collected from fees imposed on
consumer bills for the purposes of funding 911 services or
enhanced 911 should go only for the purposes for which the
funds are collected; and
(4) enhanced 911 is a high national priority and it
requires Federal leadership, working in cooperation with
State and local governments and with the numerous
organizations dedicated to delivering emergency
communications services.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to coordinate emergency communications systems,
including 911 services and E-911 services, at the Federal,
State, and local levels;
(2) to provide stability and resources to State and local
Public Safety Answering Points, to facilitate the prompt
deployment of enhanced 911 services throughout the United
States in a ubiquitous and reliable infrastructure; and
(3) to ensure that funds collected on telecommunications
bills for enhancing emergency 911 services are used only for
the purposes for which the funds are being collected.

SEC. 4. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION.

(a) In General.--Part C of title I of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

[[Page S7838]]

``SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

SEC. 4. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION.

(a) In General.--Part C of title I of the National
Telecommunicatiions and Information Administration
Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

``(a) Establishment of Task Force.--The Assistant Secretary
shall establish an Emergency Communications Task Force to
facilitate coordination between Federal, State, and local
emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, and
public safety organizations. The task force shall include the
following:
``(1) Representatives from Federal agencies, including--
``(A) the Department of Justice;
``(B) the Department of Homeland Security;
``(C) the Department of Defense;
``(D) the Department of the Interior;
``(E) the Department of Transportation; and
``(F) the Federal Communications Commission;
``(2) State and local first responder agencies;
``(3) national 911 and emergency communications leadership
organizations;
``(4) telecommunications industry representatives; and
``(5) other individuals designated by the Assistant
Secretary.
``(b) Purpose of Task Force.--The task force shall provide
advice and recommendations with respect to methods to improve
coordination and communications between agencies and
organizations involved in emergency communications, including
911 services to enhance homeland security and public
safety.
``(c) Reports.--The Assistant Secretary shall provide an
annual report to Congress by the first day of October of each
year on the task force activities and make recommendations on
how Federal, State, and local governments and emergency
communications organizations can improve coordination and
communications.
``(d) Miscellaneous Provisions.--Members of the task force
shall serve without special compensation with respect to
their activities on behalf of the task force.''.

SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR E-911 ENHANCEMENT.

Part C of title I of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901),
as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end:

``SEC. 159. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS.

``(a) Matching Grants.--The Assistant Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall
provide grants to State and local governments and tribal
organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(l))) for the purposes of enhancing emergency
communications services through planning, infrastructure
improvements, equipment purchases, and personnel training and
acquisition.
``(b) Matching Requirement.--The Federal share of the cost
of a project eligible for a grant under this section shall
not exceed 50 percent. The non-Federal share of the cost
shall be provided from non-Federal sources.
``(c) Preference.--In providing grants under subsection
(a), the Assistant Secretary shall give preference to
applicants who--
``(1) coordinate their applications with the needs of their
public safety answering points; and
``(2) integrate public and commercial communications
services involved in the construction, delivery, and
improvement of emergency communications, including 911
services.
``(d) Criteria.--The Assistant Secretary shall issue
regulations within 180 days of the enactment of the Enhanced
E-911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003, after a public
comment period of not less than 60 days, prescribing the
criteria for selection for grants under this section and
shall update such regulations as necessary.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary not
more than $500,000,000 for each fiscal year for grants under
this section.''.

SECTION 6. STATE AND LOCAL 911 PRACTICES.

(a) Certification.--Part IV of title VI of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 642. DIVERSION OF 911 FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Assessment and audit.--The Commission shall review,
no less frequently than twice a year--
``(A) the imposition of taxes, fees, or other charges
imposed by States or political subdivisions of States that--
``(i) appear on telecommunications services customers'
bills; and
``(ii) are designated or presented as dedicated to improve
emergency communications services, including 911 services or
enhanced 911 services, or related to emergency communications
services operations or improvements; and
``(B) the use of revenues derived from such taxes, fees, or
charges.
``(2) Certification.--Each State shall certify annually to
the Commission that no portion of the revenues derived from
such taxes, fees, or charges have been obligated or expended
for any purpose other than the purposes for which such taxes,
fees, or charges are designated or presented.
``(b) Notification of Congress and the Public.--If the
Commission fails to receive the certification described in
subsection (a)(2), then, within 30 days after the date on
which such certification was due, the Commission shall cause
to be published in the Federal Register, and notify the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce
of--
``(1) the identity of each State or political subdivision
that failed to make the certification; and
``(2) the amount of revenues obligated or expended by that
State or political subdivision for any purpose other than the
purposes for which such taxes, fees, or charges were
designated or presented.
``(c) Withholding of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Assistant Secretary shall withhold any
Federal grant funds that would otherwise be made available
under section 159 of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act to a State or
political subdivision identified by the Commission under
subsection (b)(1) in an amount not to exceed twice the amount
described in subsection (b)(2). In lieu of withholding grant
funds under this subsection, the Secretary may require a
State or political subdivision to repay to the Secretary the
appropriate amount of funds already disbursed to that State
or political subdivision.''.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1253. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a minimum credit of $200 per month for stay-at-home parents, to allow
the dependent care credit to be taken against the minimum tax, and to
allow a carryforward of any unused dependent care credit; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to
introduce legislation that will help many young families in America
meet the financial challenges associated with raising children. The
legislation I am introducing attempts to alleviate some of the
financial costs incurred by the more than one out three families when
one of the parents decides to leave the work force to raise children at
home.
Current tax law recognizes that when both parents remain in the work
force, they incur additional child care costs because, in order to keep
their jobs, they have to pay for day care services. Current tax law
provides a sliding scale tax credit that allows parents to claim a tax
credit of up to 35 percent to offset as much as $3,000 of day care
costs for one child, $6,000 for two or more children. The maximum
$1,050 tax credit, $2,100 for two or more children, phase down as
income rises. The minimum, 20 percent credit, applies to families with
incomes above $43,000.
I strongly support this dependent care tax credit because it makes it
easier for husbands and wives to maintain their careers and provide for
their families. However, there are many families that have made the
decision that one of the parents will give up a job in order to raise
their children. In fact, this is a growing trend. In 2001, 37.7 percent
of families had one parent at home raising the child; that's up from
35.3 percent in 1995. And the stay-at-home parent is, overwhelmingly,
the mother. Barely 3.6 percent of stay-at-home parents are husbands.
When a working woman makes the decision to interrupt her career to
raise her child, the family incurs an immediate financial penalty. And
more often than not, the career interruption may damage the woman's
future earnings potential, what some have referred to as the ``Mommy
Track.''
The immediate loss of income when a parent leaves the workforce
significantly changes the family's lifestyle. For example, consider a
childless couple where the husband earns $35,000 and

[[Page S7839]]

the wife earns $27,000. After paying Federal income and payroll taxes,
the family retains slightly more than $50,000 in disposable income. If
the family has a child, and both parents continue their careers, after
taxes they still will keep more than $49,000 of their earnings, even if
they incur child care expenses of $3,000. However, in this example, if
the father gives up his job, the family's disposable income drops by
nearly 40 percent to less than $32,000. Put another way, the family's
monthly income drops from $4,100 to $2,700. That's a difficult
adjustment for any family, especially one that has to incur the
additional costs of a newborn.

I respect the parents who choose to maintain their careers while
raising a family and the parents who make the financial sacrifice to
give up their careers to raise a family. But I believe the tax code
should treat both equally.
My legislation attempts to alleviate the current inequity in the code
by giving stay-at-home moms or dads a $200 a month tax credit. This
credit would be indexed for inflation. The credit would apply until the
child reaches the age of 6. While this credit could never make up the
financial loss that families face when one of the parents stops
working, it will provide some important financial relief to these
families. In the example I cited earlier, if the father did not work
for a full year, the $2,400 tax credit would completely eliminate the
family's $1,500 Federal tax bill, giving the family that much more to
spend on their living expenses.
In addition, under this proposal, any unused tax credits could be
carried forward indefinitely. Many parents who leave the work force to
raise their children return to work when their kids enter school. By
allowing the carry forward of unused credits, the parent who re-enters
the work force will be able to keep more of his or her earnings to make
up for the financial sacrifice made when choosing to stay home with the
family. I think it is only fair that society recognize the financial
sacrifice these parents have made.
Congress recently acted to eliminate the marriage penalty. We should
now act to eliminate the penalty imposed on families when a parent
leaves the workforce to raise a child at home. It makes sense for our
families and it is good tax policy.
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. 1253

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 ``Stay-At-Home Parents' Tax
Credit Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with 1 or more qualifying individuals described in subsection
(b)(1)(A) under the age of 6 at any time during the taxable
year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have employment-
related expenses with respect to such qualifying individuals
in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $200 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 6.''.
(b) Credit Allowed Against Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 21(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``The amount of'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Dollar limit.--The amount of'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Limitation based on amount of tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section and sections 23, 24, and 25B) and
section 27 for the taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The heading of section 21(c) of such Code is amended to
read ``Limitations.--''.
(B) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``21,'' after ``sections''.
(c) Carryforward of Credit.--Section 21 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for household and
dependent care services necessary for gainful employment) is
amended by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and
by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds
the limitation imposed by subsection (c)(4) for such taxable
year, such excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable
year and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a)
for such taxable year.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 1254. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a
vocational and technical entrepreneurship development program; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to introduce the
Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2003,
which is the companion bill to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and
was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Robert Brady of
Pennsylvania earlier this year.
I want to commend Representative Brady for his hard work on behalf of
small businesses not just from his home State of Pennsylvania but for
every trades industry entrepreneur that has ever attempted to open his
or her own business.
Often Americans who work in the trade sector--construction, plumbing,
electrical work etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day
starting a business; however many of these aspiring business owners who
partake in career training or vocational training in certain trades,
unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education in the successful
growth and development of their newly formed business. This initiative
would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry
to move toward starting a new business.
The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship
Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will
encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation
passed the House last Congress on October 2, 2001 and was subsequently
taken up and passed by this Committee last Congress, but was not taken
up by the full Senate.
The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a
``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,''
under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business
Development Centers program, to provide technical assistance to high
school and technical career institutes, Vo-Tech schools, to promote
small business ownership in their curriculum.
The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling,
training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business
management and is the ideal candidate to provide such a program. Each
grant awarded under this program will be worth over $200,000--which, in
today's environment where Vo-Tech programs get short-changed in
government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a
worker-strapped trades industry.
I urge all of my colleagues to support Vocational and Technical
Entrepreneurship Development Act.
______

By Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Miller, Mr. Craig, and
Ms. Stabenow):
S. 1255. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a pilot
program to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small business
concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished
colleague from Nevada, Senator John Ensign, and the cosponsors of our
legislation in reintroducing the National

[[Page S7840]]

Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.
The bill we are reintroducing today is the same Cleland-Kerry
legislation that was introduced last Congress, and it is the companion
to Congressman Sweeney's bill, H.R. 205, which bears the same name as
our legislation. The Sweeney bill recently passed the House
overwhelmingly, 417-4, with the strong support of the House Committee
on Small Business, as it did in the 107th. Our Senate version, which is
nearly identical to the Sweeney bill, passed the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship last year but was not taken up by the
full Senate. Because Senator Ensign and I are fully committed to
helping small business owners understand and navigate complicated
government regulations, we are reintroducing this legislation, the
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.
Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few
employees, often face an overwhelming task when seeking advice on how
to comply with Federal regulations, especially when implementation
varies for different regions of the country, or from state to state.
Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor
and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law,
but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to
comply. Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from
Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.
One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal
regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside
of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory
agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business
Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this
type of assistance.
Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to
20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these
SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses.
The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and
$300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.
Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with
Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training
activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small
business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those
who receive compliance assistance, which is integral to the reaching
out to as many small businesses as possible. This privacy provision has
also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance
from their local SBDC.
The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and
will serve to complement current small business development assistance
as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this
legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.
Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal
regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The
National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way
toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with
Federal regulations.
I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association
of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely
with us since January of last year to draft the Senate version of this
legislation, as well as support from National Small Business United,
the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.
I want to express my sincere thanks to Senator Ensign for his hard
work and continued support on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues
to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar);
S. 1256. A bill to protect the critical aquifers and watersheds that
serve as a principal water supply for Puerto Rico, to protect the
tropical forests of the Karst Region, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, along with
Senator Lugar, the Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003.
This very important bill will provide protection for Puerto Rico's
karst region by helping to maintain biodiversity within the tropical
forest ecosystem and to protect its valuable aquifers and watersheds.
The area is threatened by development which, if unabated, could cause
permanent damage to its outstanding natural and environmental assets.
Karst is permeable and soluble limestone that originated millions of
years ago. The land identified in the bill contains the last remnants
of tropical forests that once covered the island. This area, including
the habitats of many endangered and threatened species and tropical
birds, is home to over 1,300 species of plants and animals.
The area also provides drinking water through subterranean aquifers
to many of the island's citizens. Sixty-four percent of Puerto Rico's
aquifer area is contained within the northern karst belt. This aquifer
area discharges approximately 120 million gallons of water per day, of
which the citizens of Puerto Rico consume 52 million gallons per day.
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the mainstays of Puerto Rico's
economy and it is dependent on the area's fresh water supplies as well.
An August 2001 U.S. Forest Service report, Puerto Rican Karst: A
Vital Resource, documents the ecologically unique and scientifically
valuable karst region, stating ``the northern limestone contains Puerto
Rico's most extensive freshwater aquifer, largest continuous expanse of
mature forest, and largest coastal wetlands, estuary,and underground
cave system. The karst belt is extremely diverse, and its multiple land
forms, concentrated in such a small area, make it unique in the
world.'' It should come as no surprise, then, that Forest Service Chief
dale Bosworth has expressed his strong support for the protection of
the karst.
The Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003 authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to carry out land acquisition by using funds
from a Conservation Fund created by the Act, and from the Forest Legacy
Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other sources. The
legislation also authorizes the Secretary to make grants to and enter
into agreements with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, other federal
agencies, organizations, and corporations for the acquisition,
protection, and management of land in the region. In addition, the bill
makes this region eligible for inclusion under the Forest Legacy
Program.
I want to thank Senator Lugar for co-sponsoring the Puerto Rico Karst
Conservation Act of 2003. His strong support for this legislation and
his steadfast commitment to tropical forest conservation is invaluable.
It is also important to note that Representative Acevedo-Vila and
Representative Duncan have just introduced this measure in the House of
Representatives where, I'm told, it has strong bi-partisan support.
I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1256

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 ``Puerto Rico Karst
Conservation Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in the Karst Region of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
there are--
(A) some of the largest areas of tropical forests in Puerto
Rico, with a higher density of tree species than any other
area in the Commonwealth; and
(B) unique geological formations that are critical to the
maintenance of aquifers and watersheds that constitute a
principal water supply for much of the Commonwealth;
(2) the Karst Region is threatened by development that, if
unchecked, could permanently damage the aquifers and cause
irreparable damage to natural and environmental assets that
are unique to the United States;
(3) the Commonwealth has 1 of the highest population
densities in the United States, which makes the protection of
the Karst Region imperative for the maintenance of the

[[Page S7841]]

public health and welfare of the citizens of the
Commonwealth;
(4) the Karst Region--
(A) possesses extraordinary ecological diversity, including
the habitats of several endangered and threatened species and
tropical migrants; and
(B) is an area of critical value to research in tropical
forest management; and
(5) coordinated efforts at land protection by the Federal
Government and the Commonwealth are necessary to conserve the
environmentally critical Karst Region.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to authorize and support conservation efforts to
acquire, manage, and protect the tropical forest areas of the
Karst Region, with particular emphasis on water quality and
the protection of the aquifers that are vital to the health
and wellbeing of the citizens of the Commonwealth; and
(2) to promote cooperation among the Commonwealth, Federal
agencies, corporations, organizations, and individuals in
those conservation efforts.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Commonwealth.--The term ``Commonwealth'' means the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(2) Forest legacy program.--The term ``Forest Legacy
Program'' means the program established under section 7 of
the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2103c).
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Puerto Rico Karst
Conservation Fund established by section 5.
(4) Karst region.--The term ``Karst Region'' means the
areas in the Commonwealth generally depicted on the map
entitled ``Karst Region Conservation Area'' and dated March
2001, which shall be on file and available for public
inspection in--
(A) the Office of the Secretary, Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources; and
(B) the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service.
(5) Land.--The term ``land'' includes land, water, and an
interest in land or water.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 4. CONSERVATION OF THE KARST REGION.

(a) Federal Cooperation and Assistance.--In furtherance of
the acquisition, protection, and management of land in and
adjacent to the Karst Region and in implementing related
natural resource conservation strategies, the Secretary may--
(1) make grants to and enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements with the Commonwealth, other Federal agencies,
organizations, corporations, and individuals; and
(2) use all authorities available to the Secretary,
including--
(A) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.);
(B) section 1472 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318);
and
(C) section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a).
(b) Funding Sources.--The activities authorized by this
section may be carried out using--
(1) amounts in the Fund;
(2) amounts in the fund established by section 4(b) of the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 1643(b));
(3) funds appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund;
(4) funds appropriated for the Forest Legacy Program; and
(5) any other funds made available for those activities.
(c) Management.--
(1) In general.--Land acquired under this Act shall be
managed, in accordance with the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1641 et
seq.), in a manner to protect and conserve the water quality
and aquifers and the geological, ecological, fish and
wildlife, and other natural values of the Karst Region.
(2) Failure to manage as required.--In any deed, grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement implementing this Act and
the Forest Legacy Program in the Commonwealth, the Secretary
may require that, if land acquired by the Commonwealth or
other cooperating entity under this Act is sold or conveyed
in whole or part, or is not managed in conformity with
paragraph (1), title to the land shall, at the discretion of
the Secretary, vest in the United States.
(d) Willing Sellers.--Any land acquired by the Secretary in
the Karst Region shall be acquired only from a willing
seller.
(e) Relation to Other Authorities.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) diminishes any other authority that the Secretary may
have to acquire, protect, and manage land and natural
resources in the Commonwealth; or
(2) exempts the Federal Government from Commonwealth water
laws.

SEC. 5. PUERTO RICO KARST CONSERVATION FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury an
interest bearing account to be known as the ``Puerto Rico
Karst Conservation Fund''.
(b) Credits to Funds.--There shall be credited to the
Fund--
(1) amounts appropriated to the Fund;
(2) all amounts donated to the Fund;
(3) all amounts generated from the Caribbean National
Forest that would, but for this paragraph, be deposited as
miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States,
but not including amounts authorized by law for payments to
the Commonwealth or authorized by law for retention by the
Secretary for any purpose;
(4) all amounts received by the Administrator of General
Services from the disposal of surplus real property in the
Commonwealth under subtitle I of title 40, United States
Code; and
(5) interest derived from amounts in the Fund.
(c) Use of Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available to
the Secretary until expended, without further appropriation,
to carry out section 4.

SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

(a) Donations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept donations,
including land and money, made by public and private
agencies, corporations, organizations, and individuals in
furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
(2) Conflicts of interest.--The Secretary may accept
donations even if the donor conducts business with or is
regulated by the Department of Agriculture or any other
Federal agency.
(3) Applicable law.--Public Law 95-442 (7 U.S.C. 2269)
shall apply to donations accepted by the Secretary under this
subsection.
(b) Relation to Forest Legacy Program.--
(1) In general.--All land in the Karst Region shall be
eligible for inclusion in the Forest Legacy Program.
(2) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may credit donations made
under subsection (a) to satisfy any cost-sharing requirements
of the Forest Legacy Program.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. COLEMAN
S. 1257. A bill to conduct statewide demonstration projects to
improve health care quality and to reduce costs under the medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act and to conduct a
study on payment incentives and performance under the Medicare+Choice
program under such title; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill I introduce today to improve health care quality and reduce
costs under the Medicare program be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1257

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 ``Medicare Payment for Quality
and Value Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE QUALITY
AND REDUCE COSTS UNDER MEDICARE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means a demonstration project established by the
Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Low-cost high-quality state.--The term ``low-cost high-
quality State'' means a State in the top quartile of cost and
quality efficiency as measured by the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services using 1999 program data.
(3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare
beneficiary'' means an individual who is entitled to (or
enrolled for) benefits under part A of the medicare program,
enrolled for benefits under part B of the medicare program,
or both (including an individual who is enrolled in a
Medicare+Choice plan under part C of the medicare program).
(4) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(b) Demonstration Projects to Improve Health Care Quality
and Reduce Costs Under Medicare.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a demonstration
program under which the Secretary shall establish
demonstration projects in accordance with the provisions of
this section for the purpose of improving the quality of
care--
(A) provided to medicare beneficiaries with high-volume and
high-cost conditions; and
(B) for which payment is made under the medicare program.
(2) Rewarding quality care.--Under the demonstration
projects, the Secretary shall increase payments under the
medicare program by an amount determined by the Secretary for
purposes of the demonstration projects to health care
providers (as defined by the Secretary) in low-cost high-
quality States that demonstrate adherence to quality
standards identified by the Secretary for purposes of the
demonstration projects.
(c) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--

[[Page S7842]]

(1) Demonstration areas.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration
projects in low-cost high-quality States selected on the
basis of proposals submitted under subparagraph (B). Each
demonstration project shall be conducted on a statewide
basis.
(B) Proposals.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to
establish the demonstration projects from entities that
demonstrate an intent to include multiple public and private
payers and a majority of practicing physicians in a low-cost
high-quality State.
(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the
demonstration projects by the date that is 5 years after the
date on which the first demonstration project is implemented.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than the date that is 6
months after the date on which the demonstration projects
end, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the
demonstration projects together with such recommendations for
legislation or administrative action as the Secretary
determines is appropriate.
(e) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary shall
waive compliance with such requirements of the medicare
program to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds
necessary to conduct the demonstration projects.
(f) Funding.--
(1) Demonstration projects.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall provide for the transfer from the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i) and Federal
Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t), in such proportion as the Secretary
determines appropriate, of such funds as are necessary for
the costs of carrying out the demonstration projects under
this section.
(B) Limitation.--In conducting the demonstration projects
under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the
aggregate payments made by the Secretary under the medicare
program do not exceed the amount which the Secretary would
have paid under the medicare program if the demonstration
projects under this section were not implemented.
(2) Evaluation and report.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary for the purpose of
developing and submitting the report to Congress under
subsection (d).

SEC. 3. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE REPORT ON PAYMENT INCENTIVES
AND PERFORMANCE UNDER THE MEDICARE+CHOICE
PROGRAM.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into an arrangement with the Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences under which the
Institute shall conduct a study on clinical outcomes,
performance, and quality of care under the Medicare+Choice
program under part C of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act.
(b) Matters Studied.--
(1) In general.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Institute shall review and evaluate the public and
private sector experience related to the establishment of
performance measures and payment incentives. The review shall
include an evaluation of the success, efficiency, and utility
of structural process and performance measurements, and
different methodologies that link performance to payment
incentives. The review shall include the use of incentives--
(A) aimed at plans and their enrollees;
(B) aimed at providers and their patients;
(C) to encourage consumers to purchase based on quality and
value; and
(D) to encourage multiple purchasers, providers,
beneficiaries, and plans within a community to work together
to improve performance.
(2) Identification of options.--As part of the study, the
Institute shall identify options for providing incentives and
rewarding performance, improve quality, outcomes, and
efficiency in the delivery of programs and services under the
Medicare+Choice program, including--
(A) periodic updates of performance measurements to
continue rewarding outstanding performance and encourage
improvements;
(B) payments that vary by type of plan, such as preferred
provider organization plans and MSA plans;
(C) extension of incentives in the Medicare+Choice program
to the fee for service program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act; and
(D) performance measures needed to implement alternative
methodologies to align payments with performance.
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit to Congress
and the Secretary a report on the study conducted under
subsection (a).

____________________