[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S527-S552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 161. A bill to establish the Violence Against Women Office within
the Department of Justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent office in the
Department of Justice. After the passage of the Violence Against Women
Act in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice administratively created
the Violence Against Women Office. Over time, the office's duties and
responsibilities have included administering Violence Against Women Act
grant programs, providing technical assistance and training to improve
justice system responses in communities across the country, and
providing leadership in developing the Administration's policies on
violence against women. Led by a Presidentially-appointed Director, the
Violence Against Women Office has had an enormous impact on social
attitudes in this country about the nature
[[Page S528]]
and effects of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a
result of the office's high profile work, the urgent issue of violence
against women has come into much sharper public focus.
Making permanent the Violence Against Women Office in the Justice
Department is necessary to extend VAWA's benefits to all corners of the
country. The office has been the leader in promoting a multi-
disciplinary, community-coordinated system response to violence against
women. Additionally, it has a specialized knowledge of the best
practices in the field to ensure that the grant funds are well
utilized. A statutory mandate would guarantee that the Violence Against
Women Office will continue this specialized work in future
Administrations, ensuring that Congress' goals regarding domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking will be carried out with the
same professional expertise that we have grown to appreciate over the
past six years.
This office is needed now more than ever. Violence against women
continues to ravage our society. In my own state, 40 women were
murdered by their partners in the year 2000 alone. This is more than in
any other year on record. Nationally, a woman is battered every 15
seconds and 25 percent of women surveyed reported rape or physical
abuse by a current or former spouse, partner or date.
The effects of these crimes extend far beyond the moment when they
occur. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women
leaves is on our children. It is estimated that between 3 and 10
million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of
this violence is persistent.
Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating
their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development
and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these
children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors.
Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder
in children.
It is indisputable that even one incident of abuse inflicts a pain on
our children that is unimaginable and often unending. It is also
indisputable that domestic violence is devastating to the economic and
physical well-being of women and their families. For example, a study
reported on in the St. Paul Pioneer Press found that 57 percent of the
women surveyed said they had been threatened to the point that they
were afraid to go to school or work. Thirty percent were fired or left
a job because of abuse. 25 percent of homeless people on any given
night are women and children fleeing domestic abuse. 800,000 women per
year seek medical care as a result of injuries sustained in a sexual or
physical assault.
As this research indicates, violence against women permeates our
society. It feeds on itself and it repeats itself generation after
generation. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden
behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in our schools,
in the workplace and on the streets. The Federal Government must always
play a role in combating this insidious epidemic. In the fight against
domestic violence, we are at the starting gate. Domestic Violence is
not going away and we as policy makers need to keep efforts to combat
violence against women at the forefront of our work.
With the Violence Against Women Office's leadership, we will continue
to work together to bring justice to millions of women who suffer at
the hands of abusers everywhere. Through its work, we will ensure our
commitment to arrive at a day when many fewer women are threatened in
our schools, in our businesses, on our streets and in our homes. I urge
my colleagues to support this critical office and the critical role we
in the Federal Government can continue to play in the fight against
domestic violence, and I urge them to cosponsor this important measure.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 162. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a business credit against income for the purchase of fishing safety
equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial
Fishermen Safety Act of 2001, a bill to help fishermen purchase the
life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster
strikes. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from
Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, in introducing this legislation.
Senator Kerry is a true friend of fishermen and, as ranking member of
the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, a leader in the effort to
sustain our fisheries and maintain the proud fishing tradition that
exists in his State and in mine. The release last summer of the movie
``The Perfect Storm'' provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of
the challenges and the dangers associated with earning a living in the
fishing industry. Based on a true story, this movie, while very
compelling, merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a
modern-day fisherman. Every day, members of our fishing community
struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business,
complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and
equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with
fishing where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less
extreme than those depicted by the movie.
Year in and year out, commercial fishing is among our Nation's most
dangerous occupations. According to the data compiled by the Coast
Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their
lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about
140 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than
the average occupation.
The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing
communities as a year marked by tragedy. The year began with the loss
of the trawler Two Friends, 12 miles off the coast of York, ME, on
January 25. Two of the three crew members died in icy waters after
their vessel capsized in 16-foot seas. The year concluded with yet
another tragedy, the loss of the scallop dragger Little Raspy on
December 14. Three fishermen died when the 30-foot vessel sank in
Chandler Bay near Jonesport, ME. All told, nine commercial fishermen
lost their lives off the coast of Maine last year. That exceeded the
combined casualties of the 3 previous years.
The death of a 27-year-old fisherman just a few days ago in the Gulf
of Maine adds to the grief endured by those in Maine's small, close-
knit fishing communities still trying to cope with the tragedies of the
last year.
Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been even worse. Heroic
acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of
13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In
most of these circumstances, the fishermen were returned to their loved
ones and families because they had access to safety equipment that made
all the difference between life and death.
Shawn Rich, the surviving crew member of the vessel Two Friends, was
found wearing an immersion suit and clinging to the vessel's emergency
position indicating radio beacon, or EPIRB. That equipment is what made
the difference for him and allowed him to be rescued. The EPIRB strobe
light was spotted by a Coast Guard helicopter despite visibility that
was less than a quarter of a mile. His immersion suit, which can extend
survival to as many as 6 hours in the icy waters of the North Atlantic,
protected the fisherman from water temperatures that would have
resulted in death by hypothermia after less than 10 minutes of
unprotected exposure.
Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety
equipment. These requirements vary depending on factors such as the
size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the
boat is traveling from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a
liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel
sink; personal flotation devices, or immersion suits which can help
protect fishermen from exposure, as well as to increase buoyancy;
EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to the Coast Guard
search and rescue personnel; visual distress signals; and fire
extinguishers.
This equipment is absolutely critical to surviving an emergency at
sea. Maggie Raymond of South Berwick, ME, the owner of the fishing
vessel Olympia, put it well when she said:
[[Page S529]]
It is just not possible to overstate the importance of the
safety equipment. Along the coast of Maine, fishing
communities continue to mourn the nine fishermen lost last
year. At the same time, 13 fishermen were saved because they
were able to get into a survival suit on time or to get into
the liferaft, or because they were found literally clinging
to an EPIRB. Without this life-safety equipment, the casualty
toll would have been much higher.
When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other
times, however, the cost of purchasing or maintaining liferafts,
immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with essential expenses such
as loan payments, wages, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all
of these obligations is made much more difficult by a regulatory
framework that limits the amount of time a fisherman can spend at sea
and gear alterations that are used to manage our marine resources.
Most of the fishermen whom I know are more than willing to do their
part to sustain our marine resources. But the reality is that when
fishermen are required to limit their catch, they are also limited in
their ability to generate sufficient income to meet the costs
associated with maintaining their vessels. The bill I am introducing
today makes it clear that fishermen should not have to compromise their
safety in order to make a living in their chosen occupation.
The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001 lends fisherman a helping
hand in preparing in case disaster strikes. My legislation provides a
tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to
purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit would be
capped at $1,500. The items I have mentioned can literally cost
thousands of dollars. The tax credit will make this life-saving
equipment more affordable for more fishermen who currently face more
limited options under the Federal Tax Code.
Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far
too many tragedies, far too many losses. By extending a tax credit for
the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help
ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and
every time they head out to sea.
I hope as part of our tax deliberations this year this important
legislation will be enacted and signed into law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Commercial
Fishermen Safety Act of 2001. I would like to thank the Senator from
Maine, Ms. Collins, for asking me to introduce this bill with her. This
legislation would provide fishermen with a tax credit of up to $1,500
for the purchase of safety equipment that will help save lives at sea
such as life rafts, immersion suits and Emergency Position Indicating
Radio Beacons (EPIRBS).
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ranks
commercial fishing as the most dangerous occupation in America, with
approximately 130 deaths a year per 100,000 employees. Nearly 90
percent of all fishing related deaths result from drowning--whether a
fisherman falls overboard by slipping on a wet or icy deck, is washed
off deck by a wave or is dragged under by a hook or line. In the cold
waters off New England and Alaska, a fisherman who goes overboard
without an immersion suit has about 6 minutes to be rescued by his
shipmates. But fishermen with fully functional immersion suits and life
rafts are more than twice as likely to survive the sinking of their
vessel.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts knows all to well the dangers of
commercial fishing. Gloucester is but one example of the toll it has
taken on our coastal fishing communities. Since 1650 the sea has
claimed an estimated 10,000 Gloucester fishermen. During the 19th
Century, Gloucester would typically lose 200 fishermen annually--about
4 percent of the city's population--to storms in the Gulf of Maine and
the Grand Banks. Today, even while the National Weather Service
provides timely and accurate forecasts so that we no longer have entire
fleets caught on the fishing grounds during a major storm, the tragic
statistics continue to roll in.
The shocking loss of 11 fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic in two short
months during 1998-1999 was unfortunately not an anomaly, but typical
of historic trends, according to a Fishing Vessel Safety Task Force
convened to investigate the problem. The Task Force also determined the
common conditions in these accidents were poor vessel or equipment
condition and inadequate preparation for emergencies--including basic
equipment like life rafts, EPIRBs, and immersion suits. Confirming the
Task Force's observations, last year the First Coast Guard District--
whose area of responsibility stretches from Maine to New Jersey --
reported the death of 13 commercial fishermen. In addition, the
District reported saving 47 fishermen whose vessels had either sunk or
caught fire. The Coast Guard estimates that 23 of those fishermen are
alive today because they had a life raft or immersion suit.
While safety is always a concern to our fishermen and their families,
the most immediate worry on their minds is declining profits from
dwindling stocks and closed areas. In order to meet rebuilding plans
for our fish stocks regulators have been forced to implement trip
limits and closed areas to rebuild stocks. These measures are working
and we are beginning to see some progress in New England. However a few
fishermen, primarily in small boats, will travel far out to sea in
order to fish outside the closed areas or in a place with a higher trip
limit. These fishermen often times cannot afford to replace or inspect
old worn out life rafts and immersion suits and place themselves at
extreme risk to meet their financial needs. This legislation will help
these fishermen put the equipment on their boats now not later and will
save lives.
It is important that we act on this legislation, so that we provide a
financial incentive to fishermen who are facing financial hardship as
their fisheries recover, to invest in the replacement and inspection of
their survival gear.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Torricelli):
S. 163. A bill to amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to
prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise
from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age, or disability, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 2001. I am pleased that my
cosponsors in the 106th Congress--Senators Leahy, Kennedy and
Torricelli--have joined with me again in support of this legislation.
This bill addresses the rapidly growing and very troubling practice
of employers conditioning employment or professional advancement upon
the employees' willingness to submit claims of discrimination or
harassment to arbitration. In other words, employees who raise claims
of harassment or discrimination must submit those claims to
arbitration, foregoing the right to go to court and any other remedies
that may exist under the laws of this nation. The right to seek redress
in a court of law--including the right to a jury trial--is one of the
most basic rights accorded to employees in this nation. In the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, Congress expressly created this right to a jury
trial for employees when it voted overwhelmingly to amend Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But employers are undermining the intent
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and other civil rights and labor laws,
such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, by requiring
all employees to submit to mandatory, binding arbitration as a
condition of employment or advancement before a claim has arisen.
Increasingly, working men and women are faced with the choice of
accepting a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment agreement
or no employment at all. Despite the appearance of a freely negotiated
contract, the reality often amounts to a non-negotiable requirement
that prospective employees relinquish their rights to redress in a
court of law. Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all
current and prospective employees in effect, ``If you want to work for
us, you will have to check your rights at the door.'' These
requirements have been referred to as ``front door'' contracts: they
require an employee to surrender
[[Page S530]]
certain rights in order to ``get in the front door.'' As a nation which
values work and deplores discrimination, we should not allow this
practice to continue.
How then does the practice of mandatory, binding arbitration comport
with the purpose and spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual
harassment laws? The answer is simply that it does not. To address the
growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil Rights
Procedures Protection Act of 2001 amends seven civil rights statutes to
guarantee that a federal civil rights or sexual harassment plaintiff
can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts rather than be forced
into mandatory, binding arbitration. Specifically, this legislation
affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965,
Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Equal Pay
Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal Arbitration Act,
FAA. By amending the Federal Arbitration Act, the protections of this
legislation are extended to claims of unlawful discrimination arising
under State or local law and other Federal laws that prohibit job
discrimination.
This bill is not anti-arbitration, anti-mediation, or anti-
alternative dispute resolution. I have long been and will remain a
strong supporter of voluntary, alternative methods of dispute
resolution that allow the parties to choose whether to go to court.
Rather, this bill targets only mandatory, binding arbitration clauses
in employment contracts entered into by the employer and employee
before a dispute has even arisen.
The 107th Congress marks the fifth successive Congress in which I
have introduced this important legislation. In recent years, we have
made some advances in addressing the unfair use of mandatory, binding
arbitration clauses. As a result of a hearing in the Banking Committee
in 1998 and a series of articles and editorials in prominent
periodicals, the National Association of Securities Dealers, NASD,
agreed to remove the mandatory binding arbitration clause from its Form
U-4, which all prospective securities dealers sign as a condition of
employment. The NASD's decision to remove the binding arbitration
clause, however, does not prohibit its constituent organizations from
including a mandatory, binding arbitration clause in their own
employment agreements, even if it is not mandated by the industry as a
whole. Last spring, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, chaired by my distinguished colleague from
Iowa, Senator Grassley, held a hearing on contractual mandatory,
binding arbitration and highlighted the problem in the employment area.
These are positive developments, but the trend toward the use of
mandatory, binding arbitration clauses continues. A legislative fix is
needed.
The Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act restores the right of
working men and women to pursue their claims in the venue that they
choose, which, in turn, restores the spirit of our nation's civil
rights and sexual harassment laws. I ask my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 163
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 ``Civil Rights Procedures
Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 719. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.
``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this title, such powers and
procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
OF 1967.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
621 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 16 and 17 as sections 17 and
18, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 15 the following new section
16:
``SEC. 16. EXCLUSIVITY OF POWERS AND PROCEDURES.
``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this Act, such powers and
procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.
Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794a) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this title) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under section 501, such powers
and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.
SEC. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF
1990.
Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12117) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim based on a violation described in
subsection (a), such powers and procedures shall be the
exclusive powers and procedures applicable to such right or
such claim unless after such right or such claim arises the
claimant voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such
right or resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.
SEC. 6. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1977 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.
Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this section) that would
otherwise modify any of the powers and procedures expressly
applicable to a right or claim concerning making and
enforcing a contract of employment under this section, such
powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and
procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless
after such right or such claim arises the claimant
voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or
resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.
SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO THE EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.
Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal
law that expressly refers to this Act) that would otherwise
modify any of the powers and procedures expressly applicable
to a right or claim arising under this subsection, such
powers and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and
procedures applicable to such right or such claim unless
after such right or such claim arises the claimant
voluntarily enters into an agreement to enforce such right or
resolve such claim through arbitration or another
procedure.''.
SEC. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF
1993.
Title IV of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 405 as section 406; and
(2) by inserting after section 404 the following new
section:
``SEC. 405. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDIES.
``Notwithstanding any Federal law (other than a Federal law
that expressly refers to this Act or a provision of
subchapter V of chapter 63, or section 2105, of title 5,
United States Code) that would modify any of the powers and
procedures expressly applicable to a right or claim arising
under this Act or an amendment made by this Act, such powers
and procedures shall be the exclusive powers and procedures
applicable to such right or such claim unless after such
right or such claim arises the claimant voluntarily enters
into an agreement to enforce such right or resolve such claim
through arbitration or another procedure.''.
SEC. 9. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, UNITED STATES CODE.
Section 14 of title 9, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``This''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) This chapter shall not apply with respect to a claim
of unlawful discrimination
[[Page S531]]
in employment if such claim arises from discrimination based
on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
disability.''.
SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
claims arising not earlier than the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 164. A bill to prepare tomorrows teachers to use technology
through pre-service and in-service training, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill
for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Earlier this week, I introduced
my accountability bill designed to ensure that the taxpayers'
investment in education is adequately protected and that the finest
education is provided to our children by attaching performance-based
accountability to the federal education programs encompassed in the
ESEA. I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the
center of our debate this year so I introduced and spoke about that
bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that our efforts to ensure
that schools are accountable for the education of our children requires
that we provide resources to schools so that they can make full use of
available teaching tools. Training teachers to use technology in their
classrooms is a high priority in this regard if we are to help our
children become full and active members of the global community. The
bill I am introducing today addresses that priority. I am pleased that
my colleagues Senator Cochran and Senator Rockefeller have joined me in
cosponsoring this bill that I believe will generate bipartisan support.
Educational technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways
that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to
develop independent thinking and problem solving skills. The Technology
for Teachers Act is designed to address the need to provide teachers
with the skills to use this valuable resource in the classroom. Experts
urge us to increase our investment in training teachers to use
technology in the classroom and point out that at least 30 percent of
our technology budget should be used for this purpose. Yet few of the
nation's teachers have had more than one or two courses in educational
technology, and those courses are usually designed as an add-on to
other methods courses instead of being well-integrated into their
teacher preparation program. The Training for Technology Act would
provide grants to consortia of higher education institutions and public
school districts so that they can integrate technology into their
teacher training programs at the pre-service level. In addition, the
bill requires recipients of Technology Literacy Challenge grants--an
existing program which I sponsored in the 1994 reauthorization of
ESEA--to demonstrate that they are using at lest 30% of their
technology funding on in-service training in the use of technology.
In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the
challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is
critical to address improving our Nation's schools with a comprehensive
effort. The bills I have introduced are designed to build on the
progress we have made in the past few years to raise standards and
increase accountability in America's schools. This bill seeks to
provide educators with the resources to meet these increased demands. I
urge my colleagues to carefully consider supporting passage of this
bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 164
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 ``Technology for Teachers Act
2001''.
SEC. 2. LOCAL APPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE
GRANTS.
Section 3135 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6845) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
'' before ``Each local educational agency'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) demonstrate the manner in which the local educational
agency will utilize at least 30 percent of the amounts
provided to the agency under this subpart in each fiscal year
to provide for in-service teacher training, or that the
agency is using at least 30 percent of its total technology
funding available to the agency from all sources (including
Federal, State, and local sources) to provide in-service
teacher training.'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(b) and (c) respectively; and
(4) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
SEC. 3. TEACHER PREPARATION.
Part A of title III of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6811 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Subpart 5--Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers To Use Technology
``SEC. 3161. PURPOSE; PROGRAM AUTHORITY.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subpart to assist
consortia of public and private entities in carrying out
programs that prepare prospective teachers to use advanced
technology to foster learning environments conducive to
preparing all students to achieve to challenging State and
local content and student performance standards.
``(b) Program Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized, through the
Office of Educational Technology, to award grants, contracts,
or cooperative agreements on a competitive basis to eligible
applicants in order to assist them in developing or
redesigning teacher preparation programs to enable
prospective teachers to use technology effectively in their
classrooms.
``(2) Period of award.--The Secretary may award grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements under this subpart for a
period of not more than 5 years.
``SEC. 3162. ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) Eligible Applicants.--In order to receive an award
under this subpart, an applicant shall be a consortium that
includes--
``(1) at least 1 institution of higher education that
offers a baccalaureate degree and prepares teachers for their
initial entry into teaching;
``(2) at least 1 State educational agency or local
educational agency; and
``(3) 1 or more of the following entities:
``(A) an institution of higher education (other than the
institution described in paragraph (1));
``(B) a school or department of education at an institution
of higher education;
``(C) a school or college of arts and sciences at an
institution of higher education;
``(D) a professional association, foundation, museum,
library, for-profit business, public or private nonprofit
organization, community-based organization, or other entity
with the capacity to contribute to the technology-related
reform of teacher preparation programs.
``(b) Application Requirements.--In order to receive an
award under this subpart, an eligible applicant shall submit
an application to the Secretary at such time, and containing
such information, as the Secretary may require. Such
application shall include--
``(1) a description of the proposed project, including how
the project would ensure that individuals participating in
the project would be prepared to use technology to create
learning environments conducive to preparing all students,
including girls and students who have economic and
educational disadvantages, to achieve to challenging State
and local content and student performance standards;
``(2) a demonstration of--
``(A) the commitment, including the financial commitment,
of each of the members of the consortium; and
``(B) the active support of the leadership of each member
of the consortium for the proposed project;
``(3) a description of how each member of the consortium
would be included in project activities;
``(4) a description of how the proposed project would be
continued once the Federal funds awarded under this subpart
end; and
``(5) a plan for the evaluation of the program, which shall
include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific
project objectives.
``(c) Matching Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of any
project funded under this subpart shall not exceed 50
percent. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the non-Federal
share of such project may be in cash or in kind, fairly
evaluated, including services.
``(2) Acquisition of equipment.--Not more than 10 percent
of the funds awarded for a project under this subpart may be
used to acquire equipment, networking capabilities, or
infrastructure, and the non-Federal share of the cost of any
such acquisition shall be in cash.
``SEC. 3163. USE OF FUNDS.
``(a) Required Uses.--A recipient shall use funds under
this subpart for--
[[Page S532]]
``(1) creating programs that enable prospective teachers to
use advanced technology to create learning environments
conducive to preparing all students, including girls and
students who have economic and educational disadvantages, to
achieve to challenging State and local content and student
performance standards; and
``(2) evaluating the effectiveness of the project.
``(b) Permissible Uses.--A recipient may use funds under
this subpart for activities, described in its application,
that carry out the purposes of this subpart, such as--
``(1) developing and implementing high-quality teacher
preparation programs that enable educators to--
``(A) learn the full range of resources that can be
accessed through the use of technology;
``(B) integrate a variety of technologies into the
classroom in order to expand students' knowledge;
``(C) evaluate educational technologies and their potential
for use in instruction; and
``(D) help students develop their own technical skills and
digital learning environments;
``(2) developing alternative teacher development paths that
provide elementary schools and secondary schools with well-
prepared, technology-proficient educators;
``(3) developing performance-based standards and aligned
assessments to measure the capacity of prospective teachers
to use technology effectively in their classrooms;
``(4) providing technical assistance to other teacher
preparation programs;
``(5) developing and disseminating resources and
information in order to assist institutions of higher
education to prepare teachers to use technology effectively
in their classrooms; and
``(6) subject to section 3162(c)(2), acquiring equipment,
networking capabilities, and infrastructure to carry out the
project.
``SEC. 3164. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``For purposes of carrying out this subpart, there is
authorized to be appropriated $150,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.''.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 165. A bill to amend the Agriculture Market Transition Act to
increase loan rates for marketing assistance loans for each of the 2001
and 2002 crops, to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan
deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils,
chickpeas, and rye, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk
about farming. The pages of the calendar have now turned. It is a new
year, but our family farmers face the same struggle, and in fact, in
many ways, the struggle gets worse.
Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation titled the FARM
Equity Act of 2001 that is designed to equalize the presently disparate
commodity Marketing Assistance Loan rates of the current farm bill,
commonly referred to as Freedom to Farm. The legislation would increase
all commodity loan rates up to soybean and minor oilseed loan levels
based on historical price ratios amongst the commodities. The FARM
Equity Act would also treat all commodities equally in that it would
place a price floor under all commodity loan rates, not just a select
few.
The FARM Equity Act will leave soybeans at the current loan level--
$5.26 per bushel. This price is about 85 percent of the Olympic Average
of soybean market prices from the years 1994 to 1998. All other crops
will be equalized up to this same price ratio related to each crops
respective Olympic Average during the same time period. Equalized loan
rates for wheat would be $3.14 per bushel, for corn--$2.09 per bushel,
for rice--7.8 cents per pound and for cotton--52.6 cents per pound. All
these loan levels would become minimum loan levels.
When Freedom to Farm was passed, supporters intended that this new
farm legislation would remove all government interference or influences
from planting decisions. ``Let farmers take their cues from the market
place'', was heard often during the debate. ``From now on, farmers will
not plant their crops with an eye towards Washington--they will plant
what the market tells them to plant.''
I doubt anyone believes, let alone could debate the point with a
straight face, that this major premise of Freedom to Farm--the notion
of market based planting decisions--has become a reality. To the
contrary, at the present time, the major influence on what type of seed
goes into the ground on our nation's farms is the level of Market
Assistance Loan rates available for the various program crops.
There can be no dispute that soybeans, and the other minor oilseed
crops, have a much higher loan rate--when compared to historical price
ratios--than wheat, corn and the other minor feed grains, cotton and
rice. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the unprecedented increase
in soybeans and oilseeds acreage seen the last couple of years, is due
in large part, to these arbitrarily set unequal loan rates. Farmers
have little choice but to plant more acres of oilseeds for the higher
loan value, even thought the cash and future markets clearly signal for
them to do otherwise.
Does anyone remember ``Green Acres,'' the old TV show from the
sixties that poked fun of the city slicker--and country folks, for that
matter--who moved out from New York City to start farming? One of the
episodes had to do with deciding what crop to plant. I can't remember
the exact order of events, but the gist of it was this. Oliver Wendell
Douglas--played by Eddie Albert--listened to the market report while
having breakfast the morning he was going to start spring planting. The
price of corn was up, while soybean prices were down, so Oliver
finished breakfast and away he went to the general store to buy some
corn seed from Sam Drucker. Oliver then headed out to his field to
plant corn.
About noon, Oliver came home for dinner. Now I know to most this meal
is lunch, but trust me, on the farm--it is called dinner; farmers also
have a meal called supper that takes place in the evening. But, let's
get back to Oliver. While he was eating his dinner, the noon markets
came on, and wouldn't you know it, corn was down, and soybeans were up.
Well, Oliver was all upset, since he had already planted some of the
corn.
Lisa, Oliver's wife, told him just exchange the seed for a different
kind, ``I always return what I buy back to the stores; why can't you
just exchange the corn for some soybeans, if that's what you want to
plant now?''
Oliver agreed with his wife, and went out and dug up the corn seed,
put it back in the sack, and headed back to the supply store to trade
it in for soybeans. Sam Drucker thought he was nuts, of course, and
everyone had a good laugh.
Preposterous of course, this parody of farmer indecision where seed
is actually picked out of the ground, but I mention this episode only
because today, Oliver Wendell Douglas wouldn't have his ear turned to
the market reports to decide what to plant. He would simply seed
soybeans because everyone knows the loan price is the only price that
matters these days.
In fact, one market advisor in the Midwest is promoting a ``Plan B''
this year that encourages farmers to plant even more soybeans than last
years record acreage because of the high loan rates in hopes of
decreasing corn acres enough to increase those prices. Probably not a
bad idea, given the present market prices and high nitrogen costs. But,
it's a clear indication of how skewed the present loan levels actually
are.
Just how much effect on U.S. crop acres are these unequal loan rates
having? We need look no further than the annual acreage reports issued
by USDA. In 1994, US farmers planted a little over 61.6 million acres
of soybeans. This past year, a record 74.5 million acres were planted
to soybeans, an increase of over 20 percent.
For all wheat, USDA tells us the complete opposite is taking place.
The acreage planted in the U.S. has declined over 12 percent during
this same period, from 70.3 million acres down to 62.5 acres. A few
weeks ago, USDA reported that the winter wheat acreage seeded last fall
is down 5 percent from the fall before. The 41.3 million acres planted
for harvest this coming summer is the smallest acreage devoted to
winter wheat since 1971.
To those who will say that we shouldn't change the components of the
present Farm Bill in mid-stream, I say, we have repeatedly changed it
each of the last three years now. We have had three emergency spending
bills due to the low commodity prices. We have changed payment limits
on the Loan Deficiency Payments. I might add, equalizing loan rates
will do more for medium sized family farms than uncapping LDP limits.
[[Page S533]]
Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman also used his
administrative authority to keep the loan levels at current levels.
Just last month, he froze commodity loans at 2000 levels for the 2001
crop. Had he not, the loan for wheat would have fallen to $2.46, while
corn would have dropped to $1.76. Even soybeans would have fallen,
although not to what the formula calls for. You see, soybeans have a
price floor at $4.92 a bushel. If not for this mandated floor specified
in the law, the formula in Freedom to Farm would have called for a
price of $4.58 per bushel.
Now, I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture did this. I found
it interesting that I received a few calls from angry farmers when the
former Agriculture Secretary froze loan rates for the coming year at
2000 levels. They thought he should have raised them and had determined
his actions were vindictive and meant only to keep commodity loans at
these low levels. As I have stated, Secretary Glickman prevented
present law from dropping loan prices even further.
I don't want to see anymore reductions in loan levels for any of our
crops. I want all crops to be treated fairly, and equally. I want all
crops to have the same relative level of price protection. And if one
or two crops have a loan floor that prevents further erosion in loan
protection, then all crops should enjoy such a loan floor. That's why I
have introduced this legislation.
This is not to say that the loan levels in this legislation are
adequate. They are not. This is only the first step in many that we
need to take to fix broken farm policy. And this legislation will put
all crops on equal footing as we enter the debate on what will
eventually replace Freedom to Farm. I would prefer that loan levels
would be higher, that they would reflect the cost of production. Maybe
later we can have some common sense farm policy that would do such a
thing, but for now, I think this is the least that we should do, as far
as loan rates are concerned.
Although it is not mentioned in this legislation, as part of this
interim step to preserve our farms, I believe we should restore the
automatic 20 percent reduction in Agricultural Market Transition
Payments that will take place this year. It should be restored to the
2000 levels for the remaining two years of Freedom to Farm, or until we
replace this legislation altogether. I know others are thinking this
needs to be done, and I want to go on record as supporting this
restoration of AMTA payments.
Before I close, I want to point out the steady erosion of the loan
levels for most crops over the years. This year, 2001, if this
legislation isn't enacted, the national loan for wheat will stand at
$2.58 per bushel. In 1983, the wheat loan was $3.65 per bushel. For
corn, the present loan rate is $1.89, while in 1983 it was $2.65 per
bushel. For rice, this year's loan is $6.50 per cwt. In 1983, the rice
loan was $8.13 per cwt. Cotton's loan this year stands at 52.9 cents
per lb. 1982 saw a cotton loan rate of a little over 57 cents per lb.
Now, I saved soybeans until last, for good reason. Of all the major
crops, soybeans stand alone in that it has a higher loan rate today,
than in the early 1980's. The soybean loan stood at $5.02 twenty years
ago, while today, the loan is $5.26. All the other crops dropped, some
more than others, percentage wise. All, except for soybeans.
I would also like to point out that the cost of production has
skyrocketed for all crops the past twenty years. This year alone,
farmers are facing an astronomical increase in anhydrous ammonia
prices--the major form of nitrogen fertilizer--due to the skyrocketing
natural gas prices. As you may know, natural gas comprises 78 percent
of anhydrous' cost of production. Because of this, family farmers in
North Dakota, and across the country, are facing a possible doubling of
their nitrogen fertilizer costs, from the low $200's per ton last year
to well over $400 per ton this year.
The cost of fertilizer is just one of many examples where farm costs
have skyrocketed. Others include their crop protection products,
insurance costs, machinery costs, etc. The list goes on. No other
segment of our economy has been asked to take less and less for their
labors.
As I have stated earlier, this legislation, the FARM Equity Act of
2001, is only an interim step. It is not a new farm bill, nor is it the
answer to the problems. But I believe we should take action now to
equalize the loan rates. Let's pass this legislation that would leave
soybeans and other oilseeds at their present loan level while raising
other crops up to the same relative level, based on historical market
price relationships as soybeans. It is fair. It is equitable. It is the
right thing to do.
Mr. President, we have families living all across this country out in
the country trying to make a go of it on a family farm: Plant some
seeds, raise a crop, then harvest that crop, take it to the grain
elevator, and try to raise enough money to keep going and pay the
bills.
In addition to having collapsed prices for that which they produce,
farmers now see the cost of their inputs dramatically increasing. The
cost of anhydrous ammonia, the most popular form of nitrogen
fertilizer, is up dramatically because of the spike in natural gas
costs.
Farmers are beset in every direction: Monopolies in transportation,
near monopolies in the grain trade business, and a collapse of the
prices for that which farmers produce. It is an awfully difficult time.
So what can be done about this? My first hope would be that this
Congress would rewrite the current farm bill. I do not think it works
very well. I do not think we ought to get rid of all of it. The
planting flexibility makes sense. Let's keep it. But clearly the
current farm bill has not worked very well. Let's rewrite it and
provide a price support or a bridge across price valleys for family
farmers that give them some hope that if they do a good job, and work
hard, they have a chance to survive out on the family farm.
But I am told that rewriting the farm bill is not going to happen
this year because it expires at the end of next year. I understand that
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate does not want
to hold hearings on trying to rewrite the farm bill this year. He
certainly has the capability of blocking that. I respect him, but I
would disagree with him about this issue. But it is likely we will not
see progress in rewriting the farm bill this year.
So then, what should we do? In my judgment, we ought to at least take
an interim step that would restore some balance to the current price
protection that exists, as anemic as it is. We ought to provide some
balance and equality to that price protection with respect to those of
us who come from the part of the country that produces mostly wheat and
feed grains.
We have a circumstance now where the current price support, which is,
in my judgment, too low, nonetheless has an inequity about it that
offers a price support substantially higher for oil seeds than it does
for wheat and feed grains. I am not here to suggest that we take the
price support for oil seeds down. I am suggesting that it is unfair to
wheat and feed grains and we ought to bring their price support up to
provide some equity and fairness. And there is a way to do that.
I would like to show a couple charts of what has been happening. This
chart shows crop acres. You can see, going back to 1994, that soybean
acreage is increasing and wheat acreage is declining, both
substantially.
What is happening this year is, a number of farmers are making
decisions about what to plant, and it has nothing to do with what the
markets suggest they should plant. It has to do with what their lender
would calculate is best for them to plant given the farm program price
support loan levels of the various crops. The loan deficiency payment
for oil seeds is much higher than for wheat and feed grains on a
comparable basis, because the loan levels that determine the loan
deficiency payments are likewise, much higher for oil seeds than the
other crops. So the result is, they are making planting decisions, once
again, based on the farm bill rather than on the market. It is because
we have inequitable price support programs. You can see what has
happened with the loan rates over time. With soybeans, loan rates have
increased slightly over the last twenty years, while wheat, corn and
other feed grain loan rates have declined substantially during the same
time period.
My point is this. We ought to be able to provide equity in these loan
rates by
[[Page S534]]
bringing the loan rate for wheat and feed grains up to an equitable
level relative to oilseed levels. Doing so would, likewise, provide an
equitable loan deficiency payment for all crops and would stop this
calculation of, What should I plant relative to what the farm program
thinks I should plant?
As Freedom to Farm passed, its supporters were saying: Let's have the
market system send signals on what ought to be planted. That is not
happening at the moment. It is the farm program that is determining
what is being planted because of the skewed loan support prices. It is
the farm program that is actually promoting that incentive to plant one
thing versus another thing. I am not suggesting we fix it by reducing
the loan rate or the loan deficiency payment for oilseeds. We ought not
do that. We ought to bring the loan rate for the others up because
those levels are too low, when compared to oilseeds. It is unfair to
them.
Some will remember the old television program ``Green Acres'' from
long ago in the 1960s. Eddie Albert played a character named Oliver
Wendell Douglas, who had a pig named Arnold. He was a city slicker who
moved to the country. It was a television program that poked fun at
both the city slicker and maybe also at country folks. It was a comedy.
In one episode, Oliver is having breakfast one morning. He is trying
to figure out what to plant. He hears the morning grain market report
on the radio, and the price of soybeans was going down and the price of
corn was going up. So he decided to go down to the general store and
get himself some corn seed. All morning he planted corn.
At noon, Oliver came in for dinner. Back home they call it dinner in
the middle of the day; some people call it lunch, but we call it
dinner. He came back for dinner and discovered on the radio that the
price of corn was down and the price of soybeans was up, according to
the noon market report. And he said to his wife: It is kind of hard to
figure out what to do here. I just planted corn because the radio said
corn was up. Now corn is down, soybeans are up.
His wife said: When I go to the store and get something that doesn't
work, I take it back.
So this old character on ``Green Acres'' went out to the field,
walked down the furrows and pulled out all of his corn seeds and went
back to the store to trade them in for soybean seed. Of course, the old
boy who ran the store that sold him the seed thought he was pretty
goofy.
My point about this story is, Oliver Douglas wouldn't have to listen,
under today's circumstances, to the radio market reports to evaluate
what he ought to plant, to find out what is down or what is up. In
today's circumstances, when you take a look at the farm program, what
is up is a better loan rate for oilseeds, and what is down is an anemic
loan rate for wheat and feed grains.
What can be done about that? Bring wheat and feed grain loan rates up
to where they ought to be. That only brings wheat to $3.14 a bushel,
but it is a far sight better than where it is today, at $2.58.
So today, I am introducing a piece of legislation that equalizes loan
rates. It will not penalize oilseeds. It will leave them where they
are. Good for them; I want that. I support that and will fight for
that. But it will take the loan rate for other program crops, including
wheat, corn, and rice, cotton, and put those loan rates where they
ought to be relative to some equity vis-a-vis oilseeds.
I am going to include in the Record a list of all the program crops
and where I propose we establish their loan rates. The loan rates for
the various crops were determined by fixing them at the same percentage
of their 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices as the
soybean loan rate is with respect to its 1994-1998 5-year Olympic
Average of market prices.
This is only an interim step. We must do much more, and I have other
ideas on what we ought to do. But for now, at least as a first step,
let's provide some fairness for those who are producing wheat and feed
grains.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the
Olympic Average price data to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Family Agriculture Recovery & Market (Farm) Equity Act of 2001
For the 2001 & 2002 Crop Year, The ``FARM Equity'' Act
would:
Equalize the Marketing Loan rate for commodities relative
to the current soybean rates. Wheat--$3.14; corn--$2.09;
soybeans (unchanged)--$5.26; cotton--$58.26/cwt.; rice--
$7.81/cwt.; base other feed grain loan rates on their own
price history rather than based off the corn rate. Barley--
$2.01; oats--$1.27; grain sorghum--$1.89; base other oil seed
rates off their own price history rather than the soybean
loan rate. Oil sunflower--$.0930/lb.; confection sunflower--
$.1176/lb.; canola--$.0945/lb.; safflower--$.1259/lb.
Place a floor under all commodity loan rates, not just
soybean, cotton and rice loan rates.
Remove the cap on all commodity loan rates and allow them
to increase if the most recent five year Olympic Average of
prices of a commodity increases to a level that warrants such
an increase.
Remove the incentive to continue the obvious current
prevalent practice of planting for the commodity loan rate,
and thus the overproduction of commodities (oilseeds) that
have significantly higher loan rates relative to the actual
historical market price ratios.
Keep AMTA payments in place, along with all present payment
limitations.
Enable farmers to practice agronomically sound rotations
rather than planting for the government loan.
Place all commodities on a level playing field with regards
to loan rates prior to the debate about the next farm bill.
Add dry peas, lentils, chickpeas and rye to the list of
crops eligible for Marketing Assistance Loans, increasing the
rotational choices for farmers in the Pacific Northwest.
How Were The New Loan Prices Arrived At?
The 1994-1998 Olympic Average price for a bushel of
soybeans is $6.22, as determined by USDA. The present Freedom
To Farm loan level for soybeans is $5.26. This is 84.5
percent of the 94-98 Oly price average.
The loan prices for the other crops listed in the FARM
Equity Act were derived by taking the soybean factor--
84.57%--against the other crops' 94-98 Olympic Price
averages.
Oil Sunflowers and Flaxseed were left at the present $.0930
per lb. since applying the factor against their Olympic Price
averages would have lowered their loan rate--an occurrence
that no farm advocate wants for any crop during these hard
times down on the farm.
The ``94-98'' time frame was used, since the seeding
distortions and subsequent price distortions caused by
Freedom to Farm's disparate loan rates had not yet infected
the moving 5 yr. average.
Find below the loan levels: Marketing Loan Rates were
determined by their price history during the years 1994
through 1998
``94-98''
F2F loan Olympic Equalized
Crop rates price loans
average
Wheat................................... $2.58 $3.71 $3.14
Corn (bus).............................. 1.89 2.47 2.90
Grain Sorghum (bus)..................... 1.71 2.23 1.89
Barley (bus)............................ 1.61 2.38 2.01
Oats (bus).............................. 1.16 1.50 1.27
Upland Cotton (lb)...................... 0.5192 0.6883 0.5826
EL Staple Cotton (lb)................... 0.7965 1.0360 0.8761
Rice (cwt).............................. 6.50 9.23 7.81
Soybeans (bus).......................... 5.26 6.22 5.26
Oil Sunflower (lb)...................... 0.0930 0.1060 0.0930
Nonoil Sunflower (lb)................... 0.0930 0.1390 0.1176
Canola (lb)............................. 0.0930 0.1117 0.0945
Rapeseed (lb)........................... 0.0930 0.1183 0.1001
Safflower (lb).......................... 0.0930 0.1487 0.1259
Mustard Seed (lb)....................... 0.0930 0.1390 0.1176
Flaxseed (lb)........................... 0.0930 0.0963 0.0930
Rye (bus)............................... (\1\) ......... 2.80
Dry Peas (cwt).......................... (\1\) ......... 7.00
Lentils (cwt)........................... (\1\) ......... 12.00
Chickpeas (cwt)......................... (\1\) ......... 15.00
\1\ Not available.
Mr. DORGAN. It is all about fairness and equity. Under the current
program, even though all of the support prices are too low, wheat and
feed grains are being treated unfairly and ought to be brought up to
where they should be and we would have a right to expect them to be. I
have included all of the significant numbers and support price
proposals in the Record. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing if
we can at least take an interim step and pass this legislation.
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. 165
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 ``Family Agriculture Recovery
and Market (FARM) Equity Act of 2001''.
SEC 2. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.
Section 132 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7232) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 132. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.
``(a) Wheat.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan
under section 131 for wheat shall be not less than--
[[Page S535]]
``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of wheat, as determined by the Secretary, during
the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of
wheat, excluding the year in which the average price was the
highest and the year in which the average price was the
lowest; or
``(2) $3.14 per bushel.
``(b) Feed Grains.--
``(1) Corn.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan
under section 131 for corn shall be not less than--
``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of corn, as determined by the Secretary, during the
marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of
corn, excluding the year in which the average price was the
highest and the year in which the average price was the
lowest; or
``(B) $2.09 per bushel.
``(2) Other feed grains.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan
rate for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for
grain sorghum, barley, and oats, individually, shall be
established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair
and reasonable in relation to the rate at which loans are
made available for corn, taking into consideration the
feeding value of the commodity in relation to corn.
``(B) Minimum loan rates.--The loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan under section 131 for grain sorghum, barley,
and oats, individually, shall be not less than--
``(i) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of grain sorghum, barley, and oats, respectively,
as determined by the Secretary, during the marketing years
for the immediately preceding 5 crops of grain sorghum,
barley, and oats, respectively, excluding the year in which
the average price was the highest and the year in which the
average price was the lowest; or
``(ii)(I) in the case of grain sorghum, $1.89 per bushel;
``(II) in the case of barley, $2.01 per bushel; and
``(III) in the case of oats, $1.27 per bushel.
``(c) Upland Cotton.--
``(1) Loan rate.--Subject to paragraph (2), the loan rate
for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for upland
cotton shall be established by the Secretary at such loan
rate, per pound, as will reflect for the base quality of
upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, at average
locations in the United States, a rate that is not less than
the lesser of--
``(A) 85 percent of the average price (weighted by market
and month) of the base quality of cotton as quoted in the
designated United States spot markets during 3 years of the
5-year period ending July 31 of the year preceding the year
in which the crop is planted, excluding the year in which the
average price was the highest and the year in which the
average price was the lowest; or
``(B) 90 percent of the average, for the 15-week period
beginning July 1 of the year preceding the year in which the
crop is planted, of the 5 lowest-priced growths of the
growths quoted for Middling 1\3/32\-inch cotton C.I.F.
Northern Europe (adjusted downward by the average difference,
during the period April 15 through October 15 of the year
preceding the year in which the crop is planted, between the
average Northern European price quotation of that quality of
cotton and the market quotations in the designated United
States spot markets for the base quality of upland cotton),
as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Limitations.--The loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan for upland cotton shall not be less than
$0.5826 per pound.
``(d) Extra Long Staple Cotton.--The loan rate for a
marketing assistance loan under section 131 for extra long
staple cotton shall be not less than--
``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of extra long staple cotton, as determined by the
Secretary, during 3 years of the 5-year period ending July 31
of the year preceding the year in which the crop is planted,
excluding the year in which the average price was the highest
and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
``(2) $0.8768 per pound.
``(e) Rice.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan
under section 131 for rice shall be not less than--
``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of rice, as determined by the Secretary, during 3
years of the 5-year period ending July 31 of the year
preceding the year in which the crop is planted, excluding
the year in which the average price was the highest and the
year in which the average price was the lowest; or
``(2) $7.81 per hundredweight.
``(f) Oilseeds.--
``(1) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under section 131 for soybeans shall be not less than--
``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of soybeans, as determined by the Secretary, during
the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of
soybeans, excluding the year in which the average price was
the highest and the year in which the average price was the
lowest; or
``(B) $5.26 per bushel.
``(2) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard
seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under section 131 for sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed,
safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, individually, shall be
not less than--
``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower,
mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively, as determined by
the Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately
preceding 5 crops of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed,
safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively,
excluding the year in which the average price was the highest
and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
``(B)(i) in the case of oil sunflower seed, $0.093 per
pound;
``(ii) in the case of nonoil sunflower seed, $0.1176 per
pound;
``(iii) in the case of canola, $0.0945 per pound;
``(iv) in the case of rapeseed, $0.1001 per pound;
``(v) in the case of safflower, $0.1259 per pound;
``(vi) in the case of mustard seed, $0.1176 per pound; and
``(vii) in the case of flaxseed, $0.093 per pound.
``(3) Other oilseeds.--The loan rates for a marketing
assistance loan under section 131 for other oilseeds shall be
established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair
and reasonable in relation to the loan rate available for
soybeans, except that the rate for the oilseeds (other than
cottonseed) shall not be less than the rate established for
soybeans on a per-pound basis for the same crop.''.
SEC. 3. NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN
DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR DRY PEAS, LENTILS,
CHICKPEAS, AND RYE.
(a) Definition of Loan Commodity.--Section 102(10) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7202(10)) is
amended by striking ``and oilseed'' and inserting ``oilseed,
dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
(b) Availability of Nonrecourse Loans.--Section 131(a) of
the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231(a)) is
amended in the first sentence by inserting after ``each loan
commodity'' the following: ``(other than dry peas, lentils,
chickpeas, and rye) and each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of
dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
(c) Loan Rates.--Section 132 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7232) (as amended by section 2) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--The loan rate
for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for dry
peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, individually, shall be not
less than--
``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by
producers of dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye,
respectively, as determined by the Secretary, during the
marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of dry
peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, respectively, excluding
the year in which the average price was the highest and the
year in which the average price was the lowest; or
``(2)(A) in the case of dry peas, $7.00 per hundredweight;
``(B) in the case of lentils, $12.00 per hundredweight;
``(C) in the case of chickpeas, $15.00 per hundredweight;
and
``(D) in the case of rye, $2.80 per bushel.''.
(d) Repayment of Loans.--Section 134(a) of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and Oilseeds.--'' and inserting
``Oilseeds, Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--''; and
(2) by striking ``and oilseeds'' and inserting ``oilseeds,
dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
(e) Payment Limitation.--Section 1001(2) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)) is amended by
striking ``contract commodities and oilseeds'' and inserting
``contract commodities, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils,
chickpeas, and rye''.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of a loan commodity (as
defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Market Transition
Act (7 U.S.C. 7202) (as amended by section 3(a))).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 166. A bill to limit access to body armor by violent felons and to
facilitate the donation of Federal surplus body armor to State and
local law enforcement agencies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today, along with Senator
Sessions of Alabama, to reintroduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act for
the fourth consecutive Congress.
This bill closes a glaring gap in our criminal law that permits
individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence to use
body armor. It is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions
are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor, and are more
difficult for police to disarm and disable.
This bill is named in memory of San Francisco Police Officer James
Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff was shot to death in a
fire-fight by a
[[Page S536]]
heavily armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest and kevlar helmet on a
major street corner in San Francisco. Because of his protective gear,
the assailant was subsequently able to hold off over a hundred police
officers.
California is not the only state where heavily armored criminals have
assaulted police officers and the community.
In 1999, Officer James Snedigar of the Chandler, Arizona Police
department was shot and killed by a gunman firing an AK-47 who was also
protected by a kevlar vest.
In March of 2000, Deputy Ricky Kinchen of Atlanta, Georgia, was
killed in a shootout with a gunman who wore a bulletproof vest.
On July 15, 2000, Sergeant Todd Stamper of the Crandon, Wisconsin
police department, was killed in a gun fight by a heavily armed man
wearing a kevlar helmet and body armor.
Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, wrote to me about the need to
revise the laws relating to body armor. His words eloquently explain
the need for the legislation:
It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in
possession of superior firepower. * * * But to have to
confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive
protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk
for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to
face the same set of deadly circumstances again.
Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a
criminal is an offensive weapon. Police officers serving on the streets
should have ready access to body armor, and hardened-criminals need to
be deterred from using it.
The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 has three key provisions.
First, it directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop a
penalty enhancement for criminals who commit violent crimes while
wearing body armor. Second, it prohibits violent felons from
purchasing, using, or possessing body armor. Third, this bill enables
Federal law enforcement agencies to directly donate surplus body armor
to local police. I will address each of these three provisions.
I. Enhanced criminal penalties for wearing body armor during violent
crimes.--Criminals who wear body armor while engaged in violent crimes
deserve enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to
police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot
at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well
protected.
The James Guelff Body Armor Act directs the United States Sentencing
Commission to develop an appropriate sentence enhancement for wearing
body armor during a violent crime. The bill also expresses the Sense of
the Senate that any enhancement should be at least two levels.
II. Prohibiting violent felons from wearing body armor.--This section
makes it a crime (up to three years in jail) for individuals with a
violent criminal record to wear, possess, or own body armor. It is
unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without
restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection.
To account for those rare circumstances when a felon may need body
armor as part of a lawful occupation, the section provides an
affirmative defense against prosecution if the felon wore armor after
obtaining permission from employer, and possession of armor was
necessary for safe performance of lawful business activity.
III. Direct donation of body armor.--The James Guelff Body Armor Act
of 2001 also empowers Federal agencies to expedite the donation of body
armor to local police departments.
Far too many local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof
vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately
150,000 officers, are not issued body armor.
Supplying local police officers with more body armor will save lives.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30% of
the approximately 1,300 officers killed by guns in the line of duty
since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying
from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof
vest. Body armor saves an estimated 150 police officers' lives each
year.
The James Guelff Body Armor Act is backed by law enforcement officers
all across America. Organizations representing over 500,000 police
officers have endorsed the legislation. These organizations include the
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National
Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Police Executive
Research Forum, the National Association of Police Organizations, and
the International Association of Police Chiefs.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this
legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
California, Senator Feinstein, in sponsoring the James Guelff Body
Armor Act of 2001.
This legislation is intended to deter criminals from wearing body
armor and to empower Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus
body armor to State and local police departments.
This bipartisan legislation is named in honor of James Guelff, a
California police officer who was murdered in the line of duty by an
assailant wearing body armor and a bulletproof helmet.
As a Federal prosecutor for fifteen years, I developed a deep
appreciation for the threats that our law enforcement officers face day
to day as they wage the war on crime. In my home State of Alabama,
Etowah County Officer Chris McCurley was murdered and Officer Gary
Entrekin was critically injured in 1997 during a shootout with two
criminals shielded by body armor. This bill will make criminals like
these pay an extra price for using body armor while harming innocent,
law-abiding people.
The James Guelff Body Armor Act addresses the abuse of body armor in
three ways:
First, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to
amend the Sentencing Guidelines to include an enhancement for the use
of body armor during a violent crime or a drug crime. Thus, criminals
who use body armor while attacking law enforcement officers or
civilians will spend longer terms in prison.
Second, the bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a
violent felony from purchasing, owning, or possessing body armor. Once
a criminal has shown a propensity to violent action, he should not be
able to use body armor to commit another crime and perhaps evade
capture by the police.
Third, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate
surplus body armor, currently totaling approximately 10,000 vests,
directly to State and local law enforcement agencies. By protecting our
police officers, sheriffs' deputies, and other State and local law
enforcement officers with body armor, we can help ensure that more cops
come home to their families at the end of their day.
It is indisputable that getting our law enforcement officers more
body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, more than 30 percent of the officers killed by firearms
in the line of duty since 1980 could have survived had they been
wearing body armor.
In a survey of American voters in 1999 by the National Association of
Police Organizations, 83 percent supported passing laws to keep felons
from wearing body armor during the commission of crimes. This is why a
broad bipartisan group of law enforcement organizations support this
bill including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Sheriffs
Association.
Last year, a very similar bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee
unanimously. It passed the entire Senate unanimously. It is time for
Congress to act and to protect our law enforcement officers.
I call on my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Feinstein,
to join me, and the law enforcement community in supporting this
important legislation that will save lives and provide
[[Page S537]]
law enforcement officers with more protection in their fight against
the most violent criminals.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Brownback, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lott, and Mr.
Sessions):
S. 167. A bill to allow a State to combine certain funds to improve
the academic achievement of all its students; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Academic
Achievement for All Act. I am honored to introduce this legislation.
We begin this 107th Congress with the great opportunity to
dramatically shape and change the federal government's role in
education. Never before have the American people been so focused on the
education system. With that focus comes great expectations. As a
Congress, we must seize this opportunity and work together to
creatively improve how the federal government addresses education
within our country.
We must continue the push to cut red tape and remove overly-
prescriptive federal mandates on federal education funding. At the same
time, we must hold states and local schools accountable for increasing
student achievement. Flexibility combined with accountability, must be
our objective. The end result of our reform effort must spark
innovation--innovation designed to provide all students a world-class
education.
As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on
Education, I heard from almost every witness, both Democrats and
Republicans alike, how the sprawling, duplicative and unfocused
behemoth that is the current federal education establishment ties the
hands of state and local school administrators, teachers and principals
with its burdensome regulations and rigidity. As a result, the very
first recommendation of the Education Task Force Interim Report was to
consolidate federal education programs.
The number one recommendation read as follows:
In light of the continuing proliferation of federal
categorical programs, the Task Force recommends that federal
education programs be consolidated . . . The Task Force
particularly favors providing states flexibility to
consolidate all federal funds into an integrated state
strategic plan to achieve national educational objectives for
which the state would be held accountable.
In hopes of improving federal regulation of education as we currently
know it, Senators Gorton, Gregg, Hutchinson, Sessions and I worked last
year to create this bill. We decided to combine all of our good ideas
into Straight A's. Straight A's permits states to have the option of
submitting a performance agreement, setting specific and measurable
performance goals that could be reached at the end of five years, in
exchange for flexibility.
Straight A's is an optional program. States would still be free to
administer federal education programs under the current system if they
so desired. If states choose to participate in the program, they would
be allowed to combine Federal K-12 funds in exchange for flexibility
upon approval of their performance agreement. States can focus more
funds on disadvantaged students, teacher professional development,
reducing class size, technology, or improved school facilities. At the
end of five years, however, the state's efforts must increase the
achievement of all students, including the lowest performing students.
If states do not substantially meet those goals, they would lose
their Straight A's status, and they would have to return to the less
flexible regulated approach available under current law. If states do
well and significantly reduce achievement gaps between high and low
performing students, they will be rewarded with additional funds.
Additionally, school districts would not lose any Title I funding. If
Title I is included by a state, each school district in the state would
be assured of receiving at least as much money as they received in the
preceding fiscal year.
States and local school districts are innovative. Without question,
it is states and localities that today are serving as the engines for
change in education. The groundwork for success is already in place at
the local level--teachers, parents, principals, and communities
demonstrate on a daily basis the enthusiasm and desire to succeed.
However, flexibility at the state and local level is critical to the
success of our schools.
Although the federal government is prepared to assist in improving
America's schools, it is worth remembering the limitations of the
federal role in education. The federal government provides just 7
percent of education funding. But despite its limitations, the federal
government does have a role to play in revitalizing education. The
federal government can provide the focus and leadership to identify
those problems worthy of the collective energy of all Americans, and it
can commit resources to the states to supplement their efforts.
But along with the resources, the federal government must also give
states and localities the freedom to pursue their own strategies for
implementation. With respect to education, tactics and implementation
procedures are virtually dictated by the federal government. The
rationale for expanding an already overly large and burdensome federal
education establishment is simply not discernible. Instead, the states
should have the flexibility to put together state strategic plans.
Under such a plan, the states would establish concrete educational
goals and timetables for achievement. In return, they would be allowed
to pool federal funds from categorical programs and spend these
consolidated resources on state established priorities.
But, along with flexibility comes accountability. When we give states
and local education agencies the freedom to use funds in the way that
best meets the needs of their students, we must expect from them
increased student performance. For too long accountability has been
measured by quantitative measures rather than qualitative ones. We know
that we are spending $8 billion on Title I--the nation's largest
federal education program--to help disadvantaged children. But we do
not know if all that money is helping those students to learn. This
must change.
Our current system simply requires that you send the money to poor
schools. I believe that there is no better catalyst for reform, no
better way to ensure that poor children receive the same quality of
education as their wealthier counterparts--than requiring that states
demonstrate that their poor children are achieving.
The flexibility is needed to allow states to use whatever means
necessary to increase poor students' achievement. Unfortunately, after
34 years and $120 billion spent on Title I, 70 percent of children in
high poverty schools score below even the most basic level of reading.
In math, 4th graders in high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels
behind their peers in low poverty schools. In reading, they remain 3 to
4 grade levels behind.
As a scientist, I know the value of looking for new way to solve
problems, and America has long had a proud tradition of innovation.
This bill will create a whole new generation of inventors in the field
of education--in particular, Governors, local school boards, teachers,
and parents will be better able to put good ideas into practice.
I strongly urge passage of this important piece of legislation.
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. 167
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 ``Academic Achievement for All
Act'' or ``Straight A's Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to create options for States and
communities--
(1) to improve the academic achievement of all students,
and to focus the resources of the Federal Government upon
such achievement;
(2) to improve teacher quality and subject matter mastery,
especially in mathematics, reading, and science;
(3) to empower parents and schools to effectively address
the needs of their children and students;
(4) to give States and communities maximum freedom in
determining how to boost
[[Page S538]]
academic achievement and implement education reforms;
(5) to eliminate Federal barriers to implementing effective
State and local education programs;
(6) to hold States and communities accountable for boosting
the academic achievement of all students, especially
disadvantaged children; and
(7) to narrow achievement gaps between the lowest and
highest performing groups of students so that no child is
left behind.
SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.
(a) Program Authorized.--States may, at their option,
execute a performance agreement with the Secretary under
which the provisions of law described in section 4(a) shall
not apply to such State except as otherwise provided in this
Act. The Secretary shall execute performance agreements with
States that submit approvable performance agreements under
this section.
(b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers,
and local schools and school districts notice and opportunity
to comment on any proposed performance agreement prior to
submission to the Secretary as provided under general State
law notice and comment provisions.
(c) Approval of Performance Agreement.--A performance
agreement submitted to the Secretary under this section shall
be considered as approved by the Secretary within 60 days
after receipt of the performance agreement unless the
Secretary, before the expiration of the 60-day period,
provides a written determination to the State that the
performance agreement fails to satisfy the requirements of
this Act.
(d) Terms of Performance Agreement.--Each performance
agreement executed pursuant to this Act shall comply with the
following provisions:
(1) Term.--The performance agreement shall contain a
statement that the term of the performance agreement shall be
5 years.
(2) Application of program requirements.--The performance
agreement shall contain a statement that no program
requirements of any program included by the State in the
performance agreement shall apply, except as otherwise
provided in this Act.
(3) List of programs.--The performance agreement shall
provide a list of the programs that the State wishes to
include in the performance agreement.
(4) Use of funds to improve student achievement.-- The
performance agreement shall contain a 5-year plan describing
how the State intends to combine and use the funds from
programs included in the performance agreement to advance the
education priorities of the State, improve student
achievement, and narrow achievement gaps between students.
(5) Accountability system requirements.--If the State
includes any of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in the State's
performance agreement, the performance agreement shall
include a certification that the State has--
(A)(i) developed and implemented the challenging State
content standards, challenging State student performance
standards, and aligned assessments described in section
1111(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); or
(ii) developed and implemented a system to measure the
degree of change from one school year to the next in student
performance;
(B) developed and is implementing a statewide
accountability system that has been or is reasonably expected
to be effective in substantially increasing the numbers and
percentages of all students who meet the State's proficient
and advanced levels of performance;
(C) established a system under which assessment information
may be disaggregated within each State, local educational
agency, and school by each major racial and ethnic group,
gender, English proficiency status, migrant status, and by
economically disadvantaged students as compared to students
who are not economically disadvantaged (except that such
disaggregation shall not be required in cases in which the
number of students in any such group is insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information or will reveal the
identity of an individual student);
(D) established specific, measurable, numerical performance
objectives for student achievement, including a definition of
performance considered to be proficient by the State on the
academic assessment instruments described in subparagraph
(A); and
(E) developed and implemented a statewide system for
holding its local educational agencies and schools
accountable for student performance that includes--
(i) a procedure for identifying local educational agencies
and schools for improvement, using the assessments described
in subparagraph (A);
(ii) assisting and building capacity in local educational
agencies and schools identified for improvement to improve
teaching and learning; and
(iii) implementing corrective actions after not more than 3
years if the assistance and capacity building under clause
(ii) is not effective.
(6) Performance goals.--
(A) Student academic achievement.--Each State that includes
part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in its performance
agreement shall establish annual student performance goals
for the 5-year term of the performance agreement that, at a
minimum--
(i) establish a single high standard of performance for all
students;
(ii) take into account the progress of students from every
local educational agency and school in the State;
(iii) are based primarily upon the State's challenging
content and student performance standards and assessments
described in paragraph (5);
(iv) include specific annual improvement goals in each
subject and grade included in the State assessment system,
which shall include, at a minimum, reading or language arts
and mathematics;
(v) compare the proportions of students at levels of
performance (as defined by the State) with the proportions of
students at the levels in the same grade in the previous
school year;
(vi) include annual numerical goals for improving the
performance of each group specified in paragraph (5)(C) and
narrowing gaps in performance between the highest and lowest
performing students in accordance with section 10(b); and
(vii) require all students in the State to make substantial
gains in achievement.
(B) Additional indicators of performance.--A State may
identify in the performance agreement any additional
indicators of performance such as graduation, dropout, or
attendance rates.
(C) Consistency of performance measures.--A State shall
maintain, at a minimum, the same level of challenging State
student performance standards and assessments throughout the
term of the performance agreement.
(7) Fiscal responsibilities.--The performance agreement
shall contain an assurance that the State will use fiscal
control and fund accounting procedures that will ensure
proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds
paid to the State under this Act.
(8) Civil rights.--The performance agreement shall contain
an assurance that the State will meet the requirements of
applicable Federal civil rights laws.
(9) Private school participation.--The performance
agreement shall contain assurances--
(A) that the State will provide for the equitable
participation of students and professional staff in private
schools; and
(B) that sections 10104, 10105, and 10106 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8004-8006)
shall apply to all services and assistance provided under
this Act in the same manner as such sections apply to
services and assistance provided in accordance with section
10103 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8003).
(10) State financial participation.--The performance
agreement shall contain an assurance that the State will not
reduce the level of spending of State funds for elementary
and secondary education during the term of the performance
agreement.
(11) Annual reports.--The performance agreement shall
contain an assurance that not later than 1 year after the
execution of the performance agreement, and annually
thereafter, each State shall disseminate widely to parents
and the general public, submit to the Secretary, distribute
to print and broadcast media, and post on the Internet, a
report that includes--
(A) student academic performance data, disaggregated as
provided in paragraph (5)(C); and
(B) a detailed description of how the State has used
Federal funds to improve student academic performance and
reduce achievement gaps to meet the terms of the performance
agreement.
(e) Special Rules.--If a State does not include part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in its performance agreement, the
State shall--
(1) certify that the State developed a system to measure
the academic performance of all students; and
(2) establish challenging academic performance goals for
such other programs in accordance with paragraph (6)(A) of
subsection (d), except that clause (vi) of such paragraph
shall not apply to such performance agreement.
(f) Amendment to Performance Agreement.--A State may submit
an amendment to the performance agreement to the Secretary
under the following circumstances:
(1) Reduction in scope of performance agreement.--Not later
than 1 year after the execution of the performance agreement,
a State may amend the performance agreement through a request
to withdraw a program from such agreement. If the Secretary
approves the amendment, the requirements of existing law
shall apply for any program withdrawn from the performance
agreement.
(2) Expansion of scope of performance agreement.--Not later
than 1 year after the execution of the performance agreement,
a State may amend its performance agreement to include
additional programs and performance indicators for which the
State will be held accountable.
(3) Approval of amendment.--An amendment submitted to the
Secretary under this subsection shall be considered as
approved by the Secretary within 60 days after receipt of the
amendment unless the Secretary provides, before the
expiration of the 60-day period, a written determination to
the State that the performance agreement, if amended
[[Page S539]]
by the amendment, will fail to satisfy the requirements of
this Act.
SEC. 4. ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.
(a) Eligible Programs.--The provisions of law referred to
in section 3(a) except as otherwise provided in subsection
(b), are as follows:
(1) Part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
(2) Part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.).
(3) Part C of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.).
(4) Part D of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6421 et seq.).
(5) Section 1502 of part E of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492).
(6) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.).
(7) Section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842).
(8) Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.)
(9) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.).
(10) Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7541 et seq.).
(11) Section 307 of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act of 1999.
(12) Titles II, III, and IV of the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act.
(13) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20
U.S.C. 5881 et seq.).
(14) Sections 115 and 116, and parts B and C of title I of
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998.
(15) Subtitle B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).
(16) Section 321 of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2001.
(b) Allocations to States.--A State may choose to
consolidate funds from any or all of the programs described
in subsection (a) without regard to the program requirements
of the provisions referred to in such subsection, except that
the proportion of funds made available for national programs
and allocations to each State for State and local use, under
such provisions, shall remain in effect unless otherwise
provided.
(c) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under this Act to a
State shall be used for any elementary and secondary
educational purposes permitted by State law of the
participating State.
SEC. 5. WITHIN-STATE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--The distribution of funds from programs
included in a performance agreement from a State to a local
educational agency within the State shall be determined by
the Governor of the State and the State legislature. In a
State in which the constitution or State law designates
another individual, entity, or agency to be responsible for
education, the allocation of funds from programs included in
the performance agreement from a State to a local educational
agency within the State shall be determined by that
individual, entity, or agency, in consultation with the
Governor and State Legislature. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State
constitution or State law.
(b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers,
and local schools and school districts notice and opportunity
to comment on the proposed allocation of funds as provided
under general State law notice and comment provisions.
(c) Local Hold Harmless of Part A Title I Funds.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a State that includes part
A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement,
the agreement shall provide an assurance that each local
educational agency shall receive under the performance
agreement an amount equal to or greater than the amount such
agency received under part A of title I of such Act in the
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the
performance agreement is executed.
(2) Proportionate reduction.--If the amount made available
to the State from the Secretary for a fiscal year is
insufficient to pay to each local educational agency the
amount made available under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) to such agency for the preceding fiscal year,
the State shall reduce the amount each local educational
agency receives by a uniform percentage.
SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION.
(a) Nonparticipating State.--
(1) In general.--If a State chooses not to submit a
performance agreement under this Act, any local educational
agency in such State is eligible, at the local educational
agency's option, to submit to the Secretary a performance
agreement in accordance with this section.
(2) Agreement.--The terms of a performance agreement
between an eligible local educational agency and the
Secretary shall specify the programs to be included in the
performance agreement, as agreed upon by the State and the
agency, from the list under section 4(a).
(b) State Approval.--When submitting a performance
agreement to the Secretary, an eligible local educational
agency described in subsection (a) shall provide written
documentation from the State in which such agency is located
that the State has no objection to the agency's proposal for
a performance agreement.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in this section, and to
the extent applicable, the requirements of this Act shall
apply to an eligible local educational agency that submits a
performance agreement in the same manner as the requirements
apply to a State.
(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions shall not apply
to an eligible local educational agency:
(A) Within state distribution formula not applicable.--The
distribution of funds under section 5 shall not apply.
(B) State set aside not applicable.--The State set aside
for administrative funds under section 7 shall not apply.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided under
subsection (b), a State that includes part A of title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement may use not more
than 1 percent of such total amount of funds allocated to
such State under the programs included in the performance
agreement for administrative purposes.
(b) Exception.--A State that does not include part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the performance agreement may use
not more than 3 percent of the total amount of funds
allocated to such State under the programs included in the
performance agreement for administrative purposes.
(c) Local Educational Agency.--A local educational agency
participating in this Act under a performance agreement under
section 6 may not use for administrative purposes more than 4
percent of the total amount of funds allocated to such agency
under the programs included in the performance agreement.
SEC. 8. PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND PENALTIES.
(a) Mid-Term Performance Review.--If, during the 5-year
term of the performance agreement, student achievement
significantly declines for 3 consecutive years in the
academic performance categories established in the
performance agreement, the Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, terminate the agreement.
(b) Failure To Meet Terms.--If, at the end of the 5-year
term of the performance agreement, a State has not
substantially met the performance goals submitted in the
performance agreement, the Secretary shall, after notice and
an opportunity for a hearing, terminate the performance
agreement and the State shall be required to comply with the
program requirements, in effect at the time of termination,
for each program included in the performance agreement.
(c) Penalty For Failure To Improve Student Performance.--If
a State has made no progress toward achieving its performance
goals by the end of the term of the agreement, the Secretary
may reduce funds for State administrative costs for each
program included in the performance agreement by up to 50
percent for each year of the 2-year period following the end
of the term of the performance agreement.
SEC. 9. RENEWAL OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.
(a) Notification.--A State that wishes to renew its
performance agreement shall notify the Secretary of its
renewal request not less than 6 months prior to the end of
the term of the performance agreement.
(b) Renewal Requirements.--A State that has met or has
substantially met its performance goals submitted in the
performance agreement at the end of the 5-year term may apply
to the Secretary to renew its performance agreement for an
additional 5-year period. Upon the completion of the 5-year
term of the performance agreement or as soon thereafter as
the State submits data required under the agreement, the
Secretary shall renew, for an additional 5-year term, the
performance agreement of any State that has met or has
substantially met its performance goals.
SEC. 10. ACHIEVEMENT GAP REDUCTION REWARDS.
(a) Closing the Gap Reward Fund.--
(1) In general.--To reward States that make significant
progress in eliminating achievement gaps by raising the
achievement levels of the lowest performing students, the
Secretary shall set aside sufficient funds from the Fund for
the Improvement of Education under part A of title X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8001 et seq.) to grant a reward to States that meet the
conditions set forth in subsection (b) by the end of their 5-
year performance agreement.
(2) Reward amount.--The amount of the reward referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be not less than 5 percent of funds
allocated to the State during the first year of the
performance agreement for programs included in the agreement.
(b) Conditions of Performance Reward.--Subject to paragraph
(3), a State is eligible to receive a reward under this
section as follows:
(1) A State is eligible for such an award if the State
reduces by not less than 25 percent,
[[Page S540]]
over the 5-year term of the performance agreement, the
difference between the percentage of highest and lowest
performing groups of students described in section 3(d)(5)(C)
that meet the State's proficient level of performance.
(2) A State is eligible for such an award if a State
increases the proportion of 2 or more groups of students
under section 3(d)(5)(C) that meet State proficiency
standards by 25 percent.
(3) A State shall receive such an award if the following
requirements are met:
(A) Content areas.--The reduction in the achievement gap or
improvement in achievement shall include not less than 2
content areas, 1 of which shall be mathematics or reading.
(B) Grades tested.--The reduction in the achievement gap or
improvement in achievement shall occur in at least 2 grade
levels.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Student achievement gaps shall
not be considered to have been reduced in circumstances where
the average academic performance of the highest performing
quintile of students has decreased.
SEC. 11. STRAIGHT A'S PERFORMANCE REPORT.
The Secretary shall make the annual State reports described
in section 3(d)(11) available to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the
Senate not later than 60 days after the Secretary receives
the report.
SEC. 12. APPLICABILITY OF TITLE X.
To the extent that provisions of title X of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.)
are inconsistent with this Act, this Act shall be construed
as superseding such provisions.
SEC. 13. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT.
To the extent that the provisions of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) are inconsistent with
this Act, this Act shall be construed as superseding such
provisions, except where relating to civil rights,
withholding of funds and enforcement authority, and family
educational and privacy rights.
SEC. 14. APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect home
schools regardless of whether a home school is treated as a
private school or home school under State law.
SEC. 15. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT, NON-
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow,
encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect
of any private, religious, or home school, regardless of
whether a home school is treated as a private school or home
school under State law.
SEC. 16. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) All students.--The term ``all students'' means all
students attending public schools or charter schools that are
participating in the State's accountability and assessment
system.
(2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
SEC. 17 EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect with respect to funds
appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2001.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my
distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, in introducing
the Academic Achievement for All Act known as Straight A's.
Our education system is in need of serious reform. Thirty-five years
ago, Congress enacted the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Today, over $120 billion has been spent on Title I--the program that is
the cornerstone of the federal investment in K through 12 education for
disadvantaged children. However, only 13 percent of low-income 4th
graders score at or above the ``proficient'' level on national reading
tests, and one-third of all incoming college freshman must enroll in
remedial reading, writing, or mathematics classes before taking regular
courses. Even worse, no progress has been made in achieving the
program's fundamental goal, narrowing the achievement gap between low-
income and upper-income students.
More fundamentally, the Federal role in education has been at best
irrelevant in some states, and a serious barrier to reform in States
that are far ahead of the curve in implementing serious reforms. It is
time that parents, teachers, principals, and school board members
decide what is best for our children. It is important that we return to
our States and local communities the right to set priorities that
reflect the unique needs of their students. The Straight A's Act offers
such an option. It leaves the basic construct of Federal education
programs intact, but offers some states the opportunity to experiment.
Straight A's would allow states or school districts to spend their
share of Federal dollars on reforms of their choice in exchange for
agreed upon academic results. It is the first Federal education program
to shift Federal dollars from one size fits all programs to a program
that demands academic outcomes.
I believe that choice and flexibility are the two most important
aspects of education reform. The Straight A's Act offers both. The time
has come to move forward with education reform, and I think Straight
A's is moving in the right direction.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Domenici, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 169. A bill to provide Federal reimbursement for indirect costs
relating to the incarceration of illegal criminal aliens and for
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency
Reimbursement Act. Senators McCain, Hutchison, Gramm, Domenici,
Bingaman, Feinstein, and Boxer join me. This bill, which is identical
to the bill I introduced in the 106th Congress, will be of great
importance to Arizona's future fiscal soundness and that of the other
southwest border states.
The bill will reimburse states and localities for the costs they
incur to process criminal illegal aliens through their criminal justice
systems. It will also provide reimbursement for the uncompensated care
that states, localities, and hospitals provide, as required by federal
law, to undocumented aliens for medical emergencies.
It is unclear what the true expense for providing these services is,
but it is believed to be even greater than the level of reimbursement
provided for in the bill we introduce today. Title I of our bill will
provide $200 million each year for four years for the criminal justice
costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens. Title II will
provide $200 million each year for four years for the costs that
states, localities, and hospitals incur to provide emergency medical
treatment to undocumented aliens.
We will soon have a better idea of what these overwhelming costs are
to those jurisdictions clearly affected, the local border communities
in Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico. Last year I successfully
secured funding for a study which should be completed this week and
will detail the expenses that border communities in all four southwest
states incur to process criminal aliens. The Arizona portion is already
complete. In the four border counties of Arizona, $18 million in
unreimbursed costs are incurred to process criminal illegal aliens.
Preventing illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal
Government. When it fails to protect our borders from illegal
immigration, it has a responsibility to reimburse jurisdictions that
provide federally-mandated services that (1) protect citizens and legal
residents from criminal illegal aliens, or (2) provide emergency
medical attention to undocumented immigrants. These two services have a
tremendous effect on the budgets of these relatively small
jurisdictions. When illegal immigrants commit crimes and are then
caught, they drain the budgets of a locality's sheriff, detention
facilities, justice court, county attorney, clerk of the court,
superior and juvenile court, and juvenile detention departments, as
well as the county's indigent defense budget. States and local
jurisdictions all along the southwestern border have incurred 100
percent of these processing-related costs to date. Our bill will change
that.
Another study I was able to secure funding for in the 106th Congress
will soon begin. That study will detail the overwhelming, and again
unreimbursed, costs that certain localities
[[Page S541]]
and hospitals are incurring to treat illegal immigrants for medical
emergencies. The federal government is obligated to fully reimburse
states, localities, and hospitals for the emergency medical treatment
of illegal immigrants.
According to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate
provided two years ago, the total annual cost to treat illegal
immigrants for medical emergencies is roughly $2.8 billion a year. It
is roughly estimated that the federal government reimburses states for
approximately half of that amount. That means states must pay the
remaining $1.4 billion. The state of Arizona estimates that it incurs
unreimbursed costs of $30 million annually to treat undocumented
immigrants on an emergency basis.
The bill we introduce today will provide states, localities, and
hospitals an additional $200 million per year to help absorb the costs
of adhering to Federal law, which mandates that all individuals,
regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, must be provided
with medical treatment in a medical emergency.
Mr. President, I hope we can address these very pressing issues in
the coming months, and that Members will consider joining my cosponsors
and me in support of this bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation
Senator Kyl and I are introducing with a number of our border-state
colleagues to provide appropriate Federal reimbursement to states and
localities whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs
associated with illegal immigration. The premise of our bill, and of
current law governing this type of federal reimbursement to the states,
is that controlling illegal immigration is principally the
responsibility of the Federal government, not the states.
Our legislation would expand the amount and scope of federal funding
to the states for incarceration and medical costs that arise from the
detention or treatment of illegal immigrants. Such funding currently
flows to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S.
territories. In Fiscal Year 2000, approximately 360 local jurisdictions
across the United States applied for these Federal monies. Although our
bill gives special consideration to border States and States with
unusually high concentrations of illegal aliens in residence, it would
benefit communities across the nation. It deserves the Senate's prompt
consideration and approval.
Many of my colleagues are probably not aware that the Federal
Government, under the existing State Criminal Alien Assistance Program,
SCAAP, reimburses states and counties burdened by illegal immigration
for less than 40 percent of eligible alien incarceration costs. Many
border counties estimate that between one-quarter and one-third of
their criminal justice budgets are spent processing criminal aliens. In
my State of Arizona, Santa Cruz County spent 33 percent of its total
criminal justice budget in Fiscal Year 1999 to process criminal illegal
aliens, of which over half was not reimbursed by the Federal
Government. Arizona's Cochise County spent roughly 32 percent of its
total law enforcement and criminal justice budget to apprehend and
process criminal illegal aliens but received Federal payments to cover
fewer than half of these costs. Similar shortfalls in Federal funding
plague states and counties all along our border with Mexico.
The legislation we are introducing today would actually expand the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program by authorizing funding for
state and local needs that currently go unmet. Although states receive
Federal reimbursement for part of the cost of incarcerating illegal
adult aliens, the Federal Government does not reimburse states or units
of local government for expenditures for illegal juvenile aliens. Nor
does it reimburse states and localities for costs associated with
processing criminal illegal aliens, including court costs, county
attorney costs, costs for criminal proceedings that do not involve
going to trial, indigent defense costs, and unsupervised probation
costs. Our legislation would authorize the Federal Government to
reimburse such costs to States and localities that suffer a
substantially disproportionate share of the impact of criminal illegal
aliens on their law enforcement and criminal justice systems. It would
also authorize additional Federal reimbursement for emergency health
services furnished by states and localities to undocumented aliens.
Reimbursement to States and localities for criminal alien
incarceration is woefully underfunded according to the existing limited
criteria for SCAAP, which do not take into account the full detention
and processing costs for illegal aliens. Nor does the existing SCAAP
provide necessary support to local communities for the cost of
emergency care for illegal immigrants, a growing problem in the
Southwest, and one exacerbated by the increasingly desperate measures
taken by undocumented aliens to cross our border with Mexico. Our
legislation thus authorizes the expansion of SCAAP to cover costs
wrongly borne by local communities under current law--costs which are a
Federal responsibility and should not be shirked by those in
Washington.
As my colleagues know, illegal immigrants who successfully transit
our Southwest border rapidly disperse throughout the United States.
That SCAAP funds flow to all 50 States reflects the pressures such
aliens place on public services around the country. I hope the Senate
will act expeditiously on this important legislation to alleviate those
pressures by compensating state and local units for the costs they
incur as unwitting hosts to undocumented aliens, even as we continue to
fund border enforcement measures to reduce the flow of illegal
immigrants into this country.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Johnson, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 170. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit
retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected
disability to receive both military retired pay by reason of their
years of military service and disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Congress I, along with Senator Inouye,
introduced S. 2357, ``The Armed Forces Concurrent Retirement and
Disability Payment Act of 2000.'' Our bill addressed a 110 year old
injustice that requires some of the bravest men and women in our
nation--retired, career veterans, to essentially forgo receipt of a
portion of their retired pay if they received a disability injury in
the line of service. I am extremely disappointed that we did not take
the opportunity to correct this long-standing inequity in the 106th
Congress.
I rise today, to again introduce a bill along with my colleagues
Senators Hutchinson, Landrieu, Dorgan, Conrad, Johnson, McCain,
Bingaman, Inouye, Shelby, Snowe and Daschle, that will correct this
inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a
service-connected disability.
Our bill will permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a
service connected disability to receive military retired pay
concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.
This inequitable law originated in the 19th century, when Congress
approved legislation to prohibit the concurrent receipt of military
retired pay and VA disability compensation. It was enacted shortly
after the Civil War, when the standing army of the United States was
extremely limited. At that time, only a small portion of our armed
forces consisted of career soldiers.
Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives
to the defense of our nation. The United States' military force is
unmatched in terms of power, training and ability and our nation is
recognized as the world's only superpower, a status which is largely
due to the sacrifices our veterans made during the last century. Rather
than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our
obligations, the federal government has chosen instead to perpetuate a
110-year-old injustice. Quite simply, this is disgraceful.
Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and
awarded for entirely different purposes.
[[Page S542]]
Current law ignores the distinction between these two entitlements.
Members of our Armed Forces have normally dedicated 20 or more years to
our country's defense earning their retirement for service. Whereas,
disability compensation is awarded to a veteran for injury incurred in
the line of duty.
Career military retired veterans are the only group of federal
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to
receive VA disability. All other federal employees receive both their
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset. Simply put,
the law discriminates against career military men and women.
This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great nation? How do we
explain this inequity to Edward Lynk from Virginia who answered the
call of duty to defend our nation? Mr. Lynk served for over 30 years in
the Marine Corps and participated in three wars, where he was severely
injured during combat in two of them.
Or George Blahun from Connecticut, who entered the military in 1940
to serve his country because of the impending war. He served over 35
years during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He is
100 percent disabled because of injuries incurred while performing
military service.
Our nation is experiencing a prosperity unparalleled in human history
and yet we continue to tell these brave soldiers that we cannot afford
to make good on payments they are owed. Mr. Blahun has hit the
proverbial nail on the head when he labels our excuses ``arbitrary
bureaucratic rhetorical nonsense.'' We must demonstrate to these
veterans that we are thankful for their dedicated service. As such, we
must fight for the amendment in the Senate version of the National
Defense Authorization bill for FY 2001.
We are currently losing over one thousand WWII veterans each day.
Every day we delay acting on this legislation means that we have denied
fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never
have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
Mr. President, this bill represents an honest attempt to correct an
injustice that has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans
to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation
concurrently will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the
Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
Mr. President, passing ``The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001''
will finally eliminate a gross inequitable 19th century law and ensure
fairness within the Federal retirement policy. Our veterans have heard
enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear our gratitude. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to finally end
this disservice to our retired military men and women.
Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their
service to our Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Retired Pay Restoration
Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 170
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 ``Retired Pay Restoration Act
of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO DISABLED
MILITARY RETIREES.
(a) Restoration of Retired Pay Benefits.--Chapter 71 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have
service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and
veterans' disability compensation
``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of
the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other
than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled
to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid
both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this
title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable
under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and
5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of
the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would
have been entitled under any other provision of law based
upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the
member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20
years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of
this title at the time of the member's retirement.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the
meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of
title 38.''.
(b) Repeal of Special Compensation Program.--Section 1413
of such title is repealed.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 1413; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new item:
``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the
date specified in paragraph (1).
(b) Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may be paid to any
person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by the amendment made by section 2(a), for any
period before the effective date specified in subsection (a).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished
colleague from across the aisle, Senator Reid, in introducing the
Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001. With the swift passage of this
act, we hope to put an end to a grossly unfair practice, to reform a
system that, as it stands today, ends up hurting those veterans we owe
our greatest debt of gratitude.
Today, our armed forces are struggling to meet even modest recruiting
goals and are having even more difficulty retaining qualified men and
women. Serving in the military is less likely to be seen as an
attractive career. The Federal Government should do its part to help,
not to hinder, the viability of the idea of a career in uniform.
Unfortunately, an outdated law passed in 1891 punishes those who have
served this Nation in uniform for more than twenty years, in the
process earning a longevity retirement. How? By forcing them to waive
the amount of their retired pay equal to the amount of any VA
disability compensation they may be eligible to receive. That is
patently unfair. Military retirement pay based on longevity and VA
disability compensation are awarded for two distinct, different
reasons--one should not count against the other. One is awarded for
making a career of public service, the other is to redress
debilitating, enduring injuries caused by the rigors of life in the
military.
Military retirees are the only group of federal retirees who must
waive a portion of their retirement pay in order to receive VA
disability compensation. If a veteran refuses to give up his retired
pay, he will lose his VA benefits.
Let's take the fictional example of two G.I.'s named Joe and Sam. Joe
and Sam joined the Army together and were wounded in the same battle.
Joe left the Army after a four-year tour and joined the federal
government as a civilian employee. Sam continued on and made the
military his career.
Thirty years later, both men are receiving federal retirement pay and
both are eligible for VA disability compensation as a result of the
injuries they sustained while in the service. The difference between
Joe and Sam is that in order to get disability compensation, Sam must
forfeit an equal amount of his retired pay, while Joe collects the full
amount of both benefits without any deduction in either.
[[Page S543]]
Fairness is the issue here. We should be rewarding, not penalizing
people for choosing a career in the military. Military retirees with
service-connected disabilities should be allowed to receive
compensation for their injuries above their retired military pay. The
107th Congress must act to bring equity to those who were disabled
during a career of dedicated service to our nation, and the Reid-
Hutchinson bill is the proper vehicle. By eliminating the offset, we
can end this unfair practice that hurts those who need our help.
The Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001 has the strong support of
many military and nonmilitary veterans service organizations. In
addition, Congressman Michael Bilirakis has introduced companion
legislation in the House of Representatives. I encourage all of my
colleagues to join us in this fight by signing on as cosponsors.
While I know it will be an uphill battle to get this legislation
passed, it is one of my highest priorities. It's only right that the
Congress make this much-needed change and reward--rather than
penalize--those who have selflessly served to protect our Nation.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
S. 172. A bill to benefit electricity consumers by promoting the
reliability of the bulk-power system; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I stand before you and the Senate today. As I do
this, our Nation is relearning a fundamental lesson--that electricity
does not come from hitting a light switch. Our urban areas are getting
a painful lesson that the quality of life that we and they enjoy in
this Nation is a direct result of resource production.
California is scrambling as we speak to keep the lights on from day
to day and has had 2 days recently of rolling blackouts. The west coast
energy crisis shows no sign of abating and could actually intensify in
coming weeks if the region, which is heavily dependent on hydroelectric
power, continues to face below average precipitation. The reservoir
behind the Grand Coulee Dam, by far the largest of the Federal dams in
the Northwest, is at its lowest level in 25 years. The Grand Coulee Dam
is also upstream of 10 other dams on the mainstem Columbia River. So
downstream powerhouses cannot generate electricity either.
Much of the media attention in recent weeks has focused on efforts to
keep the lights on in California and to keep the State's two largest
utilities from going bankrupt. The west coast energy market extends to
11 other Western States, including Oregon, that are all interconnected
by the high-voltage transmission system.
I believe there is more that California can and must do immediately
to address this situation. First and foremost, it must approve further
electric rate increases. I don't normally advocate increases, but this
is necessary to send the right signal to Californians that they have to
conserve energy.
Further, price increases are necessary to help California's investor-
owned utilities, which have recently been reduced to junk bond status,
from going bankrupt. Avoiding bankruptcy for these utilities is
important for Oregon and for other Western States. Since the middle of
December, Northwest utilities have been forced, by Federal order, to
sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being
paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy
protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for
California's failed restructuring effort.
We should not confuse this with deregulation. This is a failed effort
at restructuring that incredibly took off, went to a free market in the
wholesale, went to a price cap at retail, and then overregulated at
production levels.
I tell you, when you do that with an expanding economy, you have
created a catastrophe. That is what California has created, and its
neighbors are now beginning to help shoulder the burden.
California must also operate its native generation, including its
fossil fuel plants, at full capacity during this crisis. It can also
find additional temporary generation.
I recently came across a news story from last August about one
California utility that was abandoning its efforts to moor a floating
power plant in San Francisco Bay as protection against future power
shortages.
That 95-megawatt emergency powerplant could have provided enough
power for 95,000 homes in the area.
However, according to this news clip, the company abandoned its
efforts because it was ``under fire from environmentalists and
skeptical of winning regulatory approval. . . . ''
The article also quoted the executive director of the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission as saying, ``The commission
was skeptical as to whether the emergency really existed.''
What a difference a few months makes. I wonder if anyone in San
Francisco thinks there isn't an emergency now.
In response to these tight margins between supply and demand, today I
am reintroducing legislation that passed the Senate last Congress that
will enhance the reliability of the wholesale transmission system. It
is imperative that the transmission grid be operated as efficiently and
reliably as possible during times when the margin between supply and
demand is so tight.
Yesterday, I sent a letter to the President urging him to issue an
Executive order directing electricity conservation at all federal
facilities throughout the twelve western states. Between federal office
buildings, post offices, military bases, prisons, and other facilities,
the federal government is among the largest consumers of electricity in
the West.
The Governors of Oregon and Washington are seeking 10 percent
reductions in energy use at state facilities, and I believe this would
be an appropriate goal for federal facilities as well.
The federal government is also a major producer of electricity in the
Western United States. Much of that generation is from hydroelectric
facilities.
I have expressed concern over the last several weeks that the
Columbia and Snake River hydropower facilities not be operated in a
manner that jeopardizes salmon recovery efforts in what is shaping up
to be a poor water year in the Basin.
However, there are many other federal generation facilities
throughout the 12 western states that are interconnected by the high-
voltage transmission system.
Therefore, I asked that the Energy Department be directed to
undertake an immediate review of all of these facilities to ensure they
are providing as much power as possible during this crisis.
It is not just California that needs additional generation, however.
According to a recent study by the Northwest Power Planning Council,
the Pacific Northwest faces a 25 percent chance of power shortages
during this and coming winters.
To reduce this probability to a more acceptable level of five
percent, the Northwest needs nearly 3,000 megawatts of new generating
resources, conservation, or short-term demand management.
This report, however, assumed that all the other generation remained
equal. Yet in recent years there have been calls to close the nuclear
plant WNP2, with a capacity of 1,250 megawatts.
Breaching the four lower Snake River dams, which I oppose, would
reduce capacity by another 1,200 megawatts, enough power for Seattle.
In addition, almost 12,000 megawatts of non-federal hydroelectric
power in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, is up for
relicensing between now and 2010. More stringent operating criteria
could reduce the total amount of power available.
New licenses will probably also reduce the operational flexibility of
these facilities that makes hydropower so valuable in meeting daily
peaks in energy demand.
In the face of the numbers I just quoted, I believe it is the height
of irresponsibility to even be discussing breaching the four lower
Snake River dams. The Endangered Species Act was never intended to
force us, as Americans, to dismantle the infrastructure that our
parents and grandparents worked so hard to build.
The Bush administration is going to have to clean up a huge mess that
is not of their making. The assault on domestic energy production and
the lack of a national energy strategy over the last eight years are
finally coming
[[Page S544]]
home to roost. This nation is more dependent on foreign oil than at any
time in its history, and crude oil prices are rising as foreign nations
are reducing production. Natural gas prices have doubled in recent
months. Electricity prices on the West Coast have skyrocketed, and they
remain high in the Northeast.
The previous administration started out wanting to tax energy
production through a BTU tax, as a way to force Americans to conserve.
When that wasn't enacted, the past administration went about a
systematic assault on energy production. They went after coal-fired
plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants.
They opposed the siting of new natural gas pipelines and the
expansion of oil refining capacity. They put millions of acres of land
off-limits to oil, gas, and coal exploration. The economy, particularly
on the west coast, is just beginning to feel the cumulative effects of
these actions.
The U.S. economy needs energy. It needs abundant, reasonably priced
oil, gas and electricity if our economic prosperity is to continue.
I want to thank the leadership of the Senate for efforts to craft an
energy bill. I know that the Bush administration will work with the
Congress to achieve more energy production and more conservation.
But I say to my fellow Oregonians and Americans everywhere who care
about this issue that we must reconnect the reality dots between the
lives we live and the natural resources we demand.
At the end of the day, power is not created by hitting a light
switch. Food does not come from Safeway. Gasoline does not come from a
filling station. These are all things we need, and we must be good
stewards of the environment but also remember that using the land does
not have to equal abusing the land. But those who advocate that all
must be shut down are simply the ones who would visit this trauma that
we are now seeing in California on the rest of us as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 172
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 ``Electric Reliability Act''.
SEC. 2. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.
(a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Affiliated regional reliability entity.--The term
`affiliated regional reliability entity' means an entity
delegated authority under subsection (h).
``(2) Bulk-power system.--
``(A) In general.--The term `bulk-power system' means all
facilities and control systems necessary for operating an
interconnected electric power transmission grid or any
portion of an interconnected electric power transmission
grid.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `bulk-power system' includes--
``(i) high voltage transmission lines, substations, control
centers, communications, data, and operations planning
facilities necessary for the operation of all or any part of
the interconnected electric power transmission grid; and
``(ii) the output of generating units necessary to maintain
the reliability of the interconnected electric power
transmission grid.
``(3) Bulk-power system user.--The term `bulk-power system
user' means an entity that--
``(A) sells, purchases, or transmits electric energy over a
bulk-power system;
``(B) owns, operates, or maintains facilities or control
systems that are part of a bulk-power system; or
``(C) is a system operator.
``(4) Electric reliability organization.--The term
`electric reliability organization' means the organization
designated by the Commission under subsection (d).
``(5) Entity rule.--The term `entity rule' means a rule
adopted by an affiliated regional reliability entity for a
specific region and designed to implement or enforce 1 or
more organization standards.
``(6) Independent director.--The term `independent
director' means a person that--
``(A) is not an officer or employee of an entity that would
reasonably be perceived as having a direct financial interest
in the outcome of a decision by the board of directors of the
electric reliability organization; and
``(B) does not have a relationship that would interfere
with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the
responsibilities of a director of the electric reliability
organization.
``(7) Industry sector.--The term `industry sector' means a
group of bulk-power system users with substantially similar
commercial interests, as determined by the board of directors
of the electric reliability organization.
``(8) Interconnection.--The term `interconnection' means a
geographic area in which the operation of bulk-power system
components is synchronized so that the failure of 1 or more
of the components may adversely affect the ability of the
operators of other components within the interconnection to
maintain safe and reliable operation of the facilities within
their control.
``(9) Organization standard.--
``(A) In general.--The term `organization standard' means a
policy or standard adopted by the electric reliability
organization to provide for the reliable operation of a bulk-
power system.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `organization standard'
includes--
``(i) an entity rule approved by the electric reliability
organization; and
``(ii) a variance approved by the electric reliability
organization.
``(10) Public interest group.--
``(A) In general.--The term `public interest group' means a
nonprofit private or public organization that has an interest
in the activities of the electric reliability organization.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `public interest group'
includes--
``(i) a ratepayer advocate;
``(ii) an environmental group; and
``(iii) a State or local government organization that
regulates participants in, and promulgates government policy
with respect to, the market for electric energy.
``(11) System operator.--
``(A) In general.--The term `system operator' means an
entity that operates or is responsible for the operation of a
bulk-power system.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `system operator' includes--
``(i) a control area operator;
``(ii) an independent system operator;
``(iii) a transmission company;
``(iv) a transmission system operator; and
``(v) a regional security coordinator.
``(12) Variance.--The term `variance' means an exception
from the requirements of an organization standard (including
a proposal for an organization standard in a case in which
there is no organization standard) that is adopted by an
affiliated regional reliability entity and is applicable to
all or a part of the region for which the affiliated regional
reliability entity is responsible.
``(b) Commission Authority.--
``(1) Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding section 201(f), within
the United States, the Commission shall have jurisdiction
over the electric reliability organization, all affiliated
regional reliability entities, all system operators, and all
bulk-power system users (including entities described in
section 201(f) for purposes of approving organization
standards and enforcing compliance with this section.
``(2) Definition of terms.--The Commission may by
regulation define any term used in this section consistent
with the definitions in subsection (a) and the purpose and
intent of this Act.
``(c) Existing Reliability Standards.--
``(1) Submission to the commission.--Before designation of
an electric reliability organization under subsection (d),
any person, including the North American Electric Reliability
Council and its member Regional Reliability Councils, may
submit to the Commission any reliability standard, guidance,
practice, or amendment to a reliability standard, guidance,
or practice that the person proposes to be made mandatory and
enforceable.
``(2) Review by the commission.--The Commission, after
allowing interested persons an opportunity to submit
comments, may approve a proposed mandatory standard,
guidance, practice, or amendment submitted under paragraph
(1) if the Commission finds that the standard, guidance, or
practice is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
``(3) Effect of approval.--A standard, guidance, or
practice shall be mandatory and applicable according to its
terms following approval by the Commission and shall remain
in effect until it is--
``(A) withdrawn, disapproved, or superseded by an
organization standard that is issued or approved by the
electric reliability organization and made effective by the
Commission under subsection (e); or
``(B) disapproved by the Commission if, on complaint or
upon motion by the Commission and after notice and an
opportunity for comment, the Commission finds the standard,
guidance, or practice to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential, or not in the public
interest.
``(4) Enforceability.--A standard, guidance, or practice in
effect under this subsection shall be enforceable by the
Commission.
``(d) Designation of Electric Reliability Organization.--
``(1) Regulations.--
``(A) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
propose
[[Page S545]]
regulations specifying procedures and requirements for an
entity to apply for designation as the electric reliability
organization.
``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall provide
notice and opportunity for comment on the proposed
regulations.
``(C) Final regulation.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
promulgate final regulations under this subsection.
``(2) Application.--
``(A) Submission.--Following the promulgation of final
regulations under paragraph (1), an entity may submit an
application to the Commission for designation as the electric
reliability organization.
``(B) Contents.--The applicant shall describe in the
application--
``(i) the governance and procedures of the applicant; and
``(ii) the funding mechanism and initial funding
requirements of the applicant.
``(3) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(A) provide public notice of the application; and
``(B) afford interested parties an opportunity to comment.
``(4) Designation of electric reliability organization.--
The Commission shall designate the applicant as the electric
reliability organization if the Commission determines that
the applicant--
``(A) has the ability to develop, implement, and enforce
standards that provide for an adequate level of reliability
of bulk-power systems;
``(B) permits voluntary membership to any bulk-power system
user or public interest group;
``(C) ensures fair representation of its members in the
selection of its directors and fair management of its
affairs, taking into account the need for efficiency and
effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the
requirements for technical competency in the development of
organization standards and the exercise of oversight of bulk-
power system reliability;
``(D) ensures that no 2 industry sectors have the ability
to control, and no 1 industry sector has the ability to veto,
the applicant's discharge of its responsibilities as the
electric reliability organization (including actions by
committees recommending standards for approval by the board
or other board actions to implement and enforce standards);
``(E) provides for governance by a board wholly comprised
of independent directors;
``(F) provides a funding mechanism and requirements that--
``(i) are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential and in the public interest; and
``(ii) satisfy the requirements of subsection (l);
``(G) has established procedures for development of
organization standards that--
``(i) provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public
comment, taking into account the need for efficiency and
effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the
requirements for technical competency in the development of
organization standards;
``(ii) ensure openness, a balancing of interests, and due
process; and
``(iii) includes alternative procedures to be followed in
emergencies;
``(H) has established fair and impartial procedures for
implementation and enforcement of organization standards,
either directly or through delegation to an affiliated
regional reliability entity, including the imposition of
penalties, limitations on activities, functions, or
operations, or other appropriate sanctions;
``(I) has established procedures for notice and opportunity
for public observation of all meetings, except that the
procedures for public observation may include alternative
procedures for emergencies or for the discussion of
information that the directors reasonably determine should
take place in closed session, such as litigation, personnel
actions, or commercially sensitive information;
``(J) provides for the consideration of recommendations of
States and State commissions; and
``(K) addresses other matters that the Commission considers
appropriate to ensure that the procedures, governance, and
funding of the electric reliability organization are just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.
``(5) Exclusive designation.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall designate only 1
electric reliability organization.
``(B) Multiple applications.--If the Commission receives 2
or more timely applications that satisfy the requirements of
this subsection, the Commission shall approve only the
application that the Commission determines will best
implement this section.
``(e) Organization standards.--
``(1) Submission of proposals to commission.--
``(A) In general.--The electric reliability organization
shall submit to the Commission proposals for any new or
modified organization standards.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include--
``(i) a concise statement of the purpose of the proposal;
and
``(ii) a record of any proceedings conducted with respect
to the proposal.
``(2) Review by the commission.--
``(A) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(i) provide notice of a proposal under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) allow interested persons 30 days to submit comments
on the proposal.
``(B) Action by the commission.--
``(i) In general.--After taking into consideration any
submitted comments, the Commission shall approve or
disapprove a proposed organization standard not later than
the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
deadline for the submission of comments, except that the
Commission may extend the 60-day period for an additional 90
days for good cause.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the Commission does not approve
or disapprove a proposal within the period specified in
clause (i), the proposed organization standard shall go into
effect subject to its terms, without prejudice to the
authority of the Commission to modify the organization
standard in accordance with the standards and requirements of
this section.
``(C) Effective date.--An organization standard approved by
the Commission shall take effect not earlier than 30 days
after the date of the Commission's order of approval.
``(D) Standards for approval.--
``(i) In general.--The Commission shall approve a proposed
new or modified organization standard if the Commission
determines the organization standard to be just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest.
``(ii) Considerations.--In the exercise of its review
responsibilities under this subsection, the Commission--
``(I) shall give due weight to the technical expertise of
the electric reliability organization with respect to the
content of a new or modified organization standard; but
``(II) shall not defer to the electric reliability
organization with respect to the effect of the organization
standard on competition.
``(E) Remand.--A proposed organization standard that is
disapproved in whole or in part by the Commission shall be
remanded to the electric reliability organization for further
consideration.
``(3) Orders to develop or modify organization standards.--
The Commission, on complaint or on motion of the Commission,
may order the electric reliability organization to develop
and submit to the Commission, by a date specified in the
order, an organization standard or modification to an
existing organization standard to address a specific matter
if the Commission considers a new or modified organization
standard appropriate to carry out this section, and the
electric reliability organization shall develop and submit
the organization standard or modification to the Commission
in accordance with this subsection.
``(4) Variances and entity rules.--
``(A) Proposal.--An affiliated regional reliability entity
may propose a variance or entity rule to the electric
reliability organization.
``(B) Expedited consideration.--If expedited consideration
is necessary to provide for bulk-power system reliability,
the affiliated regional reliability entity may--
``(i) request that the electric reliability organization
expedite consideration of the proposal; and
``(ii) file a notice of the request with the Commission.
``(C) Failure to act.--
``(i) In general.--If the electric reliability organization
fails to adopt the variance or entity rule, in whole or in
part, the affiliated regional reliability entity may request
that the Commission review the proposal.
``(ii) Action by the commission.--If the Commission
determines, after a review of the request, that the action of
the electric reliability organization did not conform to the
applicable standards and procedures approved by the
Commission, or if the Commission determines that the variance
or entity rule is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public interest and that the
electric reliability organization has unreasonably rejected
or failed to act on the proposal, the Commission may--
``(I) remand the proposal for further consideration by the
electric reliability organization; or
``(II) order the electric reliability organization or the
affiliated regional reliability entity to develop a variance
or entity rule consistent with that requested by the
affiliated regional reliability entity.
``(D) Procedure.--A variance or entity rule proposed by an
affiliated regional reliability entity shall be submitted to
the electric reliability organization for review and
submission to the Commission in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (2).
``(5) Immediate effectiveness.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, a new or modified organization standard
shall take effect immediately on submission to the Commission
without notice or comment if the electric reliability
organization--
``(i) determines that an emergency exists requiring that
the new or modified organization standard take effect
immediately without notice or comment;
``(ii) notifies the Commission as soon as practicable after
making the determination;
``(iii) submits the new or modified organization standard
to the Commission not later than 5 days after making the
determination; and
[[Page S546]]
``(iv) includes in the submission an explanation of the
need for immediate effectiveness.
``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(i) provide notice of the new or modified organization
standard or amendment for comment; and
``(ii) follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (2)
and (3) for review of the new or modified organization
standard.
``(6) Compliance.--Each bulk power system user shall comply
with an organization standard that takes effect under this
section.
``(f) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--
``(1) Recognition.--The electric reliability organization
shall take all appropriate steps to gain recognition in
Canada and Mexico.
``(2) International agreements.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall use best efforts to
enter into international agreements with the appropriate
governments in Canada and Mexico to provide for--
``(i) effective compliance with organization standards; and
``(ii) the effectiveness of the electric reliability
organization in carrying out its mission and
responsibilities.
``(B) Compliance.--All actions taken by the electric
reliability organization, an affiliated regional reliability
entity, and the Commission shall be consistent with any
international agreement under subparagraph (A).
``(g) Changes in Procedure, Governance, or Funding.--
``(1) Submission to the commission.--The electric
reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
``(A) any proposed change in a procedure, governance, or
funding provision; or
``(B) any change in an affiliated regional reliability
entity's procedure, governance, or funding provision relating
to delegated functions.
``(2) Contents.--A submission under paragraph (1) shall
include an explanation of the basis and purpose for the
change.
``(3) Effectiveness.--
``(A) Changes in procedure.--
``(i) Changes constituting a statement of policy, practice,
or interpretation.--A proposed change in procedure shall take
effect 90 days after submission to the Commission if the
change constitutes a statement of policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning or enforcement of
the procedure.
``(ii) Other changes.--A proposed change in procedure other
than a change described in clause (i) shall take effect on a
finding by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for
comment, that the change--
``(I) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(II) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).
``(B) Changes in governance or funding.--A proposed change
in governance or funding shall not take effect unless the
Commission finds that the change--
``(i) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(ii) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).
``(4) Order to Amend.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission, on complaint or on the
motion of the Commission, may require the electric
reliability organization to amend a procedural, governance,
or funding provision if the Commission determines that the
amendment is necessary to meet the requirements of this
section.
``(B) Filing.--The electric reliability organization shall
submit the amendment in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(h) Delegations of Authority.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Implementation and enforcement of compliance.--At the
request of an entity, the electric reliability organization
shall enter into an agreement with the entity for the
delegation of authority to implement and enforce compliance
with organization standards in a specified geographic area if
the electric reliability organization finds that--
``(i) the entity satisfies the requirements of
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (F), (J), and (K) of
subsection (d)(4); and
``(ii) the delegation would promote the effective and
efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power
system reliability.
``(B) Other authority.--The electric reliability
organization may enter into an agreement to delegate to an
entity any other authority, except that the electric
reliability organization shall reserve the right to set and
approve standards for bulk-power system reliability.
``(2) Approval by the commission.--
``(A) Submission to the commission.--The electric
reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
``(i) any agreement entered into under this subsection; and
``(ii) any information the Commission requires with respect
to the affiliated regional reliability entity to which
authority is delegated.
``(B) Standards for approval.--The Commission shall approve
the agreement, following public notice and an opportunity for
comment, if the Commission finds that the agreement--
``(i) meets the requirements of paragraph (1); and
``(ii) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
``(C) Rebuttable presumption.--A proposed delegation
agreement with an affiliated regional reliability entity
organized on an interconnection-wide basis shall be
rebuttably presumed by the Commission to promote the
effective and efficient implementation and administration of
the reliability of the bulk-power system.
``(D) Invalidity absent approval.--No delegation by the
electric reliability organization shall be valid unless the
delegation is approved by the Commission.
``(3) Procedures for entity rules and variances.--
``(A) In general.--A delegation agreement under this
subsection shall specify the procedures by which the
affiliated regional reliability entity may propose entity
rules or variances for review by the electric reliability
organization.
``(B) Interconnection-wide entity rules and variances.--In
the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that
would apply on an interconnection-wide basis, the electric
reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or
variance unless the electric reliability organization makes a
written finding that the entity rule or variance--
``(i) was not developed in a fair and open process that
provided an opportunity for all interested parties to
participate;
``(ii) would have a significant adverse impact on
reliability or commerce in other interconnections;
``(iii) fails to provide a level of reliability of the
bulk-power system within the interconnection such that the
entity rule or variance would be likely to cause a serious
and substantial threat to public health, safety, welfare, or
national security; or
``(iv) would create a serious and substantial burden on
competitive markets within the interconnection that is not
necessary for reliability.
``(C) Noninterconnection-wide entity rules and variances.--
In the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that
would apply only to part of an interconnection, the electric
reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or
variance if the affiliated regional reliability entity
demonstrates that the proposal--
``(i) was developed in a fair and open process that
provided an opportunity for all interested parties to
participate;
``(ii) would not have an adverse impact on commerce that is
not necessary for reliability;
``(iii) provides a level of bulk-power system reliability
that is adequate to protect public health, safety, welfare,
and national security and would not have a significant
adverse impact on reliability; and
``(iv) in the case of a variance, is based on a justifiable
difference between regions or subregions within the
affiliated regional reliability entity's geographic area.
``(D) Action by the electric reliability organization.--
``(i) In general.--The electric reliability organization
shall approve or disapprove a proposal under subparagraph (A)
within 120 days after the proposal is submitted.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the electric reliability
organization fails to act within the time specified in clause
(i), the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved.
``(iii) Submission to the commission.--After approving a
proposal under subparagraph (A), the electric reliability
organization shall submit the proposal to the Commission for
approval under the procedures prescribed under subsection
(e).
``(E) Direct submissions.--An affiliated regional
reliability entity may not submit a proposal for approval
directly to the Commission except as provided in subsection
(e)(4).
``(4) Failure to reach delegation agreement.--
``(A) In general.--If an affiliated regional reliability
entity requests, consistent with paragraph (1), that the
electric reliability organization delegate authority to it,
but is unable within 180 days to reach agreement with the
electric reliability organization with respect to the
requested delegation, the entity may seek relief from the
Commission.
``(B) Review by the commission.--The Commission shall order
the electric reliability organization to enter into a
delegation agreement under terms specified by the Commission
if, after notice and opportunity for comment, the Commission
determines that--
``(i) a delegation to the affiliated regional reliability
entity would--
``(I) meet the requirements of paragraph (1); and
``(II) would be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(ii) the electric reliability organization unreasonably
withheld the delegation.
``(5) Orders to modify delegation agreements.--
``(A) In general.--On complaint, or on motion of the
Commission, after notice to the appropriate affiliated
regional reliability entity, the Commission may order the
electric reliability organization to propose a modification
to a delegation agreement under this subsection if the
Commission determines that--
``(i) the affiliated regional reliability entity--
``(I) no longer has the capacity to carry out effectively
or efficiently the implementation
[[Page S547]]
or enforcement responsibilities under the delegation
agreement;
``(II) has failed to meet its obligations under the
delegation agreement; or
``(III) has violated this section;
``(ii) the rules, practices, or procedures of the
affiliated regional reliability entity no longer provide for
fair and impartial discharge of the implementation or
enforcement responsibilities under the delegation agreement;
``(iii) the geographic boundary of a transmission entity
approved by the Commission is not wholly within the boundary
of an affiliated regional reliability entity, and the
difference in boundaries is inconsistent with the effective
and efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power
system reliability; or
``(iv) the agreement is inconsistent with a delegation
ordered by the Commission under paragraph (4).
``(B) Suspension.--
``(i) In general.--Following an order to modify a
delegation agreement under subparagraph (A), the Commission
may suspend the delegation agreement if the electric
reliability organization or the affiliated regional
reliability entity does not propose an appropriate and timely
modification.
``(ii) Assumption of responsibilities.--If a delegation
agreement is suspended, the electric reliability organization
shall assume the responsibilities delegated under the
delegation agreement.
``(iii) Organization Membership.--Each system operator
shall be a member of--
``(1) the electric reliability organization; and
``(2) any affiliated regional reliability entity operating
under an agreement effective under subsection (h) applicable
to the region in which the system operator operates, or is
responsible for the operation of, a transmission facility.
``(j) Enforcement.--
``(1) Disciplinary actions.--
``(A) In general.--Consistent with procedures approved by
the Commission under subsection (d)(4)(H), the electric
reliability organization may impose a penalty, limitation on
activities, functions, or operations, or other disciplinary
action that the electric reliability organization finds
appropriate against a bulk-power system user if the electric
reliability organization, after notice and an opportunity for
interested parties to be heard, issues a finding in writing
that the bulk-power system user has violated an organization
standard.
``(B) Notification.--The electric reliability organization
shall immediately notify the Commission of any disciplinary
action imposed with respect to an act or failure to act of a
bulk-power system user that affected or threatened to affect
bulk-power system facilities located in the United States.
``(C) Right to petition.--A bulk-power system user that is
the subject of disciplinary action under paragraph (1) shall
have the right to petition the Commission for a modification
or rescission of the disciplinary action.
``(D) Injunctions.--If the electric reliability
organization finds it necessary to prevent a serious threat
to reliability, the electric reliability organization may
seek injunctive relief in the United States district court
for the district in which the affected facilities are
located.
``(E) Effective date.--
``(i) In general.--Unless the Commission, on motion of the
Commission or on application by the bulk-power system user
that is the subject of the disciplinary action, suspends the
effectiveness of a disciplinary action, the disciplinary
action shall take effect on the 30th day after the date on
which--
``(I) the electric reliability organization submits to the
Commission--
``(aa) a written finding that the bulk-power system user
violated an organization standard; and
``(bb) the record of proceedings before the electric
reliability organization; and
``(II) the Commission posts the written finding on the
Internet.
``(ii) Duration.--A disciplinary action shall remain in
effect or remain suspended unless the Commission, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, affirms, sets aside,
modifies, or reinstates the disciplinary action.
``(iii) Expedited consideration.--The Commission shall
conduct the hearing under procedures established to ensure
expedited consideration of the action taken.
``(2) Compliance orders.--The Commission, on complaint by
any person or on motion of the Commission, may order
compliance with an organization standard and may impose a
penalty, limitation on activities, functions, or operations,
or take such other disciplinary action as the Commission
finds appropriate, against a bulk-power system user with
respect to actions affecting or threatening to affect bulk-
power system facilities located in the United States if the
Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing,
that the bulk-power system user has violated or threatens to
violate an organization standard.
``(3) Other actions.--The Commission may take such action
as is necessary against the electric reliability organization
or an affiliated regional reliability entity to ensure
compliance with an organization standard, or any Commission
order affecting electric reliability organization or
affiliated regional reliability entity.
``(k) Reliability Reports.--The electric reliability
organization shall--
``(1) conduct periodic assessments of the reliability and
adequacy of the interconnected bulk-power system in North
America; and
``(2) report annually to the Secretary of Energy and the
Commission its findings and recommendations for monitoring or
improving system reliability and adequacy.
``(l) Assessment and Recovery of Certain Costs.--
``(1) In general.--The reasonable costs of the electric
reliability organization, and the reasonable costs of each
affiliated regional reliability entity that are related to
implementation or enforcement of organization standards or
other requirements contained in a delegation agreement
approved under subsection (h), shall be assessed by the
electric reliability organization and each affiliated
regional reliability entity, respectively, taking into
account the relationship of costs to each region and based on
an allocation that reflects an equitable sharing of the costs
among all electric energy consumers.
``(2) Rules.--The Commission shall provide by rule for the
review of costs and allocations under paragraph (1) in
accordance with the standards in this subsection and
subsection (d)(4)(F).
``(m) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the following activities are rebuttably presumed to be
in compliance with the antitrust laws of the United States:
``(A) Activities undertaken by the electric reliability
organization under this section or affiliated regional
reliability entity operating under a delegation agreement
under subsection (h).
``(B) Activities of a member of the electric reliability
organization or an affiliated regional reliability entity in
pursuit of the objectives of the electric reliability
organization or affiliated regional reliability entity under
this section undertaken in good faith under the rules of the
organization of the electric reliability organization or
affiliated regional reliability entity.
``(2) Availability of defenses.--In a civil action brought
by any person or entity against the electric reliability
organization or an affiliated regional reliability entity
alleging a violation of an antitrust law based on an activity
under this Act, the defenses of primary jurisdiction and
immunity from suit and other affirmative defenses shall be
available to the extent applicable.
``(n) Regional Advisory Role.--
``(1) Establishment of regional advisory body.--The
Commission shall establish a regional advisory body on the
petition of the Governors of at least two-thirds of the
States within a region that have more than one-half of their
electrical loads served within the region.
``(2) Membership.--A regional advisory body--
``(A) shall be composed of 1 member from each State in the
region, appointed by the Governor of the State; and
``(B) may include representatives of agencies, States, and
Provinces outside the United States, on execution of an
appropriate international agreement described in subsection
(f).
``(3) Functions.--A regional advisory body may provide
advice to the electric reliability organization, an
affiliated regional reliability entity, or the Commission
regarding--
``(A) the governance of an affiliated regional reliability
entity existing or proposed within a region;
``(B) whether a standard proposed to apply within the
region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(C) whether fees proposed to be assessed within the
region are--
``(i) just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(ii) consistent with the requirements of subsection (l).
``(4) Deference.--In a case in which a regional advisory
body encompasses an entire interconnection, the Commission
may give deference to advice provided by the regional
advisory body under paragraph (3).
``(o) Applicability of Section.--This section does not
apply outside the 48 contiguous States.
``(p) Rehearings; Court Review of Orders.--Section 313
applies to an order of the Commission issued under this
section.
``(q) Preservation of State Authority.--
``(1) Extent of authority of the electric reliability
organization.--The electric reliability organization shall
have authority to develop, implement, and enforce compliance
with standards for the reliable operation of only the bulk-
power system.
``(2) No authority with respect to adequacy or safety.--
This section does not provide the electric reliability
organization or the Commission with the authority to
establish or enforce compliance with standards for adequacy
or safety of electric facilities or services.
``(3) No preemption.--
``(A) In general.--Nothing in this section preempts the
authority of any State to take action to ensure the safety,
adequacy, and reliability of electric service within the
State, so long as the action is not inconsistent with any
organization standard.
``(B) Consistency determination.--Not later than 90 days
after the electric reliability organization or any other
affected party submits to the Commission a petition for a
determination that a State action is inconsistent with an
organization standard,
[[Page S548]]
the Commission shall issue a final order determining whether
a State action is inconsistent with an organization standard,
after notice and opportunity for comment, taking into
consideration any recommendations of the electric reliability
organization.
``(C) Stay.--The Commission, after consultation with the
electric reliability organization, may stay the effectiveness
of any State action, pending the Commission's issuance of a
final order.''.
(b) Enforcement.--
(1) General penalties.--Section 316(c) of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section'';
and
(B) by striking ``or 214'' and inserting ``214, or 215''.
(2) Certain provisions.--Section 316A of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 825o-1) is amended by striking ``or 214'' each
place it appears and inserting ``214, or 215''.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 173. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a
windfall profits adjustment on the production of domestic electricity
and to use the resulting revenues to fund rebates for individual and
business electricity consumers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced a bill to
require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a Western
Regional Rate Cap for the sale of electricity. This is a key component
to bringing stability to the electricity market and an important step
in solving California's electricity problems.
Today, I am introducing the second in a series of bills to deal with
this matter. The Consumer Utilities Turnback, CUT, Trust Fund Act would
impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators, with the
revenues from the tax going into a Trust Fund to provide rebates to
consumers.
Between the second quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of 2000,
the overall net income for electricity producers based outside of
California who sell to California increased 333 percent. Let me also
mention a couple of specific companies. These figures compare the net
income of the first three quarters of 1999 with the net income of the
first three quarters of 2000. For NRG Energy Inc., it was a 386 percent
increase. For the AES Corporation, it was a 262 percent increase. And
for Dynegy Inc., the increase was 269 percent.
While profits for producers are reaching record levels, consumers are
being hit with higher prices. Recent action by the state's Public
Utility Commission has resulted in increases in consumer electricity
bills from 7 to 15 percent. While this action was done to help the
state's utility companies in meeting the wholesale electricity costs,
it means that consumers and businesses are shouldering the burden of
the windfall profits being made by the generating companies.
As I mentioned, the CUT Act would impose a windfall profits tax on
electricity generators. Each year, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, FERC, would calculate the average level of ``reasonable
profit'' determined by state Public Utility Commissions in states in
which such a determination is made. Any profit above this average level
would be windfall profit and would be subject to a 100 percent windfall
profits tax.
The monies raised from the tax would be placed in the CUT Trust Fund
in order to provide rebates to consumers. Governors could request that
FERC provide rebates for consumers and businesses because of high
electricity costs. FERC would then be charged with distributing the
rebates and would be required to provide refunds to consumers each year
in an amount equal to the revenues of the windfall profits tax.
Mr. President, this legislation highlights the dramatic difference
between the burden California consumers are facing and the bountiful
harvest being reaped by electricity generating companies. In dealing
with the electricity situation in California, we must always keep this
in mind.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wellstone,
Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 174. A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the
microloan program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small
Business.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing a
bill to improve the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program,
a program which makes a very big difference through very small loans of
up to $35,000. We are very pleased that Senators Bond, Wellstone,
Cleland, Landrieu, Harkin, Levin, Lieberman, Bingaman, Enzi, and Kohl
are joining us and cosponsoring this bill.
Senator Snowe and I have worked together many times on this program,
pushing to make sure our country's smallest businesses have access to
capital and business assistance. The changes we are introducing today
are not controversial, and they are not new. In fact, they should sound
familiar to all but our newest colleagues. First, they were part of the
microloan provisions in the Senate version of last year's SBA
Reauthorization bill. Second, our Committee and the full Senate voted
unanimously to pass them. Further, they were drafted in cooperation
with the Administration and with the folks who make the loans and
provide the business training. The National Association of SBA
Microloan Intermediaries (NASMI) and its members were full partners in
shaping this legislation in the 106th Congress.
These provisions were not included in the conference agreement on
SBA's Reauthorization bill because the House Committee on Small
Business wanted to postpone consideration of these changes until they
could hold a hearing and their members could have a chance to weigh in
on the program. I thank former House Small Business Committee Chairman
Talent, and returning Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, for working with
us on the microloan changes.
These changes we are re-introducing today will make the SBA Microloan
Program more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to
microentrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined for lenders
to make loans and provide management assistance. They complement the
program and technical changes we made last year.
The Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001 does the following:
It allows microintermediaries to offer revolving lines of credit.
Currently, microloans are short-term loans. Eliminating this
requirement will allow intermediaries greater latitude in developing
microloan products that best meet their community's needs by offering
borrowers revolving lines of credit, such as for seasonal contract
needs. Congress does not intend for this flexibility to be used to make
loans with long terms, such as 15 and 30 years.
It broadens the eligibility criteria for potential
microintermediaries. Instead of requiring intermediaries to have one
year of experience in making microloans to startup, newly established,
or growing small businesses and providing technical assistance to its
borrowers, this legislation would deem a prospective intermediary
eligible if it has equivalent experience.
It expands flexibility to intermediaries to subcontract out technical
assistance. Currently, intermediaries are limited to using 25 percent
of their funds to assist prospective borrowers. This change allows an
intermediary to allocate as much technical assistance as appropriate.
This subsection also increases the percentage of technical assistance
grant funds that an intermediary can use to subcontract out technical
assistance. Currently, intermediaries can only subcontract 25 percent,
and this legislation would raise it to 35 percent.
It establishes a peer-to-peer mentoring program to help new
intermediaries provide the best possible service to microentrepreneurs.
Specifically, SBA would be allowed to use up to $1 million of annual
appropriations for technical assistance grants to provide peer-to-peer
mentoring by subcontracting with one or more national trade
associations of SBA microlending intermediaries, or subcontracting with
entities knowledgeable of and experienced in microlending and related
technical assistance. As Congress increases the number of lending
intermediaries around the country to reach more people, we want to make
sure that new intermediaries have the benefits of lessons learned by
other more
[[Page S549]]
experienced lending intermediaries. Because the microlending industry
is still very young, there are few sources of conventional training
available to prospective and new intermediaries. According to the
National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries, experienced SBA
microlenders are called upon frequently to assist new intermediaries in
addressing issues with their loan fund, from financial management and
marketing to targeting loan funds effectively to a population or
business sector. While these experienced intermediaries do their best
to respond to the needs of their colleagues, they currently lack the
resources to respond effectively and efficiently to the growing needs
of the field.
Before I wrap up my statement, I would like to quickly run through
the changes we made and that President Clinton signed into law on
December 21.
Increases the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000;
Increases the average loan size for each intermediary's portfolio
from $10,000 to $15,000 and increases the average loan size for
specialty lenders from $7,500 to $10,000;
Raises the threshold for the comparable credit test from $15,000 to
$20,000;
Increases the number of non-lending technical assistance (TA)
providers from 25 to 55 and raises the maximum grant amount to each TA
provider from $125,000 to $200,000; and,
Increases the number of intermediaries SBA is authorized to fund from
200 to 300.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 174
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 ``Microloan Program
Improvement Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. MICROLOAN PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``short-term,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the period ``,
or equivalent experience, as determined by the
Administration'';
(3) in paragraph (4)(E)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Each intermediary may expend the grant
funds received under the program authorized by this
subsection to provide or arrange for loan technical
assistance to small business concerns that are borrowers or
prospective borrowers under this subsection.''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``25'' and inserting
``35''; and
(4) in paragraph (9), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Peer-to-peer capacity building and training.--The
Administrator may use not more than $1,000,000 of the annual
appropriation to the Administration for technical assistance
grants to subcontract with 1 or more national trade
associations of eligible intermediaries, or other entities
knowledgeable about and experienced in microlending and
related technical assistance, under this subsection to
provide peer-to-peer capacity building and training to
lenders under this subsection and organizations seeking to
become lenders under this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7(m)(11)(B) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(11)(B)) is amended by striking
``short-term,''.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of
the Senate to legislation vitally important to the success of the
Microloan Program of the Small Business Administration. Congress
created the Microloan Program to reach small businesses not being
served by traditional lenders or other credit programs within the SBA.
This program has successfully helped micro entrepreneurs, many of whom
are minorities, women and low-income individuals, who otherwise would
have been unable to achieve their goal of owning their own business.
Due to weak or, merely, non-existent credit histories and limited
borrowing experience, they were often labeled as unreliable or risky
borrowers by traditional credit markets and, hence, unable to obtain
loans to start businesses.
To address this need and to fill the gap in micro enterprise lending,
the Microloan Program was created to provide loans to non-profit
intermediary lenders who, in turn, provide loans under $35,000 to very
small businesses. In addition to financial resources, intermediary
lenders provide technical assistance to these business owners, teaching
them how to manage and run a successful business. Industry experts and
micro borrowers have testified that supplementing financing with
technical assistance is critical to the success of the micro enterprise
and the likelihood of loan repayment.
Not only crucial to the development of the business of the micro
borrower, micro loans also serve to strengthen and build communities,
both growing and those in need of resurgence. To date, lending
intermediaries have made 10,230 loans, worth in the range of $105
million. This money and business activity is stimulating many
communities. As importantly, loans made by this Program have created
new jobs. The Small Business Administration reports that for every loan
made, 1.7 jobs have been created. Given the number of loans, this
calculates to approximately 17,391 new jobs to strengthen the vitality
of our communities.
The legislation I am cosponsoring today makes programmatic and
technical changes to the Small Business Administration's Microloan
Program, making it more flexible. This flexibility will help the
Program meet more credit needs, be more accessible to micro
entrepreneurs across the country, and streamline procedures which
increase lenders' ability to make loans and provide technical
assistance to micro entrepreneurs.
The Microloan Program has had substantial achievements. In South
Carolina, a small retail establishment's owner wished to sell his
outlet to an employee, but traditional lenders balked. The Microloan
Program gave the employee the helping hand he needed with a micro loan.
He paid that initial loan back early, and a second micro loan, as well.
The banks now knock on his door. In Virginia, a woman, whose husband
became disabled and unable to support the family, used a micro loan to
start a used car dealership. That business has succeeded. So much so
that she has established a program in her community that helps other
women get off welfare by providing the automobile transportation to get
to and from work. I want to be able to cite similar examples in my own
State of Louisiana. In Louisiana, currently, we do not have any micro
lenders enrolled in the Program. However, I have fought for increased
funding to make sure the Program is adequately funded so that
nationwide we can provide more micro loans and technical assistance. In
the last Congress, I voted for legislation that increased the number of
intermediaries authorized from 200 to 300 so that we can reach more
micro entrepreneurs across the country.
And today, the proposed legislation will make the necessary changes
to increase the attractiveness of the Program to prospective micro
lenders in Louisiana and elsewhere around the country. The legislation
being introduced today would broaden the eligibility criteria for
intermediaries in an effort to bring lenders into the Program. This
legislation would allow for intermediaries to have equivalent lending
experience, rather than requiring exact micro lending experience. In
addition, this legislation increases the amounts intermediaries can use
to subcontract technical assistance, thus easing the burden on lenders
in providing technical assistance. This legislation should encourage
intermediaries to get involved in the SBA's Microloan Program in
Louisiana. I urge lenders in my State to take note of the need for
their future involvement in this Program. They could make big
differences in their communities by making very small loans.
I have consistently supported this Program since joining the
Committee on Small Business, and will continue to do so because of the
many benefits that the Microloan Program can provide to micro
entrepreneurs and our communities. Passage of this legislation can
continue the successes of the Microloan Program and extend its reach
into many other communities, such as those in Louisiana. I thank
Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their leadership on this
legislation and encourage the Committee to act on this bill as soon as
practicable.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
[[Page S550]]
S. 175. A bill to establish a national uniform poll closing time and
uniform treatment of absentee ballots in Presidential general
elections; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
S. 176. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
that will make much needed changes to our Presidential election system.
If there was one message to come from the thirty-six day ordeal over
counting the votes in this Presidential election--it was that reforms
are needed in the manner of national elections.
My bill would first establish a uniform poll closing time for the
nation. I believe that 9 p.m. central standard time is the most
appropriate time we can choose. The polls in California would close at
seven. The polls in the east would close at ten. A uniform poll closing
time is preferable to any kind of news blackout over election results.
We live in a free society--we cannot withhold election results.
But, in this time of instant communication, we cannot let news
reporting affect our voting patterns. We all recall the 1980 election,
when President Carter's early concession demoralized West Coast voters
who thought their vote no longer counted. In this last election, we
watched the state of Florida get called, when a significant part of the
state had not even closed its polls. A uniform poll closing time, in my
view, is the only way to avoid a repeat of this problem.
A second difficulty that surfaced during this election cycle is the
counting of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. Some states have
moved to vote by mail. But I don't believe that in a national election,
we can wait on the outcome of an election through such means. A major
industrial nation, in the twenty-first century, shouldn't have to wait
days or weeks to determine who won an election. Literally, the fate of
the Presidency and the Senate depended on the counting of absentee and
mail-in ballots days after the election was held. My legislation would
require that, for Presidential elections, all ballots would have to be
processed and recorded by election day. States can reserve the right to
have mail-in voting. But it must be done in a manner that is respectful
of the nation's right to know who the next President will be.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to improve the treatment that
overseas military absentee ballots are granted. We ask a lot of our men
and women serving overseas. They put their lives on the line to protect
our democratic values. And I was stunned to see their ballots cast
aside like rubbish, purely for political opportunism, and secondly,
because of so called ``technicalities.'' It was an insult to our armed
forces. Never again should this happen. I will make sure that the 107th
Congress acts to make sure it never happens again.
In the past Congress has worked on this problem, but apparently we
did not go far enough. We created a uniform absentee ballot for our
military, if they couldn't get a ballot from their home state in a
timely manner. We directed the Secretary of Defense to serve as the
primary executive branch official charged with enforcing this Federal
law.
My legislation would broaden the Secretary's authority--and give him
the power to develop, in consultation with the states, a standard,
uniform method of treating ballots in Federal elections that come from
our military serving overseas. This way, no soldier or sailor or airman
serving overseas will have his or her vote disenfranchised because of a
patchwork of fifty state laws with respect to absentee ballots. They
protect our democracy. We have to protect their right to participate in
it.
Election reform will be an important issue for this Congress. There
will be many proposals. I know that Senator McConnell, Chairman of the
Rules Committee, will have a proposal to modernize voting procedures
and machinery across our nation. I am certain that some of the reforms
I am offering today will become part of the debate.
Today, I am also introducing the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act
of 2001, legislation that I believe addresses the most significant
problems in our present system of Federal campaign finance laws.
The bill will help level the playing field between challengers and
incumbents and will target those areas of the law that have been
subject to abuse and excess, without imposing a new, untested system of
taxpayer funded campaign subsidies and regulations.
I am today proposing a set of relatively simple and workable reforms
that will curb the abuses undermining public confidence in the present
system, that will make congressional races more competitive, and that
will help return control of federal campaigns and elections to their
rightful owners--the individual voters in our respective states.
First, the bill requires that at least 60 percent of a Senate or
House candidate's campaign funds come from individual residents of his
or her state or congressional district. This will put the emphasis of
fund-raising back home where it belongs, and will assist challengers,
who rely more heavily on individual contributors.
In addition, the bill will end the powerful incumbent advantage of
the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which
they are seeking re-election.
Next, the bill increases the individual contribution limit from $1000
to $3000, per candidate, per election, while addressing the precipitous
rise in the role of PACs in our existing system.
PAC contributions to congressional candidates grew from $12.5 million
in 1974 to almost $200 million in 1996, a constant dollar increase of
over 400 percent. Moreover, almost 70 percent of that $200 million went
to incumbents, further serving to tilt the system against challengers.
While PACs can and should continue to provide a vehicle for groups of
like minded individuals to leverage their support of particular
candidates, this should not be allowed to undermine the candidate/voter
relationship. The bill will help control this growing PAC influence by
also limiting PAC contributions to $3000, the same limit as individuals
under my bill.
To help encourage candidates of average means to run for office
against their wealthier opponents, the bill limits to $250,000 the
amount a Senate campaign may reimburse a candidate, including immediate
family, for loans the candidate makes to the campaign.
The Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001 will also prohibit,
once and for all, several abuses of the law that now plague our system:
campaign contributions by non-citizens will be banned; the use of
campaign funds for purposes that are inherently personal in nature will
be denied; political parties will be prohibited from accepting
contributions earmarked for specific candidates; and union members will
be entitled to be made aware of, and to decline to contribute to, the
rapidly growing political activities of their unions.
Finally, the bill will encourage, not restrict, the volunteer-staffed
political party building, ``get-out-the-vote,'' and other candidate
support activities of state and local political parties that constitute
the core of grassroots politics in America. These critical activities
will be given greater latitude under the law by excluding them from the
definition of campaign contributions.
I realize that campaign finance reform is a contentious issue.
However, if we are to restore the American people's confidence in the
political process and make it more responsive to voters and accessible
to candidates, we must take a hard look at those rules and attempt to
fix what is broken. The Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act does
just that, and in a way that I believe can garner the support of a
decisive majority of Congress.
Mr. President, both of these bills address issues that were raised
during the campaign. I wanted to put these ideas forward today so that
they can become part of the debate when we consider these issues.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 171. A bill to repeal certain travel provisions with respect to
Cuba and certain trade sanctions with respect to Cuba, Iran, Libya,
North Korea, and Sudan, and for other purposes, to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of myself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
[[Page S551]]
Durbin, I introduce a piece of legislation today that deals with the
repeal of certain travel provisions or restrictions and certain trade
sanctions with respect to Cuba.
Last year, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, I offered
legislation dealing with removing the embargo that exists on the
shipment of agriculture commodities around the world.
The fact is, we have some people around the world we don't like. We
say: We are going to punish you.
We don't like Saddam Hussein. We say: The way to punish you is, we
are going to slap an embargo on your country, and in that embargo we
are going to include food and medicine. We say the same to the leaders
of Libya, Cuba and North Korea.
It has been my strong feeling that we ought never have an embargo on
the shipment of food and medicine to anywhere in the world. With those
embargoes, we shoot ourselves in the foot. When we don't sell food to
those countries, other countries will sell food to them. Why on Earth
would we ever want to use food as a weapon? I thought we put that
behind us 20 years ago. Yet we continue to do it with respect to
certain undesirable countries.
I offered legislation in the appropriations bill last year. It came
to the floor of the Senate, and we moved through the Senate into
conference. We had a lot of discussion about it. The fact is, we made
some progress, essentially lifting sanctions and embargoes on the
shipment of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, Sudan and North Korea.
But there is more yet to do. In conference we got stiffed by some
interests who decided at they wanted to even take a step backward with
respect to the ban on travel to Cuba. They took the legislation we
enacted and added to it a further restriction by codifying all the
restrictions that now exist on travel to Cuba and preventing a
President from loosening the travel restrictions. They have written
these restrictions into law, which makes them tighter. That made no
sense. They also added provisions that ban all American financing, even
private financing, for agricultural sales to Cuba. That is a step
backward, not forward.
Let me read what two Members of the House who represent south Florida
said when this was passed:
The prohibition will make it as difficult as is possible to
make agricultural sales to Cuba.
Closing off Clinton's tourism option for Castro is our most
important achievement in years. We are extremely pleased.
I understand why they are pleased. I am not. What was done by this
Congress and just by a few people was wrong. We ought not make it
difficult to sell food or move food or medicine to Cuba or anywhere
else in the world for that matter. It is not in our interest, and it is
not in the interest of others around the world for us to behave in that
manner.
Does anyone think, as I have asked repeatedly, that Fidel Castro or
Saddam Hussein or others miss a meal because we have decided that we
will not ship agricultural products or food to Iraq, Cuba? Does anybody
think they have missed a meal? All these policies do is punish poor
people and hungry people and sick people. This country is better than
that. We ought to start acting like it. This Congress ought to provide
policies that say when 40 years of embargo to Cuba do not work, it is
time to change the policy.
I happen to support lifting the embargo completely. But now we are
just talking about the first piece: allowing the shipment of food and
medicine to Cuba.
Then there is the issue of travel to Cuba. How on Earth can one make
the claim that travel and exchange and movement between the United
States and Cuba somehow undermines our interests? It does not. In my
judgment, the more contact, the more travel, the more movement there is
between the United States and Cuba, the more we will undermine the
interest of the Communist Government of Cuba. That, after all, ought to
be our objective.
Our objective ought to be to find ways to see if we can't create a
new circumstance by which we persuade the Cuban Government to be open,
democratic, and give the people of Cuba an opportunity for the freedoms
they deserve. We have had an embargo for Cuba for 40 years. It has not
worked.
There comes a time when you say something that hasn't worked for 40
years ought to be changed. This is a baby step in making the change
that is needed. Even at that, we faced significant problems last year.
There are a number of people in the Senate who have worked on these
issues for a long while. Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, former Senator
Ashcroft, myself, and others have worked on these issues dealing with
agriculture and travel and other issues for a long while. Senator
Roberts is on the floor. I know he visited Cuba some months ago. I also
have visited Cuba. I found it unthinkable, standing in a hospital in an
intensive care room one day with a little boy who was in a coma, he had
been in an accident, hit his head, was in a coma. He was in an
intensive care room. There were no machines. I have been in intensive
care rooms and have heard the rhythm of machinery pumping life into
patients. Not in that room because they don't have the equipment. This
little boy had his mother by his bedside holding his hand. They told me
at that hospital they were out of 240 different kinds of medicines--240
different medicines they didn't have. They were out of it.
I am sitting there thinking, how could it serve any interest, any
public policy purpose, to believe that our withholding the shipment of
prescription drugs to Cuba is somehow advancing anybody's interest? It
is simply unthinkable. The same holds true with food. Our farmers toil
in the fields of this country and they produce a product that is needed
around the world. We are told that half of the world goes to bed with
an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. A quarter of the
world is on a diet. Then we have farmers here in America struggling to
find gas to put in a tractor to plow the ground, to plant a seed, to
raise a crop, only to go to the elevator in the fall and be told the
crop has no value because there is an oversupply of crops.
The farmer hears the debate over the embargoes and sanctions we have
against countries because we don't like their leaders. We won't ship
food and the farmer get hurt. You talk about a policy that is grounded
in foolishness--this is it. More than foolishness, it is cruel. It is
not what represents the best of this country. This country is a world
leader. This country produces food in prodigious quantity. It is
something the rest of the world desperately needs. To withhold it
anywhere in the world is unbecoming of this country.
On a moral basis, this country has a responsibility to always, always
decide that the shipment of food and medicine is going to be available
anywhere in the world and that we are not going to have embargoes that
include the withholding of medicines anywhere in the world. Dictators
will always get something to eat and medicines to treat their diseases.
Our policy punishes the sick, hungry, and poor people. It ought to
stop.
The bill I introduce today for myself, Senators Roberts, Baucus, and
Durbin simply rescinds those provisions of the FY 2001 Agriculture
Appropriations Act that tightened sanctions on Cuba.
I know I have been on the floor a lot talking about these issues, but
I feel strongly about them. We have the opportunity in this Congress to
undo what we did last year--undo the bad parts. We did make some
progress last year. Yes, we made some progress, but not enough. I want
our policy to be unequivocal and plain, that nowhere in this world,
anywhere, in our relationships in the world, will we use food or
prescription drugs, or medicine, as a weapon. That would represent the
best of this country's instincts.
In my judgment, it will be accomplished when we have the opportunity
to vote on it. The fact is, there are 70 or 80 votes in the Senate by
people who believe in that position. We have just a few hard-core folks
that are still living in the fifties. They drive up here in new cars,
wear new suits, but they are living in the fifties, serving in the
Congress in 2001, still pushing policies that don't work. A few people,
a small cabal of people in this Congress, have prevented us from doing
what we all know we should do, eliminate these kinds of sanctions and
embargoes anywhere in the world.
Mr. President, I am happy to have introduced this today. I hope
colleagues will carefully consider it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S552]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 171
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TRADE SANCTIONS AND TRAVEL
PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeals.--Sections 908 and 910 of the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (as enacted by
section 1(a) of Public Law 106-387) are hereby repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 906(a)(1) of the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (as
enacted by section 1(a) of Public Law 106-387) is amended by
striking ``to Cuba or''.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from North
Dakota to introduce legislation to remove several trade limiting
provisions from the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Although
the intent may have been otherwise, the overall effect was to tighten
existing prohibitions on trade with and tourist travel to Cuba.
Specifically, the purpose of the Dorgan-Roberts bill is to make
changes to Title 9 of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill,
repealing sections 908 & 910 and making a small change to section 906.
Title 9, as you recall, is also known as the Trade Sanctions Reform &
Export Enhancement Act. It made a number of important strides toward
ending the misguided policy of using unilateral food and medicine
sanctions as a foreign policy tool. Title 9, for example, terminates
current unilateral agricultural and medical sanctions and requires
congressional approval for any new unilateral sanctions that Presidents
may consider in the future. That is the good news about last year's
effort.
The bad news is that sections 908 effectively cancels U.S.
agricultural trade with Cuba as it prohibits any U.S.-based private
financing or the application of any U.S. Government agricultural export
promotion program. The de facto effect of this provision is to keep the
Cuban market cut-off from America's farmers. This is unacceptable to
me.
Also, section 906 permits the issuance of only one-year licenses for
contracts to sell agricultural commodities and medicine to Cuba but
places no such restriction on Syria and North Korea. What's the policy?
What kind of confused message is this? We are either going to permit
the sale of food and medicine to all nations despite the presence of
some on the State Department terrorist list or we are not going to
encourage the sale of food and medicine to all Nations. Let us be
consistent in these matters.
Finally, we seek to rescind section 910 which codified prohibitions
against tourist travel or tourist visits to Cuba. This travel ban
stifles the most powerful influence on Cuban society: American culture
and perspective, both economic and political.
When Americans travel, they transmit our nation's ideas and values.
That is one reason why travel was permitted to the Soviet Union and is
permitted to the People's Republic of China. A tourist travel ban is
simply counterproductive.
Trade with Cuba is a very sensitive issue with reasonable, well-
intentioned people on both sides. But it is an issue which must be
addressed as globalization and the aggressive posture of America's
trade competitors increases. We can no longer sacrifice the American
farmer on the altar of the cold war paradigm.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor
of Senator Dorgan's bill that repeals the restrictions on food and
medicine exports to Cuba and removes the legal stranglehold that has
been put on liberalizing travel to Cuba.
In July of last year, I led a Senate delegation to Havana. It was a
brief trip, but we had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of
people and to assess the situation first-hand. We met with Fidel
Castro. We spent three hours with a group of heroic dissidents who
spent years in prison, yet have chosen to remain in Cuba and continue
their dissent. We also met with foreign ambassadors, cabinet ministers,
and the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO.
I left Cuba more convinced than ever that we must end our outdated
Cuba policy. Last year, I introduced legislation to end the embargo and
begin the process of normalization of our relations with Cuba. I will
reintroduce similar legislation this year.
The trade embargo of Cuba is a unilateral sanctions policy. Not even
our closest allies support it. I have long opposed unilateral economic
sanctions, unless our national security is at stake, and the Defense
Department has concluded that Cuba represents no security threat to our
nation.
Unilateral sanctions don't work. They don't change the behavior of
the targeted country. But they do hurt our farmers and business people
by preventing them from exporting, and then allowing our Japanese,
European, and Canadian competitors happily to rush in to fill the gap.
Ironically, the U.S. embargo actually helps Castro. His economy is in
shambles. The people's rights are repressed. These are the direct
results of Castro's totally misguided economic, political, and social
policies. Yet Fidel Castro is able to use the embargo as the scapegoat
for Cuba's misery. Absurd, but true.
We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. The
bill we are introducing today is a good first step. We tried to remove
restrictions on food and medicine exports last year, but a small
minority in the Congress prevented the will of the majority. And they
compounded the damage by codifying restrictions on travel, that is,
removing Presidential discretion to allow increased travel and promote
people-to-people contact between Americans and Cuban citizens.
Removing the food and medicine restrictions won't lead to a huge
surge of American products into Cuba. But, today, Cuba's imports come
primarily from Europe and Asia. With this liberalization, U.S. products
will replace some of those sales. Our agriculture producers will have
the advantage of lower transportation costs and easier logistics. It
will be a start.
Allowing for the expansion of travel will increase the exposure of
the Cuban people to the United States. It will result in more travel by
tourists, business people, students, artists, and scholars. It will
bring us into closer contact with those who will be part of the
leadership in post-Castro Cuba. It will spur more business, helping,
even if only a little, the development of the private sector. Moreover,
we need to restore the inherent right of Americans to travel anywhere.
The world has changed since the United States initiated this embargo
forty years ago. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. But
if we wait until he is completely gone from the scene before we start
to develop normal relations with leaders and people in Cuba, the
transition will be much harder on the Cuban people. Events in Cuba
could easily escalate out of control and become a real danger to the
United States.
I need to stress that a majority of members of Congress, in both the
Senate and the House, supported these initial steps to end the embargo.
By overwhelming votes in both Houses last year, we approved an end to
unilateral sanctions on food and medicine exports to Cuba. But the will
of the majority was stopped by a few members of Congress. This
legislation will correct that.
I hope to see the day when American policy toward Cuba is no longer
controlled by a small coterie of leaders in the Congress along with a
few private groups, and, instead, our policy will serve the national
interest. Today's bill is a good first step.
____________________