A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to identify a route that passes through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority corridor on the National Highway System.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the bill.

The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in rural areas.

I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest highway systems in the world.

Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways.

To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources on the Nation's most important roads.

Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic.

The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of

all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs.

The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas.

I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 million vehicle-miles.

The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils.

Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System.

In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done.

New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads.

Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to four-lane divided highways.

As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane divided highway.

Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation.

New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles.

In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine.

I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System.

In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane routes.

The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund.

My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding provided in my bill.

I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so- called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country.

I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile.

Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical projects are completed in the next six years.

This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and

Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas.

In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care.

While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita.

New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services, particularly in underserved areas.

Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, because of a series of disincentives in the legislation.

The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they are eligible.

Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in Health Provider Shortage Areas.

Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced.

The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated.

While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician services.

I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care.

The following organizations have expressed support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in reintroducing the ``Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003'', a bill to reform and improve Indian Reservation Road, IRR, program.

In the past two Congresses the Committee on Indian Affairs has held hearings on the problems with the IRR program and this bill provides much-needed clarifications to better meet the transportation needs in Native communities.

Involving as it does transportation and related issues, this bill includes an initiative I proposed last session to support commercial vehicle driving training programs at tribal colleges and universities.

Although reservation roads comprise just 2.63 percent of the Federal highway system, less than 1 percent of Federal aid has been allocated to Indian roads. This bill would allow the already-authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries.

As with any community, Indian reservations need efficient and effective road financing and construction to develop healthy economies and raise the standard of living.

It is no secret that when entrepreneurs, Indian or non-Indian, calculate whether to invest in a community they first look to see if the basic building blocks exist within the community: roads, highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities.

Unfortunately, despite recent successes some Indian tribes have had with gaming, energy and natural resource development, most Indian tribes still suffer from poor infrastructure that thwarts investment and economic growth.

Building on the successes of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, this bill authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Administration to create a 12-tribe pilot program to contract directly for roads funding.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in re-introducing legislation to assist Indian tribes to fight the scourge of alcohol, drug and associated mental health problems in their communities.

Native Americans continue to be plagued by chronic alcohol and drug addictions which destroy their bodies and souls and inevitably require mental health treatment as well.

There are a good number of Federal agencies involved in treating these problems and, through no fault of their own, agency efforts are often un-coordinated and ineffective as a result.

Relying on models that are proven winners, the ``Native American Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Consolidation Act of 2003'' authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to string together these disparate programs and services and bring them together in one comprehensive and coordinated package.

In addition to achieving economies of scale in these Federal services, the bill would also encourage the use of automated clinical information systems and bring to bear state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools

The two main themes of this bill, better use of resources combined with technological innovations have proven successful in other areas like Indian job training.

Just this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson launched a new effort aimed at combating chronic health problems in minority communities.

Substance abuse and diabetes are included in Secretary Thompson's effort and this bill would go a long way in assisting Federal and tribal governments in that battle.

The mechanics of this bill are also consistent with the broad contours of the President's Management Agenda, increasing the effectiveness of Federal services without increasing the budget.

For these reasons, I am hopeful the bill will be well received by the Administration and the tribes so that it can be considered speedily in the weeks ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I did last session, I am again pleased to introduce the ``Indian Tribal Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge, values and sensitivity to the management of our Federal lands.

I want to emphasize that this initiative is a starting point for a broader discussion about whether Federal law sufficiently protects sacred Indian places that are located on Federal lands.

Americans react viscerally when lands and sites held sacred are threatened. Whether the site in question is the Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana; the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France; or religious and ceremonial sites held dear by Native people.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.''

A series of hearings held by the Committee on Indian Affairs over the past two years revealed that the AIRFA policy remains aspirational and the goals of that Act have not been realized.

The clashes between economic and cultural interests will also sharpen as our nation's needs for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases.

In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978.

The legislation I am re-introducing today will build on these precedents by setting up a Demonstration Project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies.

Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2003. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam.

The legislation I am introducing today is based on language which I previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.

The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States Destroyer, USS Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men.

While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the USS Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam.

The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate.

At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored?

This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names.

As a veteran of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the USS Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the ``Federal Acknowledgment Process Reform Act of 2003''.

Since 1997 I have offered changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process, FAP, which is the process by which Indian groups are ``recognized'' by the United States as tribes.

Recognition of a tribal group as a tribe brings with it the privileges, immunities and rights accorded to Indian tribes.

In recent years, the FAP has been described as ``broken'', ``too lengthy'', ``too costly'', ``without integrity'', ``not transparent'' and ``inconsistently applied'' to name but a few.

For petitioners that have waited literally generations for a final answer on their application, the process is too lengthy.

For petitioners of modest means driven to seek the financial support of ``a backer'', the process is too costly.

For interested parties who feel compelled to file Freedom of Information Act requests to secure information, the process is not transparent.

And for the uninitiated and those not familiar with the governing legal regime, the regulations do appear to be inconsistently applied.

The FAP has not been with us forever. In 1978, the Department of Interior established regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR Part 83, to ``establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian groups exist as tribes.''

Since this administrative procedure was set up in 1978, over 270 groups have petitioned under the regulations, with 18 groups being awarded acknowledgment as a tribe, and 19 groups having been denied.

This means that nearly 230 groups are still waiting to hear on their petitions.

For those who think the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, BAR, is a serial grantor of recognition: just last week the Golden Hill Paugussett group in Connecticut was preliminarily denied acknowledgment.

The delays petitioners face have led to understandable frustration: the Indian Affairs Committee has received testimony from groups where the individuals that originally filed the petition have passed away, and the struggle is carried on by their children, and even grandchildren.

Some petitioners have become so tired of waiting that they have sued the Secretary of Interior and some courts have forced the BAR to produce decisions by dates-certain.

Unfortunately this ``queue jumping'' has created adverse incentives, as more groups file lawsuits.

The kinks in the process have also caused understandable frustration on the part of other, non-Indian groups. These frustrations have led to voluminous Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests, and even lawsuits, as these groups have tried to secure information or seek a better understanding of the regulations.

As you might expect, once the lawsuits get started, paper starts churning. The BAR staff testified to the Indian Affairs Committee that their anthropologists, genealogists and historians spend 40 percent of their time just making photo-copies in response to FOIA requests.

The bill I am introducing today will resolve many of the problems I have described. It will do this first by introducing discipline into the process. Under this bill would-be-petitioners must include enough information in their ``letter of intent'' so that the BAR and other interested parties have a better idea of the context of the group. Obtaining more information will better assist the Secretary of Interior in providing notices to the group and interested parties; and the bill requires that such notices go out within 90 days, insuring timeliness.

Secondly, this bill will provide more resources to petitioners and interested parties, based on the needs of the group or party, something on which all observers of the process seem to be in agreement.

Third, this bill will provide more resources to the Department of Interior, another point on which there seems to be wide agreement.

I do not propose to merely throw more money at this problem. Instead, the bill establishes a research pilot project that will draw upon independent research institutions and consultation with the Smithsonian to expand the research capacity of the BAR.

The bill will also provide a resource to the Assistant Secretary that is sorely needed: an independent research and advisory board that can be called on by the Assistant Secretary to act as a peer reviewer and a second source upon which the Assistant Secretary can base his determination on a petition.

This board will consist of certified professionals and will be available to the Assistant Secretary: 1. at his discretion, if the Assistant Secretary and BAR disagree regarding whether particular criterion have been met in a petition; and 2. to provide outside peer

review and a second opinion on a proposed final determination.

The board will give the Assistant Secretary greater assurance in the soundness of his determination, and will provide a more solid foundation for any later appellate review.

Finally, this bill will provide the certainty of a statutory basis for the acknowledgment criteria that have been used by the BAR since 1978.

There appears to be widespread acceptance of the substantive validity of the criteria, but questions have been raised regarding whether those criteria should be codified. This bill answers that question definitively.

This bill addresses the criticisms of the FAP by increasing the transparency, consistency and integrity of the process, and at the same time removes some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have caused the process to be too costly and time-consuming.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush emphasized the importance of local and charitable initiatives that help define the character of the many communities that make up the mosaic of our country. I have come to the floor today to discuss a community tradition that is unique to many of Alaska's remote villages and which should be recognized and supported by the Federal Government.

Subsistance whaling is vital to the survival of several Alaska Native communities. In many of our remote villages, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on over many millennia. As part of that tradition, it is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with the hunt.

After the hunt, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuk, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain donates a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive the harsh winter.

While the International Whaling Commission, IWC, has banned commercial whaling, it has specifically recognized the cultural significance of whaling to the Alaska Native community and has allowed them to continue the seasonal hunt. The IWC recognizes that the traditional whale hunt is not carried on for financial gain. Although the hunt generates no financial gain to the whaling captain, the captain incurs real expenses.

Since the whaling captain is not engaged in a business, he is not permitted to deduct the costs he incurs from his taxes. In order to maintain the traditional hunt and to offset some of the costs incurred by the Captain, I am today introducing legislation that would allow the captain to claim a charitable deduction of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service.

I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. Moreover, since there is no commercial market for whale meat because of the international whaling bank, there is no way to set the value of such a charitable contribution.

This is a very modest proposal and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I speak today on behalf of Alaska's most vulnerable individuals, our children, the disabled, and the elderly poor. Since its enactment in 1965, the Medicaid program has helped States provide low-income and disabled individuals with access to vital health care services. In 1997, Congress allowed States to take on certain health-related responsibilities for children. The Denali Kid Care program, a Medicaid expansion, has been very successful in providing health services for Alaskan children. Unfortunately, under current law many Alaskans who rely on this program could lose some or all of their Medicaid coverage. This is because Alaska's Federal Medical Assistance percentage, FMAP, adjustment, a correction to the Medicaid formula due to the high cost of health care in Alaska, will expire within the next 2 fiscal years. An FMAP correction is necessary for Alaska because this ``one-size-fits-all'' formula does not account for variations in cost-of-living, and does not consider Alaska's higher federally mandated poverty level.

First of all, the FMAP formula was developed in 1946, 13 years before Alaska was admitted to the Union. This archaic formula is used to calculate the Federal share of Medicaid costs for each State. The calculations are based on the per capita income of individual States relative to the national per capita income. In this way, States with higher per capita incomes end up paying a higher percentage of their Medicaid costs. This formula appears to work well for States near the national norms for most economic indicators. It most certainly does not work in the State of Alaska, however, where these economic indicators appear more frequently as statistical exceptions and outlyers.

The problem is fairly simple: it just costs more to do business in Alaska, and this includes health care. A national per capita income threshold is not a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of living in that area. The cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees in Alaska suggests that it costs 25 percent more to live in Alaska than in the lower 48, and Federal employee salaries are adjusted accordingly. A dollar simply does not buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48.

This is especially true for health care costs. Estimates suggest that, on average, it costs up to 71 percent more to deliver health care services in Alaska. American Hospital Association data shows that Alaska has the highest average expense per hospital admission of any State in the Nation. But let's talk real numbers again. If you were to be admitted to a hospital in Oregon, on average the cost would be $6,649.00; in Alaska the same average hospital stay costs almost double, $10,859.00. There are also higher costs associated with limited road access and necessary air ambulance service for rural and isolated communities, but the Medicaid FMAP formula does not consider any of these additional costs.

In addition to the higher cost of services in Alaska, the Federal Government sets the poverty level 20 percent higher in Alaska than in any of the lower 48 States. This means 1 out of every 5 Alaskans is eligible for Medicaid. The problem is that this is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate because the FMAP formula, again, does not change to reflect this additional requirement. The higher demand for services that results from the higher poverty level dilutes our resources. The Medicaid FMAP formula was developed before Alaska became a State and does NOT provide the funds to cover all of those who are eligible.

However, in 1997 and again in 2000, Congress recognized that the Medicaid FMAP formula was unfair for Alaska and enacted an adjustment to the formula. Due in part to this more equitable funding and a careful re-allocation of resources, Alaska now: has the lowest age- adjusted death rate for breast cancer in the Nation; has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Nation; and has one of the lowest percentages of low birth weight babies in the Nation.

These are encouraging statistics, but more can and must be done to improve access to quality health care. All disabled and low-income Americans, including Alaskans, have been assured access to quality medical care. Alaska has proven it can deliver this quality care, but only with the necessary adjustment to the FMAP formula that recognizes the reality of Alaska's needs.

This issue is timely because the Congress has the opportunity to allow the State of Alaska to plan for the future. Planning is the essence of good management, and when it comes to health care, we must allow States to plan for future needs. In short, the Federal Government must remember its commitment to Alaskans, and allow my State a benefit that all other states have, assurance that money for vital Medicaid services will not just dry up and disappear.

Alaskans do not seek charity, we seek equity. The Congress has supported this request twice before, and I ask for an additional extension to honor Federal commitments to my state. The legislation that I am introducing today will permanently adjust the Medicaid formula for Alaska. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this vital legislation that will preserve my State's ability to provide health insurance to the most vulnerable Alaskans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to establish the Denali Transportation System.

This bill in intended to help create in the same beneficial transportation system in Alaska as exists for every other State in the Union. It is patterned after a similar effort adopted years ago for the Appalachian region, which has demonstrated beyond any doubt that transportation investment is wise investment.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to fund the costs of construction of the Denali Transportation System, at a level of $450 million per year from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2009. As new roads are constructed, they will become part of the National Highway System.

As my colleagues are aware, Alaska's ability to develop a strong economy for the benefit of the State and the nation is deeply impaired by the lack of transportation. This affects all aspects of life in the 49th State, from the delivery of fuel and essential services to individuals and families in our many remote villages, to our ability to develop Alaska's abundance of valuable natural resources. Only our major cities have modern roadways, and many of those remain isolated.

No State, or its citizens, can prosper without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such systems have been in place since before

the American Revolution, and have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since. In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In this day, and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it.

The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for those changes. Adequate transportation connections to, and within, America's only Arctic State are imperative.

As we debate a Federal budget during a time when the economy is struggling, let us not forget that the key to long-term prosperity is wise investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely. We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used as they should.

Mr. President, I ask unanimously consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.

In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short- grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.

Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival.

My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific

or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.

This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.

In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?

This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?

This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require.

Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de- listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed.

Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.

The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA.

NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these Federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action.

Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these Federal lands for their existence.

The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.

States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations.

While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license.

Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions.

Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her

authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history.

As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.

Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.

I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some members of these Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.

In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible.

The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.