[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 11 (Monday, January 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S636-S653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 193. A bill to authorize funding for Advanced Scientific Research
Computing Programs at the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2002
through 2006, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for the Office of
Science to develop a robust scientific computing infrastructure to
solve a number of grand challenges in scientific computing. This bi-
partisan bill, which is referred to as the ``Department of Energy
Advanced Scientific Computing Act'' is co-sponsored by Senators Craig,
Schumer, and Murray. Before discussing this program in detail, let me
briefly frame the proposed effort. First, I will outline the tremendous
advances made in the last decade for scientific computing. Second, I
will give a few examples of the ``grand challenges'' in scientific
computing. Third, I will discuss how the proposed program at the Office
of Science will give our nation's scientists the tools to meet these
grand challenges. I will conclude by demonstrating how this program
integrates with defense related computing programs at the DOE and
across the interagency.
Experts agree that scientific computing R&D is at a critical
juncture. If the breakthroughs proceed as predicted, the information
age could affect our everyday lives far beyond what we nonexperts
currently grasp. It is terribly important that we, as a nation, ensure
that the U.S. maintains a leadership role in scientific computing R&D.
If we fall beyond in this rapidly changing field, our nation could lose
its ability to control the national security, economic and social
consequences from these new information technologies.
What are the possible breakthroughs in scientific computing that
merit such strong programmatic attention? Within the next five years we
expect that advanced scientific computing machines will achieve peak
performance speeds of 100 teraflops or 100 trillion
[[Page S637]]
arithmetic operations per second; that is 100 times faster than today's
most advanced civilian computers. To put things in perspective, the
fastest Pentium III available today can perform about 2 gigaflops (2
billion operations per second), so a 100 teraflops machine is about
50,000 times faster than today's fastest Pentium III. We call this new
wave of computing ``terascale computing''. This new level of computing
will allow scientists and engineers to explore problems at a level of
accuracy and detail that was unimaginable ten years ago. I will discuss
the scientific and engineering opportunities in more detail later.
First, let me discuss some of the challenges in terascale computing.
The major advance that led to terascale computing is the use of
highly parallel computer architectures. Parallel computers send out
mathematical instructions to thousands of processors at once rather
than waiting for each instruction to be sequentially completed on a
single processor. The problem we face in moving to terascale computers
is writing the computer software that utilizes their full performance
capabilities. When we say ``peak'' speeds we mean the ability to use
the full capability of the computer. This happens very rarely in
parallel computers. For example, in 1990 on state-of-the-art Cray
supercomputers with about eight processors, we could obtain, on the
average, about 40-50 percent of the computer's ``peak'' speed. Today,
with massively parallel machines using thousands of processors, we
often obtain only 5-10 percent of the machine's ``peak'' speed. The
issue is how to tailor our traditional scientific codes to run
efficiently on these terascale parallel computers. This is the foremost
challenge that must be overcome to realize the full potential of
terascale computing.
Another problem we face as we move to terascale computing is the
amount of data we generate. Consider the following. Your PC, if it is
one of the latest models, has a hard drive that will hold about 10
gigabytes of data. If we successfully begin to implement terascale
computing, we will be generating ``petabytes'' of data for each
calculation. A petabyte of data is one million gigabytes or the
equivalent of 100,000 hard drives like the one on your PC. A teraflop
machine user will make many runs on these machines. But raw data isn't
knowledge. To turn data into knowledge, we must be able to analyze it--
to determine what it is telling us about the phenomena that we are
studying. None of the data management methods that we have today can
handle petabytes data sets. This is the second challenge that must be
overcome.
And, many more challenges exist.
To make effective use of today's and the future's computing
capability we need to establish a scientific program that is radically
different from what researchers are used to today. Future scientific
computing initiatives must be broad multi-disciplinary efforts.
Tomorrow's scientific computing effort will employ not only the
physicist who wishes to probe the minute details of solid matter in
order to say, built a better magnet, it will include a computer
scientist to help ensure that the physicist's software makes efficient
use of the terascale computer. Terascale computing will also require
mathematicians to develop specialized routines to adapt the solution of
the physicist's mathematical equations to these parallel architectures.
Finally, terascale computers will require specialists in data
networking and visualization who understand how to manage and analyze
the massive amounts of data.
I note these problems to highlight the complexities of tomorrow's
scientific computing environment from the common information
technologies that we employ today. However, because computing
technology moves at such a rapid rate, elements of the issues that I
have described will surely impact us in the near future. Given the
impact information technologies have had only in ten years, it is
important that we, as a nation, lead the initiative in these
breakthroughs so that we can positively control the impact that the
these revolutionary technologies will have on our economy and the
social fabric of our Nation.
What are the important problems that we expect terascale computing to
address? We call these problems ``Grand Challenges''. Terascle
computing will enable climate researchers to predict with greater
certainty how our planet's climate will change in the future, allowing
us to develop the best possible strategies and policy for addressing
climate change. Terascale computing will help chemists understand the
chemical processes involved in combustion, which will translate into
more efficient, less polluting engines. Terascale computing will allow
material scientists to design nanomaterials atom by atom, which will
lead to stronger, yet lighter and hence more energy efficient
materials. Terascale computing will assist nanoscience researchers by
simulating atom manipulation before undertaking complex and expensive
experiments. Nanotechnology will lead to whole new generations of
computer chips, information systems, and stronger, yet lighter
materials. Finally, terascale computing will enable biologists to
understand the structure of the proteins encoded in the human genome,
which will lead to better medicines and health for our citizens. These
fundamental grand challenge problems are now addressable with the
recent advances in scientific computing. Due to the impact the grand
challenge problems will have on our lives, we as a nation, must take
the lead in their investigation.
What are the elements of the proposed effort? The program I propose
will build on the Department of Energy's decades of leadership in high
performance computing and networks to ensure that terascale computing
and petabyte data visualization becomes a positive force for the U.S.
The proposed program has four parts. The first part is the
establishment of core teams of researchers who specialize in the grand
challenge problem itself. An example of a core team is one made up of
geologists and geochemists allied with computer scientists and applied
mathematicians to write large software programs associated with oil
exploration or the diffusion of waste in the subsurface. The scientific
simulation software created by these core teams will be the ``engines''
that drive the scientific discovery process. The second element of the
program enhances the research efforts in computer science and
computational mathematics that underlie this software development
effort. These specialists will ensure that the core teams effectively
use massively parallel computers--not at the current 5-10 percent but
at 50 percent of the computer's peak running speed. These specialists
will also develop the software to manage and visualize the petabytes of
data that the core teams, as well as the next generation of
experimental facilities, generate. Third, this program will fund
specialists to develop the networking and electronic collaboration
software that will allow researchers all across the U.S.--in national
laboratories, universities, and industry to routinely use petabyte data
sets. This new networking capability will translate quickly to the
private sector in the areas of medicine, business transactions, and
education over the internet. Fourth, this program will fund the unique
computer hardware required for scientific investigations of the ``Grand
Challenges'' on a continuing basis. Many of the grand challenge
problems will benefit from specialized computers. This program will
fund such specialized computers. For instance, IBM will build in the
year 2004 or 2005 a unique 1000 teraflops (1000 trillion operations per
second) computer called ``Blue Gene''. Blue Gene will be 500,000 times
faster than your desk PC. This machine will be used by DNA researchers
to predict the structure of proteins and in doing so allow drugs and
medicines to be optimized before they are commercially produced. We
propose to place these one-of-a-kind computers at national user
facilities and make them available to U.S. researchers in national and
government laboratories, universities, and industry.
In summary, we are proposing a program that will substantially
advance our understanding of complex scientific phenomena that affect
our daily lives. At the present we cannot fully understand these
phenomena; it is critical that we master it in our national interest so
to benefit our nation and its people.
[[Page S638]]
Overall, this program will integrate into other DOE advanced
computing efforts and into our national strategy for advanced
scientific computing. In FY01, the DOE National Nuclear Security
Agency, NNSA, funded the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative or
ASCI at $477 million dollars. ASCI's mission--to develop the capability
to simulate the safety and surety of the nuclear weapons in our
stockpile--is critical to the security of our nation. The ASCI program
is a focused and classified program with one primary user--the nuclear
weapons community. Its problems revolve around materials and plasmas
undergoing rapid changes from a nuclear explosion. The Advanced
Scientific Computing Program I am proposing is unclassified and covers
many other areas of science critical to the long term well being of the
nation. This program will involve interaction between researchers at
the nation's national and federal laboratories, universities, and
industry. That is not to say that there will be no integration between
these two worthy and important efforts. Both efforts involve terascale
computers, so clearly we expect that many of the central tools common
to both in terms of hardware design and underlying software for
networks and visualization will be shared. Both programs will benefit
by the two diverse communities working towards the common goal of
terascale computing. And, the NNSA will be able to infuse fresh ideas
from the universities and industry on parallel architectures and data
visualization into their efforts in ensuring the surety of our nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile.
Within the U.S. Government, this effort will fall under the purview
of the National Coordinating Office for Computing, Information and
Communications, ``NCO/CIC''. This Office is charged with coordinating
government-sponsored information technology research programs across
all of the government agencies. The NCO/CIC provides a forum for DOE to
coordinate its scientific computing program with information technology
programs in NSF, DOD, NASA, NIH, NOAA, and other government agencies
interested in high-performance computing. Although the DOE program is
focused on its energy, environmental, and scientific missions, many
benefits will be derived by coordinating its activities with related
computing activities in other agencies. Finally, I note that in our
national implementation plan for ``Information for the Twenty First
Century'', the NSF and the DOE were given the leadership for ``Advanced
Scientific Computing for Science, Engineering and the Nation''. The
program I have outlined supports that role.
In summary, I have outlined a scientific computing program that will
advance our ability to understand complex but important physical,
chemical, and biological phenomena. Advancing our understanding of
global climate change will lead to a better understanding on the
relationship between our energy consumption and the climate on our
planet. Mastering materials and chemical processes at an atomic level
will enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness in many areas such as
energy efficient materials manufacturing and develop new computer chip
technologies. Understanding the flow of contaminants in the groundwater
will help develop better strategies for cleaning up DOE's sites and
help commercial oil and gas extraction. Predicting the structure of
proteins will lead to more effective drugs with minimal side effects.
Beyond solution of the ``Grand Challenges'' are the advancements that
will be made in advanced computing and networking technologies which
will benefit users in areas as diverse as medicine and business. These
problems are of national significance to the health of our citizens and
our future economy in the 21st century.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 194. A bill to authorize funding for successful reentry of
criminal offenders into local communities; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the
``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001,'' a bill I first
introduced last July. The bill is also a part of S. 16, the Democrat's
omnibus crime legislation.
Too often we have short-term solutions for long-term problems. All
too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. It's time that we
start looking forward. It's time that we face the dire situation of
prisoners re-entering our communities with insufficient monitoring,
little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient
housing and deficient basic life skills.
According to the Department of Justice, 1.25 million offenders are
now living in prisons and another 600,000 offenders are incarcerated in
local jails. A record number of those inmates--approximately 585,400
will return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of
returning prisoners have been rearrested for new crimes within three
years.
The safety threat posed by this volume of prisoner returns has been
exacerbated by the fact that states and communities can't possibly
properly supervise all their returning offenders, parole systems have
been abolished in thirteen states and policy shifts toward more
determinate sentencing have reduced the courts' authority to impose
supervisory conditions on offenders returning to their communities.
State systems have also reduced the numbers of transitional support
programs aimed at facilitating the return to productive community life
styles. Recent studies indicate that many returning prisoners receive
no help in finding employment upon release and most offenders have low
literacy and other basic educational skills that can impede successful
reentry.
At least 55 percent of offenders are fathers of minor children, and
therefore face a number of issues related to child support and other
family responsibilities during incarceration and after release.
Substance abuse and mental health problems also add to concerns over
community safety. Approximately 70 percent of state prisoners and 57
percent of federal prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse.
Research by the Department of Justice indicates that between 60 and 75
percent of inmates with heroin or cocaine problems return to drugs
within three months when untreated. An estimated 187,000 state and
federal prison inmates have self-reported mental health problems.
Mentally ill inmates are more likely than other offenders to have
committed a violent offense and be violent recidivists. Few states
connect mental health treatment in prisons with treatment in the return
community. Finally, offenders with contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS
and tuberculosis are released with no viable plan to continue their
medical treatment so they present a significant danger to public
health. And while the federal prison population and reentry system
differs from the state prison population and reentry systems, there are
nonetheless significant reentry challenges at the federal level.
We need to start thinking about what to do with these people. We need
to start thinking in terms of helping these people make a transition to
the community so that they don't go back to a life of crime and can be
productive members of our society. We need to start thinking about the
long-term impact of what we do after we send people to jail.
My legislation creates demonstration reentry programs for federal,
state and local prisoners. The programs are designed to assist high-
risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but
who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they
lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements,
and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health
services they need to successfully reintegrate into society.
Innovative strategies and emerging technologies present new
opportunities to improve reentry systems. This legislation creates
federal and state demonstration projects that utilize these strategies
and technologies. The projects share many core components, including a
more seamless reentry system, reentry officials who are more directly
involved with the offender and who can swiftly impose intermediate
sanctions if the offender does not follow the designated reentry plan,
and the combination of enhanced service delivery and enhanced
monitoring. The different projects are targeted at different prisoner
populations and each has some unique features. The promise of the
legislation is to establish the demonstration projects and then to
rigorously evaluate them to determine
[[Page S639]]
which measures and strategies most successfully reintegrate prisoners
into the community as well as which measures and strategies can be
promoted nationally to address the growing national problem of released
prisoners.
There are currently 17 unfunded state pilot projects, including one
in Delaware, which are being supported with technical assistance by the
Department of Justice. My legislation will fund these pilot projects
and will encourages states, territories, and Indian tribes to partner
with units of local government and other non-profit organizations to
establish adult offender reentry demonstration projects. The grants may
be expended for implementing graduated sanctions and incentives,
monitoring released prisoners, and providing, as appropriate, drug and
alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health
services, victim impact educational classes, employment training,
conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. My
legislation also encourages state agencies, municipalities, public
agencies, nonprofit organizations and tribes to make agreements with
courts to establish ``reentry courts'' to monitor returning offenders,
establish graduated sanctions and incentives, test and treat returning
offenders for drug and alcohol abuse, and provide reentering offenders
with mental and medical health services, victim impact educational
classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and
other social services.
This legislation also re-authorizes the drug court program created by
Congress in the 1994 Crime Law as a cost-effective, innovative way to
deal with non-violent offenders in need of drug treatment. This is the
same language as the ``Drug Court Re-authorization and Improvement
Act'' that I introduced with Senator Specter last Congress.
Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the
criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks to get their acts
together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court
programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in
society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school
or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial
obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. They
are also required to have a sponsor who will keep them on track.
This program works. And that is not just my opinion. Columbia
University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)
found that these courts are effective at taking offenders with little
previous treatment history and keeping them in treatment; that they
provide closer supervision than other community programs to which the
offenders could be assigned; that they reduce crime; and that they are
cost-effective.
According to the Department of Justice, drug courts save at least
$5,000 per offender each year in prison costs alone. That says nothing
of the cost savings associated with future crime prevention. Just as
important, scarce prison beds are freed up for violent criminals.
I have saved what may be the most important statistic for last. Two-
thirds of drug court participants are parents of young children. After
getting sober through the coerced treatment mandated by the court, many
of these individuals are able to be real parents again. More than 500
drug-free babies have been born to female drug court participants, a
sizable victory for society and the budget alike.
This bill re-authorizes programs to provide for drug treatment in
state and federal prisons. According to CASA, 80 percent of the men and
women behind bars in the United States today are there because of
alcohol or drugs. They were either drunk or high when they committed
their crime, broke an alcohol or drug law, stole to support their
habit, or have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. The need for drug
and alcohol treatment in our nations prisons and jails is clear.
Providing treatment to criminal offenders is not ``soft.'' It is a
smart crime prevention policy. If we do not treat addicted offenders
before they are released, they will be turned back onto our streets
with the same addiction problem that got them in trouble in the first
place and they will re-offend. Inmates who are addicted to drugs and
alcohol are more likely to be incarcerated repeatedly than those
without a substance abuse problem. This is not my opinion, it is fact.
According to CASA, 81 percent of inmates with five or more prior
convictions have been habitual drug users compared to 41 percent of
first-time offenders. Re-authorizing prison-based treatment programs is
a good investment and is an important crime prevention initiative.
This legislation is just a first step--but a necessary one. Someday,
we will look back and wonder why we didn't think of this sooner. For
now, we need to implement these pilot projects, help people make it in
their communities and make our streets safer at the same time. I am
certain that in the end we will revel in the results.
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. 194
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 ``Offender Reentry and
Community Safety Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) There are now nearly 1,900,000 individuals in our
country's prisons and jails, including over 140,000
individuals under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.
(2) Enforcement of offender violations of conditions of
releases has sharply increased the number of offenders who
return to prison--while revocations comprised 17 percent of
State prison admissions in 1980, they rose to 36 percent in
1998.
(3) Although prisoners generally are serving longer
sentences than they did a decade ago, most eventually reenter
communities; for example, in 1999, approximately 538,000
State prisoners and over 50,000 Federal prisoners a record
number were returned to American communities. Approximately
100,000 State offenders return to communities and received no
supervision whatsoever.
(4) Historically, two-thirds of returning State prisoners
have been rearrested for new crimes within 3 years, so these
individuals pose a significant public safety risk and a
continuing financial burden to society.
(5) A key element to effective post-incarceration
supervision is an immediate, predetermined, and appropriate
response to violations of the conditions of supervision.
(6) An estimated 187,000 State and Federal prison inmates
have been diagnosed with mental health problems; about 70
percent of State prisoners and 57 percent of Federal
prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse; and nearly 75
percent of released offenders with heroin or cocaine problems
return to using drugs within 3 months if untreated; however,
few States link prison mental health treatment programs with
those in the return community.
(7) Between 1987 and 1997, the volume of juvenile
adjudicated cases resulting in court-ordered residential
placements rose 56 percent. In 1997 alone, there were a total
of 163,200 juvenile court-ordered residential placements. The
steady increase of youth exiting residential placement has
strained the juvenile justice aftercare system, however,
without adequate supervision and services, youth are likely
to relapse, recidivate, and return to confinement at the
public's expense.
(8) Emerging technologies and multidisciplinary community-
based strategies present new opportunities to alleviate the
public safety risk posed by released prisoners while helping
offenders to reenter their communities successfully.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish demonstration projects in several Federal
judicial districts, the District of Columbia, and in the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, using new strategies and emerging
technologies that alleviate the public safety risk posed by
released prisoners by promoting their successful
reintegration into the community;
(2) establish court-based programs to monitor the return of
offenders into communities, using court sanctions to promote
positive behavior;
(3) establish offender reentry demonstration projects in
the states using government and community partnerships to
coordinate cost efficient strategies that ensure public
safety and enhance the successful reentry into communities of
offenders who have completed their prison sentences;
(4) establish intensive aftercare demonstration projects
that address public safety and ensure the special reentry
needs of juvenile offenders by coordinating the resources of
juvenile correctional agencies, juvenile courts, juvenile
parole agencies, law enforcement agencies, social service
providers, and local Workforce Investment Boards; and
[[Page S640]]
(5) rigorously evaluate these reentry programs to determine
their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and promoting
successful offender reintegration.
TITLE I--FEDERAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
SEC. 101. FEDERAL REENTRY CENTER DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, shall
establish the Federal Reentry Center Demonstration project.
The project shall involve appropriate prisoners from the
Federal prison population and shall utilize community
corrections facilities, home confinement, and a coordinated
response by Federal agencies to assist participating
prisoners, under close monitoring and more seamless
supervision, in preparing for and adjusting to reentry into
the community.
(b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) a Reentry Review Team for each prisoner, consisting of
representatives from the Bureau of Prisons, the United States
Probation System, and the relevant community corrections
facility, who shall initially meet with the prisoner to
develop a reentry plan tailored to the needs of the prisoner
and incorporating victim impact information, and will
thereafter meet regularly to monitor the prisoner's
progress toward reentry and coordinate access to
appropriate reentry measures and resources;
(2) regular drug testing, as appropriate;
(3) a system of graduated levels of supervision within the
community corrections facility to promote community safety,
provide incentives for prisoners to complete the reentry
plan, including victim restitution, and provide a reasonable
method for imposing immediate sanctions for a prisoner's
minor or technical violation of the conditions of
participation in the project;
(4) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and
medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and
educational training, life skills instruction, conflict
resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs,
assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other
programming to promote effective reintegration into the
community as needed;
(5) to the extent practicable, the recruitment and
utilization of local citizen volunteers, including volunteers
from the faith-based and business communities, to serve as
advisers and mentors to prisoners being released into the
community;
(6) a description of the methodology and outcome measures
that will be used to evaluate the program; and
(7) notification to victims on the status and nature of
offenders' reentry plan.
(c) Probation Officers.--From funds made available to carry
out this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts shall assign one or more probation
officers from each participating judicial district to the
Reentry Demonstration project. Such officers shall be
assigned to and stationed at the community corrections
facility and shall serve on the Reentry Review Teams.
(d) Project Duration.--The Reentry Center Demonstration
project shall begin not later than 6 months following the
availability of funds to carry out this section, and shall
last 3 years. The Attorney General may extend the project for
a period of up to 6 months to enable participant prisoners to
complete their involvement in the project.
(e) Selection of Districts.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United
States, shall select an appropriate number of Federal
judicial districts in which to carry out the Reentry Center
Demonstration project.
(f) Coordination of Projects.--The Attorney General, may,
if appropriate, include in the Reentry Center Demonstration
project offenders who participated in the Enhanced In-Prison
Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration project
established by section 105.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL HIGH-RISK OFFENDER REENTRY DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Director
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish the
Federal High-Risk Offender Reentry Demonstration project. The
project shall involve Federal offenders under supervised
release who have previously violated the terms of their
release following a term of imprisonment and shall utilize,
as appropriate and indicated, community corrections
facilities, home confinement, appropriate monitoring
technologies, and treatment and programming to promote more
effective reentry into the community.
(b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) participation by Federal prisoners who have previously
violated the terms of their release following a term of
imprisonment;
(2) use of community corrections facilities and home
confinement that, together with the technology referenced in
paragraph (5), will be part of a system of graduated levels
of supervision;
(3) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and
medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and
educational training, life skills instruction, conflict
resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs,
and other programming to promote effective reintegration into
the community as appropriate;
(4) involvement of a victim advocate and the family of the
prisoner, if it is safe for the victim(s), especially in
domestic violence cases, to be involved;
(5) the use of monitoring technologies, as appropriate and
indicated, to monitor and supervise participating offenders
in the community;
(6) a description of the methodology and outcome measures
that will be used to evaluate the program; and
(7) notification to victims on the status and nature of a
prisoner's reentry plan.
(c) Mandatory Condition of Supervised Release.--In each of
the judicial districts in which the demonstration project is
in effect, appropriate offenders who are found to have
violated a previously imposed term of supervised release and
who will be subject to some additional term of supervised
release, shall be designated to participate in the
demonstration project. With respect to these offenders, the
court shall impose additional mandatory conditions of
supervised release that each offender shall, as directed by
the probation officer, reside at a community corrections
facility or participate in a program of home confinement, or
both, and submit to appropriate monitoring, and otherwise
participate in the project.
(d) Project Duration.--The Federal High-Risk Offender
Reentry Demonstration shall begin not later than 6 months
following the availability of funds to carry out this
section, and shall last 3 years. The Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts may extend
the project for a period of up to 6 months to enable
participating prisoners to complete their involvement in the
project.
(e) Selection of Districts.--The Judicial Conference of the
United States, in consultation with the Attorney General,
shall select an appropriate number of Federal judicial
districts in which to carry out the Federal High-Risk
Offender Reentry Demonstration project.
SEC. 103. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTENSIVE SUPERVISION,
TRACKING, AND REENTRY TRAINING (DC ISTART)
DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
From funds made available to carry out this Act, the Trustee
of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of the
District of Columbia, as authorized by the National Capital
Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall establish the
District of Columbia Intensive Supervision, Tracking and
Reentry Training Demonstration (DC iSTART) project. The
project shall involve high risk District of Columbia parolees
who would otherwise be released into the community without a
period of confinement in a community corrections facility and
shall utilize intensive supervision, monitoring, and
programming to promote such parolees' successful reentry into
the community.
(b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) participation by appropriate high risk parolees;
(2) use of community corrections facilities and home
confinement;
(3) a Reentry Review Team that includes a victim witness
professional for each parolee which shall meet with the
parolee--by video conference or other means as appropriate--
before the parolee's release from the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons to develop a reentry plan that incorporates
victim impact information and is tailored to the needs of the
parolee and which will thereafter meet regularly to monitor
the parolee's progress toward reentry and coordinate access
to appropriate reentry measures and resources;
(4) regular drug testing, as appropriate;
(5) a system of graduated levels of supervision within the
community corrections facility to promote community safety,
encourage victim restitution, provide incentives for
prisoners to complete the reentry plan, and provide a
reasonable method for immediately sanctioning a prisoner's
minor or technical violation of the conditions of
participation in the project;
(6) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and
medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and
educational training, life skills instruction, conflict
resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs,
assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other
programming to promote effective reintegration into the
community as needed and indicated;
(7) the use of monitoring technologies, as appropriate;
(8) to the extent practicable, the recruitment and
utilization of local citizen volunteers, including volunteers
from the faith-based communities, to serve as advisers and
mentors to prisoners being released into the community; and
(9) notification to victims on the status and nature of a
prisoner's reentry plan.
(c) Mandatory Condition of Parole.--For those offenders
eligible to participate in the demonstration project, the
United States Parole Commission shall impose additional
mandatory conditions of parole such that the offender when on
parole shall, as directed by the community supervision
officer, reside at a community corrections facility or
participate in a program of home confinement, or both, submit
to electronic and other remote monitoring, and otherwise
participate in the project.
(d) Program Duration.--The District of Columbia Intensive
Supervision, Tracking
[[Page S641]]
and Reentry Training Demonstration shall begin not later than
6 months following the availability of funds to carry out
this section, and shall last 3 years. The Trustee of the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of the
District of Columbia may extend the project for a period of
up to 6 months to enable participating prisoners to complete
their involvement in the project.
SEC. 104. FEDERAL INTENSIVE SUPERVISION, TRACKING, AND
REENTRY TRAINING (FED ISTART) DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
From funds made available to carry out this section, the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts shall establish the Federal Intensive Supervision,
Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration (FED iSTART)
project. The project shall involve appropriate high risk
Federal offenders who are being released into the community
without a period of confinement in a community corrections
facility.
(b) Project Elements.--The project authorized by subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) participation by appropriate high risk Federal
offenders;
(2) significantly smaller caseloads for probation officers
participating in the demonstration project;
(3) substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and
medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and
educational training, life skills instruction, conflict
resolution skills training, batterer intervention programs,
assistance obtaining suitable affordable housing, and other
programming to promote effective reintegration into the
community as needed; and
(4) notification to victims on the status and nature of a
prisoner's reentry plan.
(c) Program Duration.--The Federal Intensive Supervision,
Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration shall begin not
later than 6 months following the availability of funds to
carry out this section, and shall last 3 years. The Director
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts may
extend the project for a period of up to 6 months to enable
participating prisoners to complete their involvement in the
project.
(d) Selection of Districts.--The Judicial Conference of the
United States, in consultation with the Attorney General,
shall select an appropriate number of Federal judicial
districts in which to carry out the Federal Intensive
Supervision, Tracking and Reentry Training Demonstration
project.
SEC. 105. FEDERAL ENHANCED IN-PRISON VOCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
AND TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Authority and Establishment of Demonstration Project.--
From funds made available to carry out this section, the
Attorney General shall establish the Federal Enhanced In-
Prison Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration
project in selected institutions. The project shall provide
in-prison assessments of prisoners' vocational needs and
aptitudes, enhanced work skills development, enhanced release
readiness programming, and other components as appropriate to
prepare Federal prisoners for release and reentry into the
community.
(b) Program Duration.--The Enhanced In-Prison Vocational
Assessment and Training Demonstration shall begin not later
than 6 months following the availability of funds to carry
out this section, and shall last 3 years. The Attorney
General may extend the project for a period of up to 6 months
to enable participating prisoners to complete their
involvement in the project.
SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Attorney General.--Not later than 2 years after the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to
Congress on the progress of the demonstration projects
authorized by sections 101 and 105. Not later than 1 year
after the end of the demonstration projects authorized by
sections 101 and 105, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons shall report to Congress on the effectiveness of the
reentry projects authorized by sections 101 and 105 on post-
release outcomes and recidivism. The report shall address
post-release outcomes and recidivism for a period of 3 years
following release from custody. The reports submitted
pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Committees
on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(b) Administrative Office of the United States Courts.--Not
later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, Director
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
shall report to Congress on the progress of the demonstration
projects authorized by sections 102 and 104. Not later than
180 days after the end of the demonstration projects
authorized by sections 102 and 104, the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall
report to Congress on the effectiveness of the reentry
projects authorized by sections 102 and 104 of this Act on
post-release outcomes and recidivism. The report should
address post-release outcomes and recidivism for a period of
3 years following release from custody. The reports submitted
pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Committees
on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(c) DC ISTART.--Not later than 2 years after the enactment
of this Act, the Executive Director of the corporation or
institute authorized by section 11281(2) of the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall report to
Congress on the progress of the demonstration project
authorized by section 6 of this Act. Not later than 1 year
after the end of the demonstration project authorized by
section 103, the Executive Director of the corporation or
institute authorized by section 11281(2) of the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) shall report to
Congress on the effectiveness of the reentry project
authorized by section 103 on post-release outcomes and
recidivism. The report shall address post-release outcomes
and recidivism for a period of 3 years following release from
custody. The reports submitted pursuant to this section shall
be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary in the House
of Representatives and the Senate. In the event that the
corporation or institute authorized by section 11281(2) of
the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) is
not in operation 1 year after the enactment of this Act, the
Director of National Institute of Justice shall prepare and
submit the reports required by this section and may do so
from funds made available to the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia, as authorized
by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) to
carry out this Act.
SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS.
In this title--
(1) the term ``appropriate prisoner'' means a person who is
considered by prison authorities--
(A) to pose a medium to high risk of committing a criminal
act upon reentering the community, and
(B) to lack the skills and family support network that
facilitate successful reintegration into the community; and
(2) the term ``appropriate high risk parolees'' means
parolees considered by prison authorities--
(A) to pose a medium to high risk of committing a criminal
act upon reentering the community; and
(B) to lack the skills and family support network that
facilitate successful reintegration into the community.
SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
To carry out this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated, to remain available until expended, the
following amounts:
(1) To the Federal Bureau of Prisons--
(A) $1,375,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(B) $1,110,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(C) $1,130,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(D) $1,155,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(E) $1,230,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(2) To the Federal Judiciary--
(A) $3,380,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(B) $3,540,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(C) $3,720,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(D) $3,910,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(E) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(3) To the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
of the District of Columbia, as authorized by the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997 (Pub. Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712)--
(A) $4,860,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(B) $4,510,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(C) $4,620,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(D) $4,740,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(E) $4,860,000 for fiscal year 2006.
TITLE II--STATE REENTRY GRANT PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE
STREETS ACT OF 1968.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended
by inserting at the end the following:
``PART CC--OFFENDER REENTRY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
``SEC. 2951. ADULT OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY
PARTNERSHIPS.
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make
grants of up to $1,000,000 to States, Territories, and Indian
tribes, in partnership with units of local government and
nonprofit organizations, for the purpose of establishing
adult offender reentry demonstration projects. Funds may be
expended by the projects for the following purposes:
``(1) oversight/monitoring of released offenders;
``(2) providing returning offenders with drug and alcohol
testing and treatment and mental health assessment and
services;
``(3) convening community impact panels, victim impact
panels or victim impact educational classes;
``(4) providing and coordinating the delivery of other
community services to offenders such as housing assistance,
education, employment training, conflict resolution skills
training, batterer intervention programs, and other social
services as appropriate; and
``(5) establishing and implementing graduated sanctions and
incentives.
``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other
requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General,
an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan, including how the jurisdiction plans to
pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that
will be coordinated by this project;
``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation
with all affected agencies and there will be appropriate
coordination with
[[Page S642]]
all affected agencies in the implementation of the program,
including existing community corrections and parole; and
``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that
will be used in evaluating the program.
``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under
2601(a)--
``(1) shall prepare the application as required under
subsection 2601(b); and
``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the
guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the
Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of
this part.
``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the
costs of the project funded under this title unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this section.
``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under
this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year
in which funds from a grant received under this part is
expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the
Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of whether such activities are
meeting the needs identified in the application funded under
this part; and
``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $40,000,000 in fiscal years 2002
and 2003; and such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry
out this section in any fiscal year--
``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be
used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative
expenses; and
``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be
used for technical assistance and training.
``SEC. 2952. STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY COURTS.
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make
grants of up to $500,000 to State and local courts or state
agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and tribes that have agreements with courts to
take the lead in establishing a reentry court. Funds may be
expended by the projects for the following purposes:
``(1) monitoring offenders returning to the community;
``(2) providing returning offenders with drug and alcohol
testing and treatment and mental and medical health
assessment and services;
``(3) convening community impact panels, victim impact
panels, or victim impact educational classes;
``(4) providing and coordinating the delivery of other
community services to offenders, such as housing assistance,
education, employment training, conflict resolution skills
training, batterer intervention programs, and other social
services as appropriate; and
``(5) establishing and implementing graduated sanctions and
incentives.
``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other
requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General,
an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan, including how the jurisdiction plans to
pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that
will be coordinated by this project;
``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation
with all affected agencies, including existing community
corrections and parole, and there will be appropriate
coordination with all affected agencies in the implementation
of the program;
``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that
will be used in evaluation of the program.
``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under
2602(a)--
``(1) shall prepare the application as required under
subsection 2602(b); and
``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the
guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the
Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of
this part.
``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the
costs of the project funded under this title unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this section.
``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under
this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year
in which funds from a grant received under this part is
expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the
Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of whether such activities are
meeting the needs identified in the application funded under
this part; and
``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2002
and 2003, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry
out this section in any fiscal year--
``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be
used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative
expenses; and
``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be
used for technical assistance and training.
``SEC. 2953. JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY
PROGRAMS.
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make
grants of up to $250,000 to States, in partnership with local
units of governments or nonprofit organizations, for the
purpose of establishing juvenile offender reentry programs.
Funds may be expended by the projects for the following
purposes:
``(1) providing returning juvenile offenders with drug and
alcohol testing and treatment and mental and medical health
assessment and services;
``(2) convening victim impact panels, restorative justice
panels, or victim impact educational classes for juvenile
offenders;
``(3) oversight/monitoring of released juvenile offenders;
and
``(4) providing for the planning of reentry services when
the youth is initially incarcerated and coordinating the
delivery of community-based services, such as education,
conflict resolution skills training, batterer intervention
programs, employment training and placement, efforts to
identify suitable living arrangements, family involvement and
support, and other services.
``(b) Submission of Application.--In addition to any other
requirements that may be specified by the Attorney General,
an application for a grant under this subpart shall--
``(1) describe a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan, including how the jurisdiction plans to
pay for the program after the Federal funding ends;
``(2) identify the governmental and community agencies that
will be coordinated by this project;
``(3) certify that there has been appropriate consultation
with all affected agencies and there will be appropriate
coordination with all affected agencies, including existing
community corrections and parole, in the implementation of
the program;
``(4) describe the methodology and outcome measures that
will be used in evaluating the program.
``(c) Applicants.--The applicants as designated under
2603(a)--
``(1) shall prepare the application as required under
subsection 2603(b); and
``(2) shall administer grant funds in accordance with the
guidelines, regulations, and procedures promulgated by the
Attorney General, as necessary to carry out the purposes of
this part.
``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this title may not exceed 25 percent of the
costs of the project funded under this title unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this section.
``(e) Reports.--Each entity that receives a grant under
this part shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year
in which funds from a grant received under this part is
expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the
Attorney General may reasonably require that contains:
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of whether such activities are
meeting the needs identified in the application funded under
this part; and
``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $5,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and
2003, and such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
``(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry
out this section in any fiscal year--
``(A) not more than 2 percent or less than 1 percent may be
used by the Attorney General for salaries and administrative
expenses; and
``(B) not more than 3 percent or less than 2 percent may be
used for technical assistance and training.
``SEC. 2954. STATE REENTRY PROGRAM RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
EVALUATION.
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall make
grants to conduct research on a range of issues pertinent to
reentry programs, the development and testing of new reentry
components and approaches, selected evaluation of projects
authorized in the preceding sections, and dissemination of
information to the field.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and such sums as
are necessary to carry out this section in fiscal years 2004,
2005, and 2006.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended, is amended by striking the
matter relating to part Z and inserting the following:
``Part CC--Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act
``Sec. 2951. Adult Offender State and Local Reentry Partnerships.
[[Page S643]]
``Sec. 2952. State and Local Reentry Courts.
``Sec. 2953. Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Programs.
``Sec. 2954. State Reentry Program Research and Evaluation.''.
TITLE III--SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT IN FEDERAL PRISONS REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 301. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT IN FEDERAL PRISONS
REAUTHORIZATION.
Section 3621(e)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(F) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
TITLE IV--RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR STATE PRISONERS
REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 401. REAUTHORIZATION.
Paragraph (17) of section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
``(17) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part S $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.
SEC. 402. USE OF RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT GRANTS
TO PROVIDE FOR SERVICES DURING AND AFTER
INCARCERATION.
Section 1901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Additional Use of Funds.--States that demonstrate
that they have existing in-prison drug treatment programs
that are in compliance with Federal requirements may use
funds awarded under this part for treatment and sanctions
both during incarceration and after release.''.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 195. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 to
establish programs to recruit, retain, and retrain teachers, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I am introducing the A Million
Quality Teachers Act.
Thomas Jefferson once observed that of all the bills in the federal
code, ``by far the most important is that for the diffusion of
knowledge among the people. ``No surer foundation,'' he said, ``can be
devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness.'' President Bush
has reminded us of the importance of education as well. In his
Inauguration Speech, he urged all of us to work together to rebuild our
nation's education system: ``Together we will reclaim America's
schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.''
As President Bush himself noted in that same speech, ``While many of
our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of
our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing
schools, and hidden prejudice, and the circumstances of their birth.''
Our current foundation of elementary and secondary education is grossly
inadequate to enable American children of all income levels and
backgrounds to best realize the ``American dream'' and the economic
freedoms that the ``American dream'' encapsulates.
Most companies dismiss the value of a high school diploma. Twelfth
grade students in the United States rank near the very bottom on
international comparisons in math and science. The Third International
Math and Science Study, the most comprehensive and rigorous comparison
of quantitative skills across nations, reveals that the longer our
students stay in the elementary and public school system, the worse
they perform on standardized tests.
High school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed as college
graduates (3.9% vs. 1.9%). Moreover, the value of a college degree over
a high school degree is rising. In 1970, a college graduate made 136%
more than a high school graduate. Today it is 176%. Even more ominous
are labor participation rates for high school graduates in an
information economy. While labor force participation for adults is at
an all time high in the American economy, this boom has masked a 10%
decline in participation rates for high school graduates since 1970
from 96.3% to 86.4%.
Our children cannot afford to be illiterate in mathematics and
science. The rapidly changing technology revolution demands skills and
proficiency in mathematics, science, and technology. IT, perhaps the
fastest growing sector of our economy, relies on more than basic high
school literacy in mathematics and science.
We have all heard about the impending teacher shortage. The
Department of Education estimates that we will need over 2.2 million
new teachers in the next decade to meet enrollment increases and to
offset the large number of baby boomer teachers who will soon be
retiring. Additionally, although America has many high-quality teachers
already, we do not have enough, and with the impending retirement of
the baby boomer generation of teachers, we will need even more.
Many want to continue to devote significant resources to reducing
class size, and the concept to hire more teachers isn't a bad idea.
Studies have shown that smaller class size may improve learning under
certain circumstances. But class size is only a small piece in the
bigger puzzle to improve America's education system, not the catapult
that will launch us into education prosperity.
Unfortunately, there are too many teachers in America today who lack
proper preparation in the subjects that they teach. My own state of
Tennessee actually does a good job of ensuring that teachers have at
least a major or minor in the subject that they teach--well enough to
receive a grade of A in that category on the recent Thomas Fordham
Foundation report on teacher quality in the states. Even in Tennessee,
however, 64.5% of teachers teaching physical science do not even have a
minor in the subject. Among history teachers, nearly 50% did not major
or minor in history. Many other states do worse.
Additionally, there is consensus that we are not attracting enough of
the best and the brightest to teaching, and not retaining enough of the
best of those that we attract. According to Harvard economist Richard
Murnane, ``College graduates with high test scores are less likely to
become teachers, licensed teachers with high test scores are less
likely to take jobs, employed teachers with high test scores are less
likely to stay, and former teachers with high test scores are less
likely to return.''
A Million Quality Teachers seeks to change that by recruiting, and
helping states recruit into the teaching profession top-quality
students who have majored in academic subjects. We want teachers
teaching math who have majored in and who love math. We want teachers
teaching science who have majored in and who love science. This bill
helps draw those students into teaching for a few years at the very
least, and studies have shown that new teachers are most effective in
the first couple of years of teaching. This bill would attract new
students, and different kinds of students, into teaching by offering
significant loan repayment.
While teachers are one of our nation's most critical professions, it
is often very difficult to attract highly skilled and marketable
college students and graduates because of a profound lack of
competitive salaries and the burden of student loans. In addition to
the loan forgiveness and alternative certification stipends, the
legislation will allow states to use up to $1.3 billion originally
designated in a lump sum to hire more teachers to instead allow the
states to use that money more creatively in programs to attract the
kind of quality teachers they need but cannot afford. Using innovative
tools already tested by many states, such as signing bonuses, loan
forgiveness, payment of certification costs, and income tax credits,
states will be able to once again make teaching an attractive and
competitive career for our brightest college graduates. Additionally,
the legislation does not limit states to these tools, but allows them
to receive grants to continue testing other innovative and new programs
for the same purposes.
There are two parts to the bill. Part I is a competitive grant
program for States to enable them to run their own innovative quality
teacher recruitment, retention and retraining programs. Part II is a
loan forgiveness and alternative certification scholarship program to
entice individuals with strong academic backgrounds into teaching.
The State grant program will help States focus on recruitment,
retention and retraining in the way that best serves the individual
State. Some states may decide to offer a teacher
[[Page S644]]
signing bonus program like the widely publicized and very successful
program in Massachusetts. Other states may choose to institute teacher
testing and merit pay, or to award performance bonuses to outstanding
teachers. The program is very flexible, yet the State must be
accountable for improving the quality of teachers in that State.
States who participate must submit a plan for how they intend to use
funds under the program and how they expect teacher quality to increase
as a result, including the expected increase in the number of teachers
who majored in the academic subject in which they teach, and the number
of teachers who received alternative certification, if the funds are
used for recruitment activities. If the funds are used for retention or
retraining, the State must focus on how the program will decrease
teacher attrition and increase the effectiveness of existing teachers.
States must also report at the end of the three-year grant on how the
program increased teacher quality and increased the number of teachers
with academic majors in the subjects in which they teach and the number
of teachers that received alternative certification and/or how the
program decreased teacher attrition and increased the effectiveness of
existing teachers.
The loan forgiveness provision is different than loan forgiveness
already in current law in that it targets a different population:
students in college or graduate school today who are excelling in an
academic subject. The purpose is to attract students into teaching who
might not otherwise choose to pursue a teaching career and who are
majoring in an academic subject.
Any eligible student may take advantage of the loan forgiveness and
deferral. An eligible student has majored in a core academic subject
with at least a 3.0 GPA and has not been a full-time teacher
previously. Loan payments are deferred for as long as the student is
obtaining alternative certification or teaching in a public school.
The premise of the bill is that teaching is, or will soon be, like
other professions where there is at least some degree of transience. In
fact, recent studies show that most new teachers leave within four
years. But these studies also show that new teachers are most effective
in the first few years of teaching. This bill would attract new
students, and different kinds of students, into teaching by offering
significant loan repayment.
Alternative certification stipends will provide a seamless transition
for a student from school into teaching. The bill provides stipends to
students who have received their academic degrees from a college or
university in order to obtain certification through alternative means.
Students who have received assistance under the loan forgiveness
section get first priority, but any student who has received a
bachelors or advanced degree in a core academic subject with a GPA of
at least 3.0 and who has never taught full-time in a public school is
eligible. Students would receive the lesser of $5,000 or the costs of
the alternative certification program, in exchange for agreeing to
teach in a public school for 2 years.
The job of every new generation is to meet civilization's new
problems, improve its new opportunities, and explore its ever-expanding
horizons, creating dreams not just for themselves, but for all who come
after. Our job--the job of the current generation--is to help them do
just that. Learning is the future. Education is the key. We must embark
upon a national effort to bring it up to a standard demanded by the
challenge, and improving teacher quality is the first step. I hope that
my colleagues will concur.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a refundable personal credit for energy conservation expenditures, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Energy
Conservation Tax Credit Act. As the electricity crisis in California
continues, the entire nation needs to conserve electricity and improve
energy efficiency. No solution to the energy problem is complete
without addressing the need to improve the demand side of the equation.
The Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act would encourage efforts at
energy conservation through a refundable tax credit, grants to schools
to retrofit buildings, and increased information to consumers on their
use of electricity.
The legislation would provide individuals with a refundable tax
credit for the cost of energy conservation measures, such as ceiling
insulation, weather stripping, water heater insulation blankets, low-
flow showerheads, thermal doors and windows, clock thermostats, and
external shading devices. The provisions eligible for the tax credit
are passed on what was included in the California tax code from 1981 to
1986. The bill also includes a provision allowing this list to be
expanded for other devices that the Secretary of Energy determines to
be effective in conserving energy.
The bill would also provide grants to school districts to retrofit
public school buildings to increase energy efficiency and conservation.
Many school buildings are old and do not use energy efficiently.
According to the California Energy Commission, making energy efficient
improvements can reduce a school's annual utility bills by 20 percent.
Unfortunately, particularly in low-income districts, other priorities--
such as textbooks and teachers--often push the need to retrofit down on
the priority list. My bill establishes a grand program to help local
schools make these improvements.
Finally, for consumer information, the bill would require utility
companies to provide information on electricity bills regarding the
amount of electricity used during peak and nonpeak hours and how much
the consumer is paying during each period.
This is not the complete answer to the energy situation in
California. But, it is important, and would be helpful in reducing the
nation's need for electricity.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 197. A bill to provide for the disclosure of the collection of
information through computer software, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, how would you feel if someone was
eavesdropping on your private phone conversations without your
knowledge? Well, if it happened to me, I would be very disturbed. And I
think that most Americans would be very disturbed to know that
something similar may be happening every time they use their computers.
The shocking fact is that many software programs contain something
called spyware. Spyware is computer code that surreptitiously uses our
Internet connection to transmit information about things like our
purchasing patterns and our health and financial status. This
information is collected without our knowledge or explicit permission
and the spyware programs run undetected while you surf the Internet.
Spyware has been found in Quicken software, which is manufactured by
Intuit, Inc. So let me use this as an example. Imagine you purchase
Quicken software or download it from the Internet. You install it on
your computer to help you with your finances. However, unbeknownst to
you, Quicken does more than install financial planning tools on your
computer. It also installs a little piece of spyware. The spyware lies
dormant until one day when you get on the Internet.
As you start surfing the Internet, the spyware sends back information
to Intuit about what you buy and what you are interested in. And all of
this happens without your knowledge. You could be on Amazon.com or
researching health issues and at the very same time Intuit spyware is
using your Internet connection, transmitting some of your most private
data to someone you never heard of.
In the months since it was reported that Quicken contained spyware,
the folks at Intuit may have decided to remove the spyware from
Quicken. However, Quicken is not the only software program that may
contain spyware. One computer expert recently found spyware programs in
popular childrens' software that is designed to help them learn, such
as Mattel Interactive's Reader Rabbit and Arthur's Thinking Games. And,
according to another expert's assessment, spyware is present
[[Page S645]]
in four hundred software programs, including commonly used software
such as RealNetworks RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, and
NetZip Download Demon. Spyware in these software programs can transmit
information about every file you download from the Internet.
Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Spyware Control and
Privacy Protection Act. I first introduced this legislation during the
106th Congress. At that time, Congress was debating how to best address
the Internet privacy issue. Unfortunately, Congress failed to enact
meaningful Internet privacy legislation before the close of the
Congress. I am hopeful that the story will end differently during the
107th Congress. I hope we will pass comprehensive legislation that
enables Americans to regain control over their personal information,
and that helps protect their privacy and the privacy of their families.
I believe my spyware bill is essential to ensuring that these computer
privacy protections are complete, and I will work to make sure it is
incorporated into any Internet privacy legislation that moves in the
Senate.
My proposal is common-sense and simple. It incorporates all four fair
information practices of notice, choice, access and security practices
that I believe are essential to effective computer privacy legislation.
First, the Act requires that any software that contains spyware must
provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice--at the time the
software is installed--that the software contains spyware. The notice
must also describe the information that the spyware will collect and
indicate to whom it will be transmitted.
Another critical provision of my bill requires that software users
must first give their affirmative consent before the spyware is enabled
and allowed to start obtaining and sharing users' personal information
with third parties. In other words, software users must ``opt-in'' to
the collection and transmission of their information. My bill gives
software users a choice whether they will allow the spyware to collect
and share their information.
The Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act allows for some
common-sense exceptions to the notice and opt-in requirements. Under my
proposal, software users would not have to receive notice and give
their permission to enable the spyware if the software user's
information is gathered in order to provide technical support for use
of the software. In addition, users' information may be collected if it
is necessary to determine if they are licensed users of the software.
And finally, the legislation would not apply to situations where
employers are using spyware to monitor Internet usage by their
employees. I believe that this last issue is a serious one and deserves
to be addressed in separate legislation.
Another important aspect of the Spyware Control and Privacy
Protection Act is that it would incorporate the fair information
practice known as ``access.'' What this means is that an individual
software user would have the ability to find out what information has
been collected about them, and would be given a reasonable chance to
correct any errors.
And finally, the fourth fair information practice guaranteed by my
bill is ``security.'' Anyone that uses spyware to collect information
about software users must establish procedures to keep that information
confidential and safe from hackers.
Mr. President, spyware is a modern day Trojan horse. You install
software on your computer thinking it's designed to help you, and it
turns out that something else is hidden inside that may be quite
harmful.
I have been closely following the privacy debate for some time now.
And I am struck by how often I discover new ways in which our privacy
is being eroded. Spyware is among the more startling examples of how
this erosion is occurring.
Most people would agree that modern technology has been
extraordinarily beneficial. It has enabled us to obtain information
more quickly and easily than ever before. And companies have
streamlined their processes for providing goods and services.
But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They
have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and
financial records, and buying habits. In turn, our ability to keep our
personal information private is being eroded.
Even sophisticated computer software users are unlikely to be aware
that information is being collected about their Internet surfing habits
and is likely being fed into a growing personal profile maintained at a
data warehouse. They don't know that companies can and do extract the
information from the warehouse to create a so-called cyber-profile of
what they are likely to buy, what the status of their health may be,
what their family is like, and what their financial situation may be.
I believe that in the absence of government regulation, it is
difficult, if not impossible for people to control the use of their own
personal information. Consumers are not properly informed, and
businesses are under no legal obligation to protect consumers' privacy.
I believe that the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is a
reasonable way to help Americans regain some of their privacy. My
legislation does not prevent software providers from using their
software to collect a consumer's online information. However, it gives
back some control to the consumer by allowing him or her to decide
whether their information may be gathered.
My bill protects consumer privacy, while enabling software companies
and marketing firms to continue obtaining consumers' information if the
consumer so chooses. Confidence in these companies will be enhanced if
they are able to assure their customers that they will not collect
their personal information without their permission.
Privacy protections should not stop with computer software. I am
proud to have cosponsored the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, a much-
needed measure offered by Senator Hollings. This legislation would
prevent Internet service providers, individual web sites, network
advertisers, and other third parties from gathering information about
our online surfing habits without our permission. I intend to be an
original cosponsor of the bill when it is re-introduced.
And during the last Congress, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy
Act in order to prevent phone companies from disclosing consumers'
private phone records without their permission. I will be re-
introducing this bill soon.
Increasingly, technology is impacting our lives and the lives of our
families. I believe that while it is important to encourage
technological growth, we must also balance new developments with our
fundamental right to privacy. Otherwise, we may wake up one day and
realize that our privacy has been so thoroughly eroded that it is
impossible to recover.
I urge my colleagues to support the Spyware Control and Privacy
Protection Act and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 197
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 ``Spyware Control and Privacy
Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION BY COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
(a) Notice and Choice Required.--
(1) In general.--Any computer software made available to
the public, whether by sale or without charge, that includes
a capability to collect information about the user of such
computer software, the hardware on which such computer
software is used, or the manner in which such computer
software is used, and to disclose to such information to any
person other than the user of such computer software, shall
include--
(A) a clear and conspicuous written notice, on the first
electronic page of the instructions for the installation of
such computer software, that such computer software includes
such capability;
(B) a description of the information subject to collection
and the name and address of each person to whom such computer
software will transmit or otherwise communicate such
information; and
(C) a clear and conspicuous written electronic notice, in a
manner reasonably calculated to provide the user of such
computer software with easily understood instructions on how
to disable such capability without affecting the performance
or operation of such computer software for the purposes for
which such computer software was intended.
[[Page S646]]
(2) Enablement of capability.--A capability of computer
software described in paragraph (1) may not be enabled unless
the user of such computer software provides affirmative
consent, in advance, to the enablement of the capability.
(3) Exception.--The requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2)
shall not apply to any capability of computer software that
is reasonably needed to--
(A) determine whether or not the user is a licensed or
authorized user of such computer software;
(B) provide, upon request of the user, technical support of
the use of such computer software by the user; or
(C) enable an employer to monitor computer usage by its
employees while such employees are within the scope of
employment as authorized by applicable Federal, State, or
local law.
(4) Use of information collected through excepted
capability.--Any information collected through a capability
described in paragraph (1) for a purpose referred to in
paragraph (3) may be utilized only for the purpose for which
such information is collected under paragraph (3).
(5) Access to information collected through excepted
capability.--Any person collecting information about a user
of computer software through a capability described in
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) upon request of the user, provide reasonable access by
user to information so collected;
(B) provide a reasonable opportunity for the user to
correct, delete, or supplement such information; and
(C) make the correction or supplementary information a part
of the information about the user for purposes of any future
use of such information under this subsection.
(6) Security of information collected through excepted
capability.--Any person collecting information through a
capability described in paragraph (1) shall establish and
maintain reasonable procedures necessary to protect the
security, confidentiality, and integrity of such information.
(b) Preinstallation.--In the case of computer software
described in subsection (a)(1) that is installed on a
computer by someone other than the user of such computer
software, whether through preinstallation by the provider of
such computer or computer software, by installation by
someone before delivery of such computer to the user, or
otherwise, the notice and instructions under that subsection
shall be provided in electronic form to the user before the
first use of such computer software by the user.
(c) Violations.--A violation of subsection (a) or (b) shall
be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice
proscribed by section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(d) Disclosure to Law Enforcement or Under Court Order.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, a computer software provider that collects
information about users of the computer software may disclose
information about a user of the computer software--
(A) to a law enforcement agency in response to a warrant
issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in
accordance with paragraph (3); or
(B) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding
granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information
that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--
(i) the user to whom the information relates is given
reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of
the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and
(ii) the user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to
appear and contest the issuance of the requested order or to
narrow its scope.
(2) Safeguards against further disclosure.--A court that
issues an order described in paragraph (1) shall impose
appropriate safeguards on the use of the information to
protect against its unauthorized disclosure.
(3) Court orders.--A court order authorizing disclosure
under paragraph (1)(A) may issue only with prior notice to
the user and only if the law enforcement agency shows that
there is probable cause to believe that the user has engaged,
is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity and
that the records or other information sought are material to
the investigation of such activity. In the case of a State
government authority, such a court order shall not issue if
prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order
pursuant to this paragraph, on a motion made promptly by the
computer software provider may quash or modify such order if
the information or records requested are unreasonably
voluminous in nature or if compliance with such order
otherwise would cause an unreasonable burden on the provider.
(e) Private Right of Action.--
(1) Actions authorized.--A person may, if otherwise
permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in
an appropriate Federal court, if such laws or rules prohibit
such actions, either or both of the actions as follows:
(A) An action based on a violation of subsection (a) or (b)
to enjoin such violation.
(B) An action to recover actual monetary loss for a
violation of subsection (a) or (b) in an amount equal to the
greater of--
(i) the amount of such actual monetary loss; or
(ii) $2,500 for such violation, not to exceed a total
amount of $500,000.
(2) Additional remedy.--If the court in an action under
paragraph (1) finds that the defendant willfully, knowingly,
or repeatedly violated subsection (a) or (b), the court may,
in its discretion, increase the amount of the award under
paragraph (1)(B) to an amount not greater than three times
the amount available under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
(3) Litigation costs and attorney fees.--In any action
under paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion,
require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of such
action and assess reasonable costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, against the defendant.
(4) Venue.--In addition to any contractual provision
otherwise, venue for an action under paragraph (1) shall lie
where the computer software concerned was installed or used
or where the person alleged to have committed the violation
concerned is found.
(5) Protection of trade secrets.--At the request of any
party to an action under paragraph (1), or any other
participant in such action, the court may, in its discretion,
issue a protective order and conduct proceedings in such
action so as to protect the secrecy and security of the
computer, computer network, computer data, computer program,
and computer software involved in order to--
(A) prevent possible recurrence of the same or a similar
act by another person; or
(B) protect any trade secrets of such party or participant.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Collect.--The term ``collect'' means the gathering of
information about a computer or a user of computer software
by any means, whether direct or indirect and whether active
or passive.
(2) Computer.--The term ``computer'' means a programmable
electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data.
(3) Computer software.--(A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the term ``computer software'' means any
program designed to cause a computer to perform a desired
function or functions.
(B) The term does not include a text file, or cookie,
placed on a person's computer system by an Internet service
provider, interactive computer service, or commercial
Internet website to return information to the Internet
service provider, interactive computer service, commercial
Internet website, or third party if the person subsequently
uses the Internet service provider or interactive computer
service, or accesses the commercial Internet website.
(4) Information.--The term ``information'' means
information that personally identifies a user of computer
software, including the following:
(A) A first and last name, whether given at birth or
adoption, assumed, or legally changed.
(B) A home or other physical address including street name
and name of a city or town.
(C) An electronic mail address.
(D) A telephone number.
(E) A social security number.
(F) A credit card number, any access code associated with
the credit card, or both.
(G) A birth date, birth certificate number, or place of
birth.
(H) Any other unique information identifying an individual
that a computer software provider, Internet service provider,
interactive computer service, or operator of a commercial
Internet website collects and combines with information
described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of this paragraph.
(5) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given that
term in section 3(32) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 153(32)).
(6) User.--The term ``user'' means an individual who
acquires, through purchase or otherwise, computer software
for purposes other than resale.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Smith
of Oregon):
S. 198. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish
a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed
management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public and private land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to
introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide
assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate
harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that
Senators Baucus, Burns, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Johnson, and Gordon
Smith are joining us as original cosponsors.
I have stood before Congress for the past three years pushing
legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some
members tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but I have seen the
destruction caused when non-native weeds are not treated and are left
to over take native species.
[[Page S647]]
Non-native weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species
and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important
threat to bio-diversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows so thick
that big game like deer will move out of the area to find edible
plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent
recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous
plants.
Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and
worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. As you may recall, that bill
primarily dealt with Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's authority
to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and
plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and
enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping
the weeds at the border.
Stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort.
First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming
established in the United States, which was the focus of the Plant
Protection Act. Second, we must stop or slow the spread of the non-
native weeds we already have, which is the focus of the Harmful Non-
native Weed Control Act.
I have been working with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
Public Lands Council, and the Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful
Non-native Weed Control Act. This legislation will provide a mechanism
to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a
collaborative way. Working together is what the entire initiative is
about.
Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of Secretary of
the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to
eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior
appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation to
funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will
allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management
entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or
eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds
will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited
to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which
the federal funds will be used to leverage non-federal funds to address
the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made
progress in addressing the problems.
The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation
to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible
weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the
control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or
private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment, a weed
management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed
management or public education purposes, provide the State a
description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other
requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also
eligible for financial awards--funds awarded by the State on a
competitive basis to carry out projects which can not be funded within
the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal
consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding
based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood
that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the
project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within
the state. A 50 percent non-federal match is required to receive the
funds.
The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a
Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative
effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers,
state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties.
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the
strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together
all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and
prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative
manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide
coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost-
share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record
of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will
build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for
success in other states.
As I have said before, non-native weeds are a serious problem on both
public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly
troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the
management of the federal government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,''
noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the
land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely
on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers,
recreationists, and others.
I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these non-
native weeds. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and
ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in
Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the
rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property
boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must be fighting
at the federal, state, local, and individual levels. The Harmful Non-
native Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent
in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work
together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we
can protect our land, livelihood, and environment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 198
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 ``Harmful Nonnative Weed
Control Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) public and private land in the United States faces
unprecedented and severe stress from harmful, nonnative
weeds;
(2) the economic and resource value of the land is being
destroyed as harmful nonnative weeds overtake native
vegetation, making the land unusable for forage and for
diverse plant and animal communities;
(3) damage caused by harmful nonnative weeds has been
estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars
annually;
(4) successfully fighting this scourge will require
coordinated action by all affected stakeholders, including
Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners,
and nongovernmental organizations;
(5) the fight must begin at the local level, since it is at
the local level that persons feel the loss caused by harmful
nonnative weeds and will therefore have the greatest
motivation to take effective action; and
(6) to date, effective action has been hampered by
inadequate funding at all levels of government and by
inadequate coordination.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide assistance to eligible weed management
entities in carrying out projects to control or eradicate
harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land;
(2) to coordinate the projects with existing weed
management areas and districts;
(3) in locations in which no weed management entity, area,
or district exists, to stimulate the formation of additional
local or regional cooperative weed management entities, such
as entities for weed management areas or districts, that
organize locally affected stakeholders to control or
eradicate weeds;
(4) to leverage additional funds from a variety of public
and private sources to control or eradicate weeds through
local stakeholders; and
(5) to promote healthy, diverse, and desirable plant
communities by abating through a variety of measures the
threat posed by harmful, nonnative weeds.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the advisory committee established under section 5.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the
Secretary a program to provide financial assistance through
States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private
land.
[[Page S648]]
SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish in the
Department of the Interior an advisory committee to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual
allocation of funds to States under section 6 and other
issues related to funding under this Act.
(b) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed
of not more than 10 individuals appointed by the Secretary
who--
(1) have knowledge and experience in harmful, nonnative
weed management; and
(2) represent the range of economic, conservation,
geographic, and social interests affected by harmful,
nonnative weeds.
(c) Term.--The term of a member of the Advisory Committee
shall be 4 years.
(d) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--A member of the Advisory Committee shall
receive no compensation for the service of the member on the
Advisory Committee.
(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Advisory Committee
shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an
agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, while away from the home or regular place of
business of the member in the performance of the duties of
the Advisory Committee.
(e) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory
Committee.
SEC. 6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--In consultation with the Advisory
Committee, the Secretary shall allocate funds made available
for each fiscal year under section 8 to States to provide
funding in accordance with section 7 to eligible weed
management entities to carry out projects approved by States
to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public
and private land.
(b) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of
funds allocated to a State for a fiscal year under this
section on the basis of--
(1) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
or potential problem in the State, or a portion of the State;
(2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to
leverage non-Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative
weed problems in the State;
(3) the extent to which the State has made progress in
addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems in the State;
(4) the extent to which weed management entities in a State
are eligible for base payments under section 7; and
(5) other factors recommended by the Advisory Committee and
approved by the Secretary.
SEC. 7. USE OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO STATES.
(a) In General.--A State that receives an allocation of
funds under section 6 for a fiscal year shall use--
(1) not more than 25 percent of the allocation to make a
base payment to each weed management entity in accordance
with subsection (b); and
(2) not less than 75 percent of the allocation to make
financial awards to weed management entities in accordance
with subsection (c).
(b) Base Payments.--
(1) Use by weed management entities.--
(A) In general.--Base payments under subsection (a)(1)
shall be used by weed management entities--
(i) to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out
projects described in subsection (d) that are selected by the
State in accordance with subsection (d); or
(ii) for any other purpose relating to the activities of
the weed management entities, subject to guidelines
established by the State.
(B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out a project described in
subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
(2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be
eligible to obtain a base payment under paragraph (1) for a
fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
(A) be established by local stakeholders--
(i) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; or
(ii) to increase public knowledge and education concerning
the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land;
(B)(i) for the first fiscal year for which the entity
receives a base payment, provide to the State a description
of--
(I) the purposes for which the entity was established; and
(II) any projects carried out to accomplish those purposes;
and
(ii) for any subsequent fiscal year for which the entity
receives a base payment, provide to the State--
(I) a description of the activities carried out by the
entity in the previous fiscal year--
(aa) to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; or
(bb) to increase public knowledge and education concerning
the need to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on
public or private land; and
(II) the results of each such activity; and
(C) meet such additional eligibility requirements, and
conform to such process for determining eligibility, as the
State may establish.
(c) Financial Awards.--
(1) Use by weed management entities.--
(A) In general.--Financial awards under subsection (a)(2)
shall be used by weed management entities to pay the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out projects described in
subsection (d) that are selected by the State in accordance
with subsection (d).
(B) Federal share.--Under subparagraph (A), the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out a project described in
subsection (d) shall not exceed 50 percent.
(2) Eligibility of weed management entities.--To be
eligible to obtain a financial award under paragraph (1) for
a fiscal year, a weed management entity in a State shall--
(A) meet the requirements for eligibility for a base
payment under subsection (b)(2); and
(B) submit to the State a description of the project for
which the financial award is sought.
(d) Projects.--
(1) In general.--An eligible weed management entity may use
a base payment or financial award received under this section
to carry out a project relating to the control or eradication
of harmful, nonnative weeds on public or private land,
including--
(A) education, inventories and mapping, management,
monitoring, and similar activities, including the payment of
the cost of personnel and equipment; and
(B) innovative projects, with results that are disseminated
to the public.
(2) Selection of projects.--A State shall select projects
for funding under this section on a competitive basis, taking
into consideration (with equal consideration given to
economic and natural values)--
(A) the seriousness of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
or potential problem addressed by the project;
(B) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve
the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving similar
problems in the future;
(C) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-
Federal funds to address the harmful, nonnative weed problem
addressed by the project;
(D) the extent to which the entity has made progress in
addressing harmful, nonnative weed problems;
(E) the extent to which the project will provide a
comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of
harmful, nonnative weeds;
(F) the extent to which the project will reduce the total
population of a harmful, nonnative weed within the State; and
(G) other factors that the State determines to be relevant.
(3) Scope of projects.--
(A) In general.--A weed management entity shall determine
the geographic scope of the harmful, nonnative weed problem
to be addressed through a project using a base payment or
financial award received under this section.
(B) Multiple states.--A weed management entity may use the
base payment or financial award to carry out a project to
address the harmful, nonnative weed problem of more than 1
State if the entity meets the requirements of applicable
State laws.
(4) Land.--A weed management entity may use a base payment
or financial award received under this section to carry out a
project to control or eradicate weeds on any public or
private land with the approval of the owner or operator of
the land, other than land that is devoted to the cultivation
of row crops, fruits, or vegetables.
(5) Prohibition on projects to control aquatic noxious
weeds or animal pests.--A base payment or financial award
under this section may not be used to carry out a project to
control or eradicate aquatic noxious weeds or animal pests.
(e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the
funds made available under section 8 for a fiscal year may be
used by the States or the Federal Government to pay the
administrative costs of the program established by this Act,
including the costs of complying with Federal environmental
laws.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Larry
Craig and a number of my other colleagues the Harmful Non-native Weed
Control Act of 2001. This legislation will provide critically needed
resources to local agencies to reduce the spread of harmful weeds that
are destroying the productivity of farmland and reducing ecological
diversity.
In the last few years, public and private lands in the west have seen
a startling increase in the spread of harmful, non-native weeds. In
south Dakota, these weeds choke out native species, destroy good
grazing land, and cost farmers and ranchers thousands of dollars a year
to control. On public lands in South Dakota and throughout the west,
the spread of the weeds has outpaced the ability of land managers to
control them, threatening species diversity and, at times, spreading on
to private land.
This problem has become so severe that, last year, the White House
has created an Invasive Species Council to address it. Former Secretary
Bruce
[[Page S649]]
Babbitt noted, ``The blending of the natural world into one great
monoculture of the most aggressive species is, I think, a blow to the
spirit and beauty of the natural world.''
Despite these efforts, the scale of this problem is vast. Some
estimate that it could cost well into the hundreds of millions of
dollars to control effectively the spread of these weeds. This
legislation will help to meet that need by putting funding directly
into the hands of the local weed boards and managers who already are
working to control this problem and whose lands are directly affected.
Specifically, this legislation authorizes new weed control funding
and establishes an Advisory Board in the Department of Interior to
identify the areas of greatest need for the distribution of those
funds. States, in turn, will transfer up to 25 percent of it directly
to local weed control boards in order to support ongoing activities and
spur the creation of new control boards, where necessary. The remaining
75 percent of funds will be made available to weed control boards on a
competitive basis to fund weed control projects.
Mr. President, I'd like to thank Senator Craig for his work on this
issue, and to thank the National Cattleman's Beef Association and the
Nature Conservancy, who have been instrumental to the development of
this bill. Now that this legislation has been introduced, it is my hope
that we can work with all interested stakeholders to enact it as soon
as possible. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this
process.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I join Senator Craig in sponsoring the
Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. This bill will require the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance
through States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land. In a
state like Montana, where we depend heavily on the bounty of the land
to support the lifestyle we enjoy, weed control has a very important
place in land management. Noxious weeds attack the natural balance of
the range and the entire ecosystem, along with threatening the health
and productivity of public and private lands.
When I visit with Montana ranchers, farmers, recreationists, and
others who live close to the land, they continually mention their
concern over noxious weeds. These folks are worried about how the weeds
are changing the face of the land, and I am too. When these weeds take
hold and native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is
compromised, livestock carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition
of the land is jeopardized. Over the last few years we have been able
to secure appropriations to increase research efforts with respect to
weeds management. I think this is a step in the right direction, but we
also need our land management agencies and to work with private land
owners.
One thing is clear: this is not just a public lands problem, nor is
it only a private landowner problem. Without cooperation from both
sides, any efforts from the other group are compromised. This bill
presents a great opportunity for cooperation, and a chance for the
federal government to demonstrate a commitment to stewardship of our
public lands. Sadly, this is a commitment we have not seen enough of
lately.
Aside from the ongoing battle against nonnative weeds in the West,
this year we have an added urgency to do something real about the
problem. When fires swept over millions of acres of public and private
land last summer, that land was made especially vulnerable to weed
infestation. Aside from repairing the immediate damage to structures
and making sure we are able to control erosion and protect clean water,
we have an obligation to fight the weeds that will otherwise take over
these lands. As hard as we have worked in the Senate to create fire
programs that repair last year's damage and keep it from happening
again, it would be a step in the wrong direction to leave weed
prevention by the wayside. Preventing non-native species from taking
hold right now will be a much better investment than trying to control
the invasion later. We cannot afford to stand by and do nothing.
In some ways, the disease of weed infestation resembles the challenge
of wildfire. Both are economically and environmentally devastating, and
do not distinguish between public and private land. A recent study
presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
estimates that non-native species cause $123 billion in damage
annually. This figure is more than twice the annual economic damage
caused by all natural disasters in the United States.
There are no silver bullets here, and we won't be able to fix things
overnight, but with hard work and a commitment to this cause, I know we
can make a difference. It is time the federal government step up to its
obligations to Americans, and take decisive action to fight nonnative
weeds. This is a serious problem, and I am proud to be working with my
colleagues in the Senate to fix it.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 199. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Transportation to oversee the competitive activities
of air carriers following a concentration in the airline industry, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today because I am deeply concerned
with the sudden increase in airline merger proposals. Many have
predicted that if the proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways
is allowed to go forward, it will be followed by mergers of other major
airlines, and we will soon have an industry dominated by mega-carriers.
American Airlines recently bought Reno Air, and now is proposing a
merger of American Airlines and Trans World Airlines. If this trend
continues, we could end up with only three airlines in America. That
could drive prices sky high and cut the number of available flights,
which will be terrible for consumers.
I know first hand that mergers can hurt consumers. In my own state,
the Reno-Tahoe International Airport lost flights when American
Airlines bought Reno Air. Flights were reduced significantly and now it
is harder for people to fly in and out of the Reno and Lake Tahoe
areas.
The purpose of deregulation was to encourage competition. Evidence
seems to support a reduction in competition. It seems to be having an
opposite effect. I am very concerned with the recent airline merger
proposals and the merger frenzy that may follow. We must maintain as
much competition as possible in the airline industry.
This legislation will protect consumers against monopolistic abuses.
I emphasize that this type of legislation is not my preferred
approach--I would greatly prefer to continue to have consumers
protected by adequate competition in a free market.
I emphasize that the bill is not a ``deregulation'' bill. Airlines
will remain free to set prices and provide service without prior
government approval. However, the bill will give DOT authority to
intervene if the airlines take unfair advantage of the absence of
sufficient competition.
We are at a critical juncture for the future of a competitive airline
industry. The inescapable lesson of 22 years of deregulation is that
mergers and a reduction in competition often lead to higher fares for
the American traveling public. We cannot stand idly by and allow the
benefits of deregulation to be derailed by a wave of mergers.
Mr. President, my bill will take effect as a result of consolidation
or mergers that occur between two or more of the top seven airline
carriers, or if three or fewer of those air carriers control more than
70% of domestic revenue passenger miles. Highlights of my Airline
Competition Preservation bill are as follows:
Monopolistic Fares--The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
require reduction in fares that are unreasonably high. The factors to
be considered include:
Whether the fare in question is higher than fares charged in similar
markets; whether the fare has been increased in excess of cost
increases; and whether there is a reasonable relationship between fares
charged leisure travelers and those charged business travelers.
If a fare is found to be unreasonably high, the Secretary may order
that it
[[Page S650]]
be reduced, that the reduced fare be offered for a specified number of
seats and that rebates be offered.
Preventing Unfair Practices Against Low Fare New Entrants: If a
dominant incumbent carrier responds to low fare service by a new
entrant by matching the low fare, and offering two or more times the
low fare seats as the new entrant, the dominant carrier must continue
to offer the low fare for two years.
Increasing Competition At Hubs: If a dominant carrier at a hub
airport is taking advantage of its monopoly power by offering fares 5%
or more above industry average fares, in more than 20% of hub markets,
DOT may take steps to facilitate added competition at the hub.
Mr. President, no one wants the federal government to micro manage
private industry. But our airways are not just a private industry--they
are a public trust. People need to be able to fly across our vast
nation--to do business, to see family members, and to enjoy their
lives. If these mergers proceed without the competitive protections I
am proposing, then the ultimate irony of deregulation will be that we
will have traded government concern for the public interest, for
private monopoly control in the interests of the industry.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Airline Competition
Preservation 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. 199
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 ``Airline Competition
Preservation Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. OVERSIGHT OF AIR CARRIER PRICING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 415 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 41512. Oversight of air carrier pricing
``(a) Effective Date.--
``(1) In general.--This section shall take effect
immediately upon a determination by the Secretary of
Transportation that 3 or fewer air carriers account for 70
percent or more of the scheduled revenue passenger miles in
interstate air transportation as a result of--
``(A) the consolidation or merger of the properties (or a
substantial portion of the properties) of 2 or more of the 7
air carriers that account for the highest number of scheduled
revenue passenger miles in interstate air transportation into
a single entity that owns or operates the properties
previously in separate ownership; or
``(B) the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or contract to
operate) of the properties (or a substantial portion of the
properties) of 1 or more of the 7 air carriers described in
subparagraph (A) by another of such carriers.
``(2) Use of data.--For the purpose of determining the
number of scheduled revenue passenger miles under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall use data from the latest year for
which complete data is available.
``(3) Determination of air carrier concentration.--In
making a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall attribute to an air carrier those scheduled revenue
passenger miles in interstate air transportation of the air
carrier that is consolidated, merged, or acquired that are
associated with routes adopted by the remaining carrier.
``(b) Fares of Air Carriers.--
``(1) In general.--On the initiative of the Secretary or on
a complaint filed with the Secretary, the Secretary may
undertake an investigation to determine whether an air
carrier is charging a fare or an average fare for interstate
air transportation on a route that is unreasonably high.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining whether a fare or an
average fare of an air carrier for interstate air
transportation on a route is unreasonably high, the Secretary
shall consider, among other factors, whether--
``(A) the fare or average fare is higher than the fare or
average fare charged by the carrier on other routes in
interstate air transportation of comparable distances;
``(B) the fare or average fare has increased by a
significant amount in excess of any increase in the cost to
operate flights on the route; and
``(C) the range of fares specified on the route or the
carrier's entire fare system offers a reasonable balance and
a fair allocation of costs between passengers who are
primarily price sensitive and passengers who are primarily
time sensitive.
``(3) Actions in response to unreasonable fares.--If the
Secretary determines that an air carrier is charging a fare
or an average fare for interstate air transportation on a
route that is unreasonably high, the Secretary, after
providing the carrier an opportunity for a hearing, may order
the carrier--
``(A) to reduce the fare;
``(B) to offer the reduced fare for a specific number of
seats on the route; and
``(C) to offer rebates to individuals who have been charged
the fare.
``(4) Period of effectiveness of order.--An order issued by
the Secretary under this subsection shall remain in effect
for a period to be determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Actions of Dominant Air Carriers in Response to New
Entrants.--If, with respect to a route in interstate air
transportation to or from a hub airport, a dominant air
carrier at the airport--
``(1) institutes or changes its fares for air
transportation on the route in a manner that results in fares
that are lower than or comparable to the fares offered by a
new entrant air carrier for such air transportation; and
``(2) increases the passenger capacity at which such fares
are offered on the route to a level which is--
``(A) 2 or more times the capacity previously offered by
the carrier at such fares on the route; and
``(B) 2 or more times the total capacity offered by the new
entrant air carrier on the route, the dominant air carrier,
in the 2-year period beginning on the date that such fares
and additional capacity are instituted, shall continue to
offer such fares with respect to not less than 80 percent
of the highest number of seats per week for which the
dominant air carrier has offered the fares.
``(d) Ensuring Competition at Hub Airports.--
``(1) In general.--On the initiative of the Secretary or on
a complaint filed with the Secretary, the Secretary may
undertake an investigation to determine whether a dominant
air carrier at a hub airport is charging higher than average
fares at the airport.
``(2) Higher than average fares.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the Secretary may determine that a dominant air carrier
is charging higher than average fares at a hub airport if the
carrier is charging, with respect to 20 percent or more of
its routes in interstate air transportation that begin or end
at the airport, an average fare that is at least 5 percent
higher than the average fare being charged by all air
carriers on routes in interstate air transportation of
comparable distances and density, after adjustments for costs
that are carrier or airport specific, such as passenger
facility charges or employee compensation.
``(3) Actions in response to unfair competition.--If the
Secretary determines under paragraph (1) that a dominant air
carrier is charging higher than average fares at a hub
airport, the Secretary, after providing the carrier an
opportunity for a hearing, may order the carrier to take
actions to increase opportunities for competition at the hub
airport, including--
``(A) requiring the carrier to make gates, slots, and other
airport facilities available to other air carriers on
reasonable and competitive terms;
``(B) requiring adjustments in the commissions paid by the
carrier to travel agents;
``(C) requiring adjustments in the carrier's frequent flyer
program; and
``(D) requiring adjustments in the carrier's corporate
discount arrangements and comparable corporate arrangements.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Dominant air carrier.--The term `dominant air
carrier', with respect to a hub airport, means an air carrier
that accounts for more than 50 percent of the total annual
boardings at the airport in the preceding 2-year period or a
shorter period specified in paragraph (3).
``(2) Hub airport.--The term `hub airport' means an airport
that each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual
boardings in the United States.
``(3) Interstate air transportation.--The term `interstate
air transportation' includes intrastate air transportation.
``(4) New entrant air carrier.--The term `new entrant air
carrier', with respect to a hub airport, means an air carrier
that accounts for less than 5 percent of the total annual
boardings at the airport in the preceding 2-year period or in
a shorter period specified by the Secretary if the carrier
has operated at the airport less than 2 years.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``41512. Oversight of air carrier pricing.''.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 200. A bill to establish a national policy of basic consumer fair
treatment for airline passengers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this past holiday season saw a record number
of Americans travel by air. Unfortunately, it also saw increases in
some common problems associated with air travel--delayed and cancelled
flights, customer confusion, and occurrences of ``air rage.''
The number of delayed, cancelled and diverted flights has been
increasing steadily over the past few years, reaching record highs last
year. Last week, the Department of Transportation released a management
report indicating that, from 1995 to 1999, the number of flight delays
rose 58 percent and cancelled flights grew by 68 percent. In just one
year, 1999, passenger complaints grew by 16 percent. During the
[[Page S651]]
first nine months of 2000, one of every four flights was cancelled,
delayed or diverted, affecting more than 119 million passengers. The
average delay was 50 minutes.
Disturbingly, the report also indicated an increase in the number of
near-misses and runway safety errors that could have led to collisions
between aircraft both in the air and on the ground.
And amid these problems, the number of choices available to customers
keeps decreasing. Within the past few months, National Airlines
terminated much of its service, United Airlines announced a merger with
USAir, and American Airlines announced its acquisition of TWA. If
approved, these mergers would allow only three airlines to dominate the
commercial airline industry.
More than a year ago, the airlines announced voluntary pledges to
improve their customer service and reduce delays, and asked for time to
carry out their promises. But it's obvious that those voluntary
promises have not worked. In addition to the increase in delays and
customer complaints, a preliminary report by the Inspector General
released last summer revealed a number of unfair and deceptive
practices by the industry, including providing false or inaccurate
information to passengers about the reasons for delays.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, recently confirmed by the
Senate, warned a few days ago that flight delays this coming summer
will likely be as bad or worse than they have been the past two years.
It's time for Congress to take action.
Last year, I introduced S. 2891, the Air Travelers' Fair Treatment
Act of 2000, which was aimed at addressing some of the most pressing
problems associated with air travel. Today, I am re-introducing a
modified version of that bill, which is titled the ``Air Travelers'
Fair Treatment Act of 2001.''
The new bill includes six main provisions:
(1) Flight delays: Air carriers would be required to provide
travelers with accurate and timely explanations of the reasons for a
flight cancellation, delay or diversion from a ticketed itinerary. The
failure to do so would be classified as an unfair practice that would
subject the airline to civil penalties.
(2) Right to exit aircraft: Where a plan has remained at the gate for
more than 1 hour past its scheduled departure time and the captain has
not been informed that the aircraft can be cleared for departure within
15 minutes, passengers would have the right to exit the plane into the
terminal to make alternative travel plans, or simply to stretch their
legs, get something to eat, etc. I believe this provision will help
prevent ``air rage'' incidents when passengers are forced to sit in
parked planes for long periods of time.
(3) Right to in-flight medical care: Currently, each airline has its
own policy regarding what kind of medical and first-aid equipment and
training is provided on their flights, so that the available equipment
and medical training varies widely between carriers. This bill would
direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue uniform minimum
regulations for all carriers regarding the type of medical equipment
each flight must carry and the kind of medical training each flight
crew should receive.
(4) Access to State laws: The Federal Courts have split on whether
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 pre-empts state consumer
protection and personal injury laws as applied to airlines. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that passengers may sue airlines in
state court for violations of state fraud and consumer protection laws;
in contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that airlines are immune from
state law. The bill would clarify that the 1978 Act does not preempt
state tort and consumer protection laws, allowing passengers full
access to their consumer rights in whatever state they are in.
(5) Termination of ticket agents: Travel agencies provide a valuable
service to customers looking for the best prices. Yet airlines have
enormous leverage over what kind of information they can and cannot
provide to customers, because they can withdraw their accounts without
notice from any travel agency for any reason--even if the only reason
is that the travel agency is giving the customer the best rates. The
bill requires carriers to provide written 90-day advance statement of
reasons before canceling a travel agency's account with the airline,
and to give them 60 days to correct the identified deficiencies.
(6) Safety records: Right now, many airlines are reluctant to release
information to the public relating to their safety records, including
their accident record and certification compliance records. But I
believe that passengers should have the right to know whether the
airline they are flying has complied with government safety standards,
whether it has been fined or penalized for safety violations, and how
many accidents or safety violations the airlines has been involved in.
This bill will include a new provision requiring the Secretary of
Transportation to develop regulations under which the safety,
inspection, certification compliance and accident records of the
airlines will be made available to any customer upon request.
Mr. President, air travel has become a staple of modern society. All
of us in this body rely on it frequently to return to our home states.
But by almost every measure, the quality and reliability of air travel
continues to decline. I think it's past time that Congress stepped in
and forced the airlines to do what they have been unwilling to do so
far on their own--to clean up their act. I ask my colleagues to join
me.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Air Travelers Fair
Treatment 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. 200
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 ``Air Travelers Fair Treatment
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FAIR TREATMENT OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS.
Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Specific Practices.--For purposes of subsection (a),
the term `unfair or deceptive practice' includes each of the
following:
``(1) Flight delays.--The failure of an air carrier or
foreign air carrier to provide a passenger of the carrier
with an accurate explanation of the reasons for a flight
delay, cancellation, or diversion from a ticketed itinerary.
``(2) Termination of ticket agents.--In the case of a
termination, cancellation, nonrenewal, or substantial change
in the competitive circumstances of the appointment of a
ticket agent by an air carrier or foreign air carrier, the
failure of the air carrier or foreign air carrier--
``(A) to provide the ticket agent with written notice, and
a full statement of reasons for the action, on or before the
90th day preceding the action; and
``(B) to provide the ticket agent with at least 60 days to
correct any deficiency claimed in the written notice,
except in cases of insolvency, an assignment for the benefit
of creditors, bankruptcy, or nonpayment of sums due under the
appointment.''.
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS.
Section 41713(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``related to a price, route, or service
of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under
this subpart'' and inserting ``that directly prescribes a
price, route, or level of service for air transportation
provided by an air carrier under this subpart''.
SEC. 4. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE; RIGHT OF EGRESS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 41722. Airline passenger rights
``(a) Right to In-Flight Emergency Medical Care.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
prescribe regulations to establish minimum standards for
resuscitation, emergency medical, and first-aid equipment and
supplies to be carried on board an aircraft operated by an
air carrier in air transportation that is capable of carrying
at least 30 passengers.
``(2) Considerations.--In prescribing regulations under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the weight and size of the equipment described in
paragraph (1);
``(B) the need for special training of air carrier
personnel to operate the equipment safely and effectively;
``(C) the space limitations of each type of aircraft;
``(D) the effect of the regulations on aircraft operations;
``(E) the practical experience of airlines in carrying and
operating similar equipment; and
[[Page S652]]
``(F) other relevant factors.
``(3) Consultation.--Before prescribing regulations under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service.
``(b) Right To Exit Aircraft.--No air carrier or foreign
air carrier operating an aircraft in air transportation shall
prevent or hinder (including by failing to assist) any
passenger from exiting the aircraft (under the same
circumstances as any member of the flight crew is permitted
to exit the aircraft) if--
``(1) the aircraft is parked at an airport terminal gate
with access to ramp or other facilities through which
passengers are customarily boarded and deplaned;
``(2) the aircraft has remained at the gate more than 1
hour past its scheduled departure time; and
``(3) the captain of the aircraft has not been informed by
air traffic control authorities that the aircraft can be
cleared for departure within 15 minutes.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``41722. Airline passenger rights.''.
SEC. 5. CONSUMER ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
(a) Requirement for Program.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 44727. Air traveler safety program
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Written information.--The Secretary of Transportation
(in this section referred to as the `Secretary') shall
require in regulations, for a period determined by the
Secretary, that each air carrier that provides interstate air
transportation or foreign air transportation to provide
written information upon request, to passengers that purchase
passage for interstate or foreign air transportation
concerning the following:
``(A) Safety inspection reviews conducted by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (in this
section referred to as the `Administrator') on the aircraft
of that air carrier.
``(B) The safety ranking of that air carrier, as determined
by the Administrator in accordance with applicable law.
``(C) The compliance of the members of the crew of the
aircraft with any applicable certification requirements under
this subtitle.
``(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued by the Secretary
under this subsection shall provide guidelines for air
carriers relating to the provision of the information
referred to in paragraph (1).
``(3) Request for information.--An air carrier shall be
required to provide to a passenger, on request, any
information concerning the safety of aircraft and the
competency of persons issued a certificate under this
subtitle for the operation of the aircraft that the
Secretary, to the extent allowable by law, determines to be
appropriate.
``(b) Submission of Performance Review.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each year,
the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress regarding the
safety of air carriers that provide interstate or foreign air
transportation. The report shall include with respect to the
year in which the report is filed--
``(A) the number of accidents and a description of such
accidents of air carriers attributable to each air carrier
that provides interstate or foreign air transportation; and
``(B) the names of makers of aircraft that have been
involved in an accident.
``(2) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall
make the annual report under paragraph (1) available to any
person or entity upon request.
``(A) travel agencies and consultants for distribution to
persons served by those agencies and consultants; and
``(B) any other person or entity upon request.
``(c) Victims' Rights Program.--
``(1) In general.--The National Transportation Safety Board
shall establish and administer a program for victims and
survivors of aircraft accidents in air commerce. Under that
program, the National Transportation Safety Board shall
ensure that such victims and survivors of an accident
receive, to the extent allowable by law, immediate and
unrestricted access to information on the accident that is
made available from--
``(A) the air carrier involved in an accident in air
commerce;
``(B) the Federal Government; and
``(C) State governments and political subdivisions thereof.
``(2) Classified information.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may
be construed to authorize a release of information that is
specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy.
``(d) Coordination of Victim Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The National Transportation Safety
Board, in cooperation with officials of appropriate Federal
agencies and the American Red Cross, shall establish a
program to ensure the coordination of the disclosure of
information under subsection (c) and assistance provided to
victims of an accident in air commerce.
``(2) Establishment of toll-free telephone line.--
``(A) In general.--The National Transportation Safety
Board, in cooperation with officials of the appropriate
Federal agencies and the American Red Cross, shall establish
a toll-free telephone line to facilitate the provision of
information under paragraph (3).
``(B) Action by the national transportation safety board.--
The National Transportation Safety Board shall take such
action as may be necessary to ensure--
``(i) the publication of the telephone number of the
telephone line established under subparagraph (A) in
newspapers of general circulation; and
``(ii) the provision of such number on national television
news programs.
``(3) Information provided by telephone line.--The
telephone line established under paragraph (2) shall provide
the following information concerning an accident in air
commerce:
``(A) The identifier name and number of the aircraft
involved in the accident.
``(B) The names of known victims of the accident.
``(C) The status of the investigation of the accident.
``(D) A list of appropriate Federal agencies and contacts.
``(E) The facilities at which victims of the accident may
be identified.
``(e) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any air carrier that fails to provide
information in accordance with this section shall be liable
for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per
violation.
``(2) Travel agencies and other persons not covered.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a travel agency or other
person that does not provide interstate or foreign air
transportation.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``44727. Air traveler safety program.''.
(b) Time for Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall issue the regulations required by subsection (a) of
section 44727 of title 49, United States Code (as added by
subsection (a)), not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Submittal of First Annual Report.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall submit the first annual report to
Congress under subsection (b) of such section 44727 not later
than December 31, 2001.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 202. A bill to rename Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts
as ``Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts''; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to rename
the Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts as the ``Wolf Trap
National Park for the Performing Arts''. Wolf Trap is the only unit of
the National Park System dedicated to the performing arts. It provides
an unrivaled setting for live performances in the rolling countryside
of Virginia outside of Washington, D.C.
To provide this unique experience, the National Park Service
collaborates with the Wolf Trap Foundation in a public/private
partnership to offer cultural, natural, and educational experiences to
the community and to the nation. The National Park Service maintains
the grounds and buildings of Wolf Trap Farm Park. The Wolf Trap
Foundation, a ``501(c)(3)'' not-for-profit organization, creates and
selects the programming, develops all education programs, handles
ticket sales, marketing, publicity and public relations, and raises
funds to support these programs. The Park Service has an annual budget
of just over $3 million to maintain the facility while the Wolf Trap
Foundation has an annual budget of $22 million, 60% of which is
generated through ticket sales with the rest raised through private
donations.
Wolf Trap offers a wide variety of educational programs including the
nationally acclaimed Wolf Trap Institute for Early Learning Through the
Arts for preschoolers, scholarships and performance opportunities for
talented high school musicians, pre-performance preview lectures, the
America's Promise mentoring program, the Mars Millennium project
partnership with Buzz Aldrin Elementary School, the Folk Masters Study
Units for teachers who want to incorporate the folk arts into their
curriculum, a highly competitive internship program for college
students, and master classes for people with all skill levels and
interest. Wolf Trap has also gained world-wide recognition for its
summer residency program for young opera singers, the Wolf Trap Opera
Company.
This legislation recognizes Wolf Trap's status as one of the crown
jewels in the National Park System. Including Wolf Trap with the
already designated National Parks is intended to
[[Page S653]]
raise awareness of the unique roll this facility plays in the nation's
natural, cultural and educational life. I urge my colleagues to join me
in recognizing the many achievements of Wolf Trap.
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. 202
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RENAMING.
The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment
of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County, Virginia, and
for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16 U.S.C. 284) is
amended in the first section and in section 11(2) by striking
``Wolf Trap Farm Park'' and inserting ``Wolf Trap National
Park for the Performing Arts''. Any reference to such park in
any law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record of
the United States shall be considered to be a reference to
the ``Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts''.
SEC. 2. USE OF NAME.
The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment
of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County, Virginia, and
for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16 U.S.C. 284) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 14. Any reference to the park other than by the name
`Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts' shall be
prohibited.''.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.
Any laws, rules, or regulations that are applicable solely
to units of the National Park System that are designated as a
``National Park'' shall not apply to ``Wolf Trap National
Park for the Performing Arts'' nor to any other units
designated as a ``National Park for the Performing Arts''.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.
Section 4(c)(3) of ``An Act to provide for the
establishment of the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County,
Virginia, and for other purposes'', Public Law 89-671 (16
U.S.C. 284) is amended by striking ``Funds'' and inserting
``funds''.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 201. A bill to require that Federal agencies be accountable for
violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federal
Employee Protection Act of 2001. This bill will significantly
strengthen existing laws protecting federal employees from
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. It is an
unfortunate fact that too many federal employees are subjected to such
treatment with alarming regularity.
My bill will result in a more productive work environment by ensuring
agencies enforce the laws intended to protect federal employees from
harassment, discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing.
The Federal Employee Protection Act contains three main provisions:
No. 1, when agencies lose judgments or make settlements in harassment,
discrimination and whistleblower cases, the responsible Federal agency
would pay any financial penalty out of its own budget, rather than out
of a general Federal judgment fund; No. 2, Federal agencies are
required to notify their employees about any applicable discrimination,
harassment and whistleblower protection laws; and No. 3, each Federal
agency is required to send an annual report to Congress and the
Attorney General listing: the number of cases in which an agency was
alleged to have violated any of the discrimination, harassment or
whistleblower statutes; the disposition of each of these cases; the
total of all monetary awards charged against the agency from these
cases; and the number of agency employees disciplined for
discrimination or harassment or retaliation. Additionally, the Federal
Employee Protection Act requires each Federal agency to submit a one-
time report to Congress and the Attorney General that includes the same
information required for the annual reports going back for the last ten
years. This report will provide a historical perspective to help
evaluate current agency behavior.
Under current law, agencies are not accountable financially when they
lose harassment, discrimination and retaliation cases because any
financial penalties are paid out of a government-wide fund and not the
agency's budget. I firmly believe that because there is no financial
consequence to their actions, Federal agencies are essentially able to
escape responsibility when they fail to comply with the law and are
unresponsive to their employees' concerns.
Reports of Federal agencies being indifferent or hostile to
complaints of sexual harassment and racial discrimination undermine the
ability of the Federal Government to enforce civil rights laws and
hamper efforts to recruit talented individuals for Federal employment.
The Federal Government must set an example for the private sector by
promoting a workplace that does not tolerate harassment or
discrimination of any kind and that encourages employees to report
illegal activity and mismanagement without fear of reprisal.
I believe the Federal Employee Protection Act of 2001 will give
Federal employees the protections they need to perform their jobs
effectively and will give the taxpayers a government with more
accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
____________________