Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 14 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1012-S1021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Murkowski, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Helms, Mr. Bunning, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Craig, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 234. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the excise tax on telephone and other communications services; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Breaux
and others, to introduce a bill to repeal the

[[Page S1013]]

telephone excise tax--the Help Eliminate the Levy on Locution Act known
as the HELLO Act. The telephone excise tax is a tax that is outdated,
unfair, and complex for both consumers to understand and for the phone
companies to administer. It cannot be justified on any tax policy
grounds.
Mr. President, the federal government has had the American consumer
on ``hold'' for too long when it comes to this tax. The telephone
excise tax has been around for over 102 years. In fact, it was first
imposed in 1898--just 22 years after the telephone itself was invented.
So quickly was it imposed that it almost seems that Uncle Sam was there
to collect it before Alexander Graham Bell could put down the receiver
from the first call. In fact, the tax is so old that Bell himself would
have paid it!
This tax on talking--as it is known--currently stands at 3 percent.
Today, about 94 percent of all American families have telephone
service. This means that virtually every family in the United States
must tack an additional 3 percent on to their monthly phone bill. The
federal tax applies to local phone service; it applies to long distance
service; and it even applies in some cases to the extra amounts paid
for state and local taxes. It is estimated that this tax costs the
American public more than $5 billion per year.
The telephone excise tax is a classic story of a tax that has been
severed from its original justifications, but lives on solely to
collect money.
In truth, the Federal phone tax has had more legislative lives than a
cat. When the tax was originally imposed, Teddy Roosevelt was leading
the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. At that time, it was billed as a
luxury tax, as only a small portion of the American public even had
telephones. The tax was repealed in the early 20th century, but then
was reinstated at the beginning of World War I. It was repealed and
reinstated a few more times until 1941, when it was made permanent to
raise money for World War II. In the mid-60s, Congress scheduled the
elimination of the phone tax, which had reached levels of 10 and 25
percent. But once again, the demands of war intervened, as the
elimination of the tax was delayed to help pay for Vietnam. In 1973,
the phone tax began to phase-out, but one year before it was about to
be eliminated, it rose up yet again--this time justified by the
rationale of deficit reduction--and has remained with us ever since.
This tax is a perfect example of why we must stop needlessly
collecting the taxpayer's money--it does not pass any of the
traditional criteria used for evaluating tax policy. First, this phone
tax is outmoded. Once upon a time, it could have been argued that
telephone service was a luxury item and that only the rich would be
affected. As we all know, there is nothing further from the truth
today.
Second, the federal phone tax is unfair. Because this tax is a flat 3
percent, it applies disproportionately to low and middle income people.
For example, studies show that an American family making less than
$50,000 per year spends at least 2 percent of its income on telephone
service. A family earning less than $10,000 per year spendings over 9
percent of its income on telephone service. Imposing a tax on those
families for a service that is a necessity in a modern society is
simply not fair.
Third, the federal phone tax is complex. Once upon a time, phone
service was simple--there was one company who provided it. It was an
easy tax to administer. Now, however, phone service is intertwined with
data services and Internet access, and it brings about a whole new set
of complexities. For instance, a common way to provide high speed
Internet access is through a digital subscriber line. This line allows
a user to have simultaneous access to the Internet and to telephone
communications. How should it be taxed? Should the tax be apportioned?
Should the whole line be tax free? And what will we do when cable,
wireless, and satellite companies provide voice and data communications
over the same system? The burdensome complexity of today will only
become more difficult tomorrow.
As these questions are answered, we run the risk of distorting the
market by favoring certain technologies. There are already numerous
exceptions and carve-outs to the phone tax. For instance, private
communications services are exempt from the tax. That allows large,
sophisticated companies to establish communications networks and avoid
paying any federal phone tax. It goes without saying that American
families do not have that same option.
Speaking of complexity, let me ask if anyone has taken a look at
their most recent phone bill. It is a labyrinth of taxes and fees piled
one on top of another. We may not be able to figure out what all the
fees are for; but we do know that they add a big chunk to our phone
bill. According to a recent study, the mean tax rate across the country
on telecommunications is slightly over 18 percent. That is about a 6
percent rise in the last 10 years. I can't control the state and local
taxes that have been imposed, but I can do my part with respect to the
federal taxes. I seek to remove this burden from the citizens of my
state--and all Americans across the country.
As members of Congress, we need to make sure that our tax policies do
not stifle that economic expansion. We should not adhere to policies
that are a relic from a different time. In today's economy, the
arguments for repeal are even stronger.
Mr. President, it is time to end the federal phone tax. For too long
while America has been listening to a dial tone, Washington has been
hearing a dollar tone. This tax is outmoded. Why are we taxing a poor
family's phone with a tax that was originally meant for luxury items.
Mr. President, it is time we hung up the phone tax once and for all. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its repeal, and help all
Americans to say ``Hello.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 234

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 ``Help Eliminate the Levy on
Locution (HELLO) Act.''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by
striking subchapter B.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking
``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064
and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting
``and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections
4064 and 4121),''.
(2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is
amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is
amended by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that follows
through ``with respect to'' and inserting ``imposed by
section 4261 or 4271 with respect to''.
(C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code
is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
(3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking
``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting
``4261 or 4271''.
(4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
by striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is
amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered
on or after 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 238. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
feasibility studies on water optimization in the Burnt River basin.
Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River Basin,
Oregon; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that
will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on
ways to improve water management in the Malheur, Owyhee, Powder and
Burnt River basins in northeastern Oregon. An earlier study by the
Bureau identified a number of problems on these four Snake River
tributaries, including high water temperatures and degraded habitat.
These types of problems are not unique to these rivers; in fact, many

[[Page S1014]]

rivers in the Pacific Northwest are in a similar condition. However,
Oregon has a unique approach to solving these problems through the work
of Watershed Councils. In these Councils, local farmers, ranchers and
other stakeholders sit down together with the resource agencies to
develop action plans to solve local problems.
The Council members have the local knowledge of the land and waters,
but they don't have technical expertise. The Bureau of Reclamation has
the expertise to collect the kinds of water flow and water quality data
that are needed to understand how the watershed works and how effective
different solutions might be.
One class of possible solutions includes small-scale construction
projects, such as upgrading of irrigation systems and creation of
wetlands to act as pollutant filters. This legislation would allow the
Bureau of Reclamation to partner with the Watershed Councils in
determining how such small-scale construction projects might benefit
both the environment and the local economy.
This bill authorizes a study; it does not authorize actual
construction. It simply enables the Bureau to help find the most
logical solution to resource management issues.
Last Congress, the Senate passed the same bill I am introducing
today. However, the other body did not act on the legislation before
the last Congress adjourned.
I look forward to prompt action to enact this bill in the current
Congress. I welcome my colleague, Mr. Smith, as an original cosponsor
of this bill.
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. 238

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 ``Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and
Powder River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility Study Act
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

The Secretary of the Interior may conduct feasibility
studies on water optimization in the Burnt River basin,
Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River
basin, Oregon.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dorgan, and
Mr. Lugar):
S. 239. A bill to improve access to the Cuban market for American
agricultural producers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
correct problems with a provision enacted last fall in the fiscal year
2001 agriculture appropriations bill. I am pleased to be joined as
original cosponsors by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dodd,
Lugar, Roberts, and Dorgan.
The provision contained in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture
appropriations bill was a revised version of legislation originally
introduced last Congress by former Senator Ashcroft and me, together
with Senators Dodd, Lugar, Roberts, and many others. The purpose of our
bill was to lift all unilateral economic sanctions on the export of
American food and medicine. Passage of this provision acknowledges what
most Nebraska grain and livestock producers have always known--when the
United States places unilateral sanctions on other nations, American
producers are hurt, not the sanctioned nation.
As the world leader in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical
devices, America plays a critical role in helping prolong and improve
the quality of people's lives. Ensuring that these products and
therapies are available to people all over the world not only benefits
American businesses and workers, but also reinforces America's image as
a country of both innovation and compassion.
The provision enacted in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture
appropriations bill was changed, however, in the conference committee
with the House of Representatives. The final legislation blocked--only
for sales to Cuba--access to normal export financing in the U.S.
private sector. Thus, while claiming to open up the Cuban market for
the export of American agricultural and medical products, it placed
restrictions making American exports uncompetitive. Finally, the
provision codified new restrictions on the ability of Americans to
travel to Cuba.
The Cuba Food and Medicine Access Act of 2001 would correct those
mistakes by repealing the new travel restrictions and permitting normal
credit and financing support for food and medicine exports to Cuba.
As we rewrite the farm bill we should begin by delivering on a
promise we made last year to end unilateral sanctions on our own
farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers.
But this issue goes beyond increased commercial opportunity. The
export of American food and medicine is also a humanitarian
undertaking. Blocking exports in these commodities harm the health and
nutrition of the people of the sanctioned nation. It does nothing to
harm governments and government leaders with which we disagree. Until
last year, food sales to Cuba were prohibited except to independent
importers, which did not exist. And while medical sales to Cuba were
theoretically possible, licensing procedures were so difficult and
complicated that they had the effect of severely restricting such
exports. Last year's bill went part of the way to clear away these
impediments. We should now finish the job.
I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 239

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 ``Cuba Food and Medicine
Access Act of 2001''.
TITLE I

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE
WITH CUBA TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPORT OF FOOD AND
MEDICINES TO CUBA.

Notwithstanding the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of H.R. 5426 of the One
Hundred Sixth Congress, as enacted into law by Section 1(a)
of Public Law 106-387, and as contained in the appendix of
that Act) (except section 904 of such Act) or any other
provision of law (except section 11 of this Act), the
prohibition or restriction on trade or financial transactions
with Cuba shall not apply with respect to the export of any
agricultural commodities, medicines, or medical devices, or
with respect to travel incident to the sale or delivery of
agricultural commodities, medicines, or medical devices, to
Cuba.

SEC. 11. LIMITATION ON EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPORT OF
FOOD AND MEDICINE TO CUBA.

Section 10 of this Act shall not apply--
(1) with respect to restrictions imposed under section 5 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979 for goods containing
parts or components on which export controls are in effect
under that section; and
(2) with respect to section 203 of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, to the extent the authorities
under that section are exercised to deal with a threat to the
national security of the United States by virtue of the
technology incorporated in such goods.

SEC. 12. LIFTING CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS ON VESSELS ENTERING
U.S. PORTS.

Sanctions pursuant to Section 1706(b) of Title XVII of PL
102-484 (Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) shall not apply with
respect to vessels which have transported food or medicine to
Cuba.

SEC. 13. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO EXPORT PROMOTION AND
CREDIT PROGRAMS FOR CUBA.

Title IV of the Agricultural Trade act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5661 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 418. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO EXPORT PROMOTION AND
CREDIT PROGRAMS FOR CUBA.

``(a) Study.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of
existing United States agricultural export promotion and
credit programs to determine how such programs can be carried
out to promote the consumption of United States agricultural
commodities in Cuba.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report containing--
``(1) the results of the study carried out under subsection
(a); and
``(2) proposed legislation, if any, to improve the ability
of the Secretary to utilize United States agricultural export
promotion and credit programs with respect to the consumption
of United States agricultural commodities in Cuba.''.

[[Page S1015]]

SEC. 14. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
report that sets forth--
(1) the extent (expressed in volume and dollar amounts) of
sales to Cuba of agricultural commodities, medicines, and
medical devices, since the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) a description of the types and end users of the goods
so exported; and
(3) whether there has been any indication that any
medicines, or medical devices exported to Cuba since the date
of the enactment of this Act--
(A) have been used for purposes of torture or other human
rights abuses;
(B) were reexported; or
(C) were used in the production of any bio-technological
product.

SEC 15. DEFINITIONS.

(1) Agricultural Commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity''--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
(B) includes fertilizer and organic fertilizer, except to
the extent provided pursuant and organic fertilizer, except
to the extent provided pursuant to Section 904 of the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX
of H.R. 5426 of the One Hundred Sixth Congress, as enacted
into law by Section 1(a) of Public Law 106-387, and as
contained in the appendix of that Act).
(2) Medical Device.--The term ``medical device'' has the
meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(3) Medicine.--The term ``medicine'' has the meaning given
the term ``drug'' in section 201 the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 7321).
TITLE II

SEC. 20. REPEAL OF CODIFICATION OF TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS BY
AMERICAN CITIZENS TO CUBA.

Section 910 of the Trade Sections Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of H.R. 5426 of the One
Hundred Sixth Congress, as enacted into law by Section 1(a)
of Public Law 106-387, and as contained in the appendix of
that Act) is hereby repealed.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today once again to introduce
legislation to enhance trade provisions from Title Nine of the fiscal
year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill.
The legislation that I join with my colleagues to introduce today,
the Cuba Food & Medicine Access Act of 2001, exempts, among other
things, the sale of agricultural commodities from the financing and
licensing restrictions of Title Nine of last year's agriculture
appropriations bill, also known as the Trade Sanctions Reform & Export
Enhancement Act.
Last week, Senator Dorgan and I introduced similar corrective
legislation. Title Nine of the fiscal year 2001 agriculture
appropriations bill made significant progress toward ending the
misguided policy of using unilateral food sanctions to isolate or
punish so-called ``countries of concern''. Title Nine holds that ``The
President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural sanction or
unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act.'' That is indeed progress, Mr. President.
As I noted last week with my friend from North Dakota, however, Title
Nine prohibits basic facilitators to trade--financing and export
promotion. The Trade Sanctions Reform & Export Enhancement Act
effectively thwarts U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba.
It is that reality that prompts me to introduce and support as many
legislative vehicles as I can toward repealing the prohibitions in last
year's bill and opening the Cuban market to American agricultural
commodities.
There has been much talk about the importance of American tourist
travel to Cuba--this is true and I have stated it repeatedly. The Trade
Sanctions Reform & Export Enhancement Act's tourist travel ban stifles
the most powerful influence on Cuban society: American culture and
perspective, both economic and political.
Consistent with the Dorgan-Roberts bill introduced last week, the
codification of tourist travel restrictions is repealed under the Cuba
Food & Medicine Access Act of 2001 as are restrictions on the sale of
medicine and medical products. Further, the trade of both food and
medicine is enhanced by nullifying a provision of the Cuban Democracy
Act of 1992, which prohibits ships entering ports in Cuba from visiting
U.S. ports for at least 180 days without a special license.
Today, however, I want to place more emphasis on the agricultural
trade issue. The U.S. cannot afford to rule out any market for our
agricultural commodities. Now more than ever, as new markets develop
and our competitors seize those opportunities, it makes no sense to
preclude the use of export promotion programs nor outlaw private U.S.
financing. It is nonsense to isolate our farmers in this fashion.
Section 908 of the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill
reads ``no United States Government assistance, including United States
foreign assistance, United States export assistance, and any United
States credit or guarantees shall be available for exports to Cuba.''
Section 908 goes on to state, incredibly, that ``no United States
person may provide payment or financing terms for sales of agricultural
commodities or products to Cuba or any person in Cuba.''
It's quite clear, Mr. President, the intent of this provision is to
keep the Cuban market cut off from America's farmers. This is
unacceptable.
If it's not to keep the Cuban market cut off, then what is the
policy? What are our farmers supposed to do when faced with this kind
of contradictory and politicized language: You are permitted to sell to
Cuba but don't bother trying? We are either going to encourage and
facilitate global agricultural trade or we are going to discourage and
complicate global agricultural trade. You can't have it both ways.
Why is this significant in regards to Cuba? Let us sample some recent
statistics provided by the U.S.-Cuba Trade & Economic Council, based in
New York City: Wheat exports from Canada to Cuba in 1999 and 2000--
730,000 tons; corn exports from China to Cuba in 2000--26,101 tons; and
rice exports from China to Cuba in 2000--225,510 tons.
No, Cuba is not the largest market, Mr. President, but the point is,
our farmers should be able to compete for that business. It's our
obligation to at least permit such an opportunity.
______

By Mr. FRIST:
S. 240. a bill to authorize studies on water supply management and
development; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Water Resource Study
Act of 2001. The purpose of this bill is to ensure an adequate supply
of fresh water for Tennessee's future.
Currently, Tennessee is one of the fastest growing states in the
country. We rank 9th out of the 50 states in projected population
growth over the next 25 years. Though we welcome this growth, it is
beginning to place a strain on our water supply. For example, public
water use increased from 380 million gallons in 1960 to 777 million
gallons in 1995. As industry and population increase, it will not be
long before growth outpaces available water supply. We must act now to
avoid serious problems.
Specifically, this legislation would allow Tennessee to work with the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to select
a geographical area within the state having ``consistent, emerging
water supply needs'' and to take a serious look at the water supply in
that particular area. After gathering relevant data, the study would
consider available federal resources, identify areas for improvement
and detect outdated programs. It would also begin determining the
appropriate role of the federal government in helping local communities
to develop an adequate water supply.
This legislation is not the full solution, but it will assist in
understanding the complexity of water supply development and the
different alternatives to meeting future water supply needs. It is a
good step in addressing this important issue for all Tennesseans.
I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 240

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 ``Water Resource Study Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) water resources in the United States are among the most
plentiful in the world;
(2) for many years, the effective development and use of
water resources in the United States has been the focus of a
wide array of Federal policies and programs;
(3) in recent years, unprecedented growth, multiple
competing water uses, and growing

[[Page S1016]]

public interest in environmental protection have combined to
create an atmosphere of conflicting policy interests;
(4) large-scale water conflicts continue to emerge between
communities, States, and stakeholder interests in the
southeastern region of the United States; and
(5) Federal support is needed to assess the utility and
effectiveness of current Federal policies and programs as
they relate to resolving State and local water supply needs.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Tennessee.

SEC. 4. STUDIES ON EMERGING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS.

(a) Designation.--The Secretary shall offer to provide
assistance to the State to conduct studies under this
section.
(b) Studies.--As a condition of receiving assistance under
this section, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, in consultation with the Secretary,
the State shall--
(1) select a geographic area within the State having
consistent, emerging, water supply needs; and
(2) conduct a study on the emerging water supply needs of
the geographic area.
(c) Administration.--A study conducted under this section
shall--
(1) identify Federal and State resources, assistance
programs, regulations, and sources of funding for water
supply development and management that are applicable to the
geographic areas selected under subsection (b)(1);
(2) identify potential weaknesses, redundancies, and
contradictions in those resources, assistance programs,
regulations, policies, and sources of funding;
(3) conduct a water resource inventory in the geographic
study area to determine, with respect to the water supply
needs of the area--
(A) projected demand;
(B) existing supplies and infrastructure;
(C) water resources that cannot be developed for water
supplies due to regulatory or technical barriers, including--
(i) special aquatic sites (as defined in section 330.2 of
title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor
regulation)); and
(ii) bodies of water protected under any other Federal or
State law;
(D) water resources that can be developed for water
supplies, such as sites that have few, if any, technical or
regulatory barriers to development;
(E) any water resources for which further research or
investigation, such as testing of groundwater aquifers, is
required to determine the potential for water supply
development for the site;
(F) a description of the social, political, institutional,
and economic dynamics and characteristics of the geographic
study area that may affect the resolution of water supply
needs;
(G) incentives for cooperation between water districts,
local governments, and State governments, including methods
that maximize private sector participation in the water
supply development; and
(H) new water resource development technologies that merit
further analysis and testing.
(d) Lead Agency.--For each study under this section, the
Corps of Engineers--
(1) shall be the lead Federal agency; and
(2) shall consult with the State for guidance in the
development of the study.
(e) Participants.--
(1) In general.--The United States Geological Survey and
the Tennessee Valley Authority shall participate in the
study.
(2) Entities selected by the state.--In consultation with
the Secretary, the State shall select additional entities to
participate in the study.
(3) University of tennessee.--The University of Tennessee
may elect to participate in the study.
(f) Funding.--The Federal share of each study under this
section shall be 100 percent.
(g) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion
of a study under this section, the State shall submit a
report describing the findings of the study to--
(1) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 241. A bill to direct the Federal Election Commission to set
uniform national standards for Federal election procedures, change the
Federal election day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Election Standards Act of 2001.
The entire nation was disgusted by the presidential election of 2000.
That election revealed the flaws in our election process to the entire
world. America is the greatest country--and the oldest democracy--in
the world, and we can do better.
The most fundamental premise of democracy is that every vote is
counted. But the reality is that votes cast in wealthier parts of the
country frequently count more than votes cast in poorer areas, because
wealthier districts have better, more accurate, more modern and less
error-prone counting machines than poorer precincts and districts. Some
counties in this nation are using voting machines and vote-counting
machines that are 50, 60, 70 years old, and that have error rates of 3
or more percent. In the wealthiest nation in the world, that is simply
unacceptable.
Today, I am introducing a bill that will give the Federal Election
Commission the authority to issue uniform federal regulations governing
registration, access to polling places, voting machines, and vote-
counting procedures in federal elections across the country. Unlike
some other proposals introduced this Congress, these regulations will
be binding on states and localities. The Commission will also be
authorized to set deadlines for states and localities to comply, and to
provide the necessary federal funding to enable them to comply.
My bill will also require states to allow voters to register on the
same day that they vote, and will move federal election days from the
current Tuesday, to the preceding Saturday and Sunday. By simplifying
registration, by allowing voters to vote on weekends, and extending
election day to two days instead of one, more voters will be able to
participate in federal elections more easily. I believe these changes
will go a long way toward improving our atrocious voter turnout rates,
and help restore some of the confidence in our election process that
many Americans lost during the last election.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 242. A bill to authorize funding for University Nuclear Science
and Engineering Programs at the Department of Energy for fiscal years
2002 through 2006; 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
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to reverse a serious decline in
our nation's educational capability to produce future nuclear
scientists and engineers. This bi-partisan bill which is referred to as
the ``Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Act'' is co-sponsored by my colleagues Mr. Domenici and Mr. Crapo. Let
me outline how serious this decline is, after doing so I will outline
its impact on our nation and then discuss how this bill attempts to
remedy this situation.
As of this year, the supply of four-year trained nuclear scientists
and engineers is at a 35-year low. The number of four-year programs
across our nation to train future nuclear scientists has declined to
approximately 25--a 50 percent reduction since about 1970. Two-thirds
of the nuclear science and engineering faculty are over age 45 with
little if any ability to draw new and young talent to replace them.
Universities across the United States cannot afford to maintain their
small research reactors forcing their closure at an alarming rate. This
year there are only 28 operating research and training reactors, over a
50 percent decline since 1980. Most if not all of these reactors were
built in the late 1950's and early 60's and were licensed initially for
30 to 40 years. As a result, within the next five years the majority of
these 28 reactors will have to be relicensed. Relicensing is a long,
lengthy process which most universities cannot and will not afford.
Interestingly, the employment demand for nuclear scientists and
engineers exceeds our nation's ability to supply them. This year, the
demand exceeded supply by 350, by 2003 it will be over 400. Our current
projections are that in five years 76 percent of the nation's nuclear
workforce can retire, the university pipeline of new scientists and
engineers is moving in the wrong direction to meet this national
problem.
These human resource and educational infrastructure problems are
serious. The decline in a competently

[[Page S1017]]

trained nuclear workforce affects a broad range of national issues.
We need nuclear engineers and health physicists to help design,
safely dispose and monitor nuclear waste, both civilian and military.
We rely on nuclear physicists and scientists in the field of nuclear
medicine to develop radio isotopes for the thousands of medical
procedures performed everyday across our nation--to help save lives.
We must continue to operate and safely maintain our existing supply
of fission reactors and respond to any future nuclear crisis
worldwide--it takes nuclear scientists, engineers and health physicists
to do that.
Our national security and treaty commitments rely on nuclear
scientists to help stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons whether in
our national laboratories or as part of worldwide inspection teams in
such places as Iraq. Nuclear scientists are needed to convert existing
reactors worldwide from highly enriched to low enriched fuels.
Nuclear engineers and health physicists are needed to design, operate
and monitor future Naval Reactors. The Navy by itself cannot train
students for their four year degrees--they only provide advance
postgraduate training on their reactor's operation.
Basically, we are looking at the potential loss of a 50 year
investment in a field which our nation started and leads the world in.
What is worse, this loss is a downward self-feeding spiral. Poor
departments cannot attract bright students and bright students will not
carry on the needed cutting edge research that leads to promising young
faculty members. Our system of nuclear education and training, in which
we used to lead the world, is literally imploding upon itself.
I've laid out in this bill some proposals that I hope will seed a
national debate in the upcoming 107th Congress on what we as a nation
need to do to help solve this very serious problem. It is not a perfect
bill, but I think it should start the ball rolling. I welcome all forms
of bipartisan input on it. I hope that my colleagues in the House
Science Committee looks favorably at this worthy effort and I would
suggest joint hearings so that we as a Congressional body can hear
together the testimony on the serious decline that we now face. My
staff has worked from consensus reports from the scientific community
developed by the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee to the Department of
Energy's Office of Nuclear Science and Technology, in particular its
subcommittee on Education and Training. The report is available on the
Office's website. I encourage everyone to read and look at these
startling statistics.
Here is an outline of what is in the bill.
First and foremost, we need to concentrate on attracting good
undergraduate students to the nuclear sciences. I have proposed
enhancing the current program which provides fellowships to graduate
students and extends that to undergraduate students.
Second, we need to attract new and young faculty. I've proposed a
Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program which is similar to
the NSF programs targeted only towards supporting new faculty during
the first 5 years of their career at a university. These first five
years are critical years that either make or break new faculty.
Third, I've proposed enhancing the Office's Nuclear Engineering
Education and Research Program. This program is critical to university
faculty and graduate students by supporting only the most fundamental
research in nuclear science and engineering. These fundamental programs
ultimately will strengthen our industrial base and over all economic
competitiveness.
Fourth, I've strengthened the Office's applied nuclear science
program by ensuring that universities play an important role in
collaboration with the national labs and industry. This collaboration
is the most basic form of tech transfer, it is face-to-face contact and
networking between faculty, students and the applied world of research
and industry. This program will ensure a transition between the student
and their future employer.
Finally, I've strengthened what I consider the most crucial element
of this program--ensuring that future generations of students and
professors have well maintained research reactors.
I've proposed to increase the funding levels for refueling and
upgrading academic reactor instrumentation.
I propose to start a new program whereby faculty can apply for
reactor research and training awards to provide for reactor
improvements.
I have proposed a novel program whereby as part of a student's
undergraduate and graduate thesis project, they help work on the re-
licensing of their own research reactors. This program must be in
collaboration with industry which already has ample experience in
relicensing. Such a program will once again provide face-to-face
networking and training between student, teacher and ultimately their
employer.
I have proposed a fellowship program whereby faculty can take their
sabbatical year at a DOE laboratory. Under this program DOE laboratory
staff can co-teach university courses and give extended seminars. This
program also provides for part time employment of students at the DOE
labs--we are talking about bringing in new and young talent.
For the research funds allocated, I have permitted portions be used
to operating the reactor during the investigation. I make this
allocation provided that the investigator's host institution makes a
cost sharing commitment in its operation. My intent is clearly not to
make the program simply fund the operations and maintenance of
university reactors; it must be tied to the bill's research. The cost
sharing insures that the host institution does not simply reallocate
the funds already committed to operating the reactor.
In making all of these proposals, let me emphasize that each one of
these programs I have described is intended to be peer reviewed and to
have awards made strictly on merit of the proposals submitted. This
program is not a hand out. Each element that I am proposing requires
that faculty innovate and compete for these funds. Those institutions
that do not win such competitions will have the choice of funding the
research reactor activities themselves or consider shutting them down.
I have outlined a very serious problem that if not corrected now will
cost far more to correct later on. If the program I have outlined is
implemented, then it will strengthen our reputation as a leader in the
nuclear sciences, strengthen our national security and our ability to
compete in the world market place.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of this bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 242

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 ``Department of Energy University
Nuclear Science and Engineering Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) U.S. university nuclear science and engineering
programs are in a state of serious decline. The supply of
bachelor degree nuclear science and engineering personnel in
the United States is at a 35-year low. The number of four
year degree nuclear engineering programs has declined 50
percent to approximately 25 programs nationwide. Over two-
thirds of the faculty in these programs are 45 years or
older.
(2) Universities cannot afford to support their research
and training reactors. Since 1980, the number of small
training reactors in the United States have declined by over
50 percent to 28 reactors. Most of these reactors were built
in the late 1950s and 1960s with 30- to 40-year operating
licenses, and will require re-licensing in the next several
years.
(3) The neglect in human investment and training
infrastructure is affecting 50 years of national R&D
investment. The decline in a competent nuclear workforce, and
the lack of adequately trained nuclear scientists and
engineers, will affect the ability of the United States to
solve future waste storage issues, maintain basic nuclear
health physics programs, operate existing and design future
fission reactors in the United States, respond to future
nuclear events worldwide, help stem the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, and design and operate naval nuclear
reactors.
(4) Further neglect in the nation's investment in human
resources for the nuclear sciences will lead to a downward
spiral. As the number of nuclear science departments shrink,
faculties age, and training reactors

[[Page S1018]]

close, the appeal of nuclear science will be lost to future
generations of students.
(5) Current projections are that 76% of the nation's
professional nuclear workforce can retire in 5 years, a new
supply of trained scientists and engineers is needed.
(6) The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology is well suited to help maintain
tomorrow's human resource and training investment in the
nuclear sciences. Through its support of research and
development pursuant to the Department's statutory
authorities, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology is the principal federal agent for civilian
research in the nuclear sciences for the United States. The
Office maintains the Nuclear Engineering and Education
Research Program which funds basic nuclear science and
engineering. The Office funds the Nuclear Energy and Research
Initiative which funds applied collaborative research among
universities, industry and national laboratories in the areas
of proliferation resistant fuel cycles and future fission
power systems. The Office funds Universities to refuel
training reactors from highly enriched to low enriched
proliferation tolerant fuels, performs instrumentation
upgrades and maintains a program of student fellowships for
nuclear science, engineering and health physics.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, through the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall
support a program to maintain the nation's human resource
investment and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and
engineering consistent with the Department's statutory
authorities related to civilian nuclear research and
development.
(b) Duties of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology.--In carrying out the program under this Act, the
Director of the Office of Nuclear Science and Technology
shall--
(1) develop a robust graduate and undergraduate fellowship
program to attract new and talented students;
(2) assist universities in recruiting and retaining new
faculty in the nuclear sciences and engineering through a
Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program;
(3) maintain a robust investment in the fundamental nuclear
sciences and engineering through the Nuclear Engineering
Education Research Program;
(4) encourage collaborative nuclear research between
industry, national laboratories and universities through the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative; and
(5) support communication and outreach related to nuclear
science and engineering.
(c) Maintaining University Research and Training Reactors
and Associated Infrastructure.--Within the funds authorized
to be appropriated pursuant to this Act, the amounts
specified under section 4(b) shall, subject to
appropriations, be available for the following research and
training reactor infrastructure maintenance and research:
(1) Refueling of research reactors with low enriched fuels,
upgrade of operational instrumentation, and sharing of
reactors among universities.
(2) In collaboration with the U.S. nuclear industry,
assistance, where necessary, in re-licensing and upgrading
training reactors as part of a student training program.
(3) A reactor research and training award program that
provides for reactor improvements as part of a focused effort
that emphasizes research, training, and education.
(d) University--DOE Laboratory Interactions.--The Secretary
of Energy, through the Office of Nuclear Science and
Technology, shall develop--
(1) a sabbatical fellowship program for university
professors to spend extended periods of time at Department of
Energy laboratories in the areas of nuclear science and
technology; and
(2) a visiting scientist program in which laboratory staff
can spend time in academic nuclear science and engineering
departments.

The Secretary may under section 3(b)(1) provide for
fellowships for students to spend time at Department of
Energy laboratories in the area of nuclear science under the
mentorship of laboratory staff.
(3) Operations and Maintenance.--For the research programs
described, portions thereof may be used to supplement
operation of the research reactor during investigator's
proposed effort provided the host institution provides cost
sharing in the reactor's operation.
(f) Merit Review Required.--All grants, contracts,
cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance awards
under this Act shall be made only after independent merit
review.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Total Authorization.--The following sums are authorized
to be appropriate to the Secretary of Energy, to remain
available until expended, for the purposes of carrying out
this Act:
(1) $30,200,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $41,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $47,900,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $55,600,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $64,100,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(b) Graduate and Undergraduate Fellowships.--Of the funds
under subsection (a), the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 3(b)(1):
(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $3,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(c) Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program.--Of
the funds under subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 3(b)(2):
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(d) Nuclear Engineering and Education Research Program.--Of
the funds under subsection (a), the following sums are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 3(b)(3):
(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Communication and Outreach Related to Nuclear Science
and Engineering.--Of the funds under subsection (a), the
following sums are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 3(b)(5):
(1) $200,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $200,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $300,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(f) Refueling of Research Reactors and Instrumentation
Upgrades.--Of the funds under subsection (a), the following
sums are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
3(c)(1):
(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(g) Re-Licensing Assistance.--Of the funds under subsection
(a), the following sums are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 3(c)(2):
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(h) Reactor Research and Training Award Program.--Of the
funds under subsection (a), the following sums are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out section 3(c)(3):
(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(i) University--DOE Laboratory Interactions.--Of the funds
under subsection (a), the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 3(d):
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(4) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(5) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2006.
______

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reid, Mr. Akaka, and Mr.
Campbell):
S. 243. A bill to provide for the issuance of bonds to provide
funding for the construction of schools of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Bingaman, Daschle,
Campbell, Inouye, Cochran, Reid, Akaka, and Baucus am introducing
legislation to establish an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the
ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality
educational facilities. Representatives from tribal schools in my State
of South Dakota have been working with tribes nationwide to develop an
initiative which I believe will be a positive first step toward
addressing the serious crisis we are facing in Indian education.
Over 50 percent of the American Indian population in this country is
age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational
programs and facilities, and for training the American Indian workforce
is pressing. American Indians have been, and continue to be,
disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational
achievement. The high school completion rate for Indian people aged 20
to 24 was 12.5 percent below the national average. American Indian
students, on average, have scored far lower on the National Assessment
for Education Progress indicators than all other students.
By ignoring the most fundamental aspect of education; that is, safe,
quality educational facilities, there is little hope of breaking the
cycle of low educational achievement, and the unemployment and poverty
that result from neglected academic potential.
The Indian School Construction Act establishes a bonding authority to
use

[[Page S1019]]

existing tribal education funds for bonds in the municipal finance
market which currently serves local governments across the Nation.
Instead of funding construction projects directly, these existing funds
will be leveraged through bonds to fund substantially more tribal
school construction, maintenance and repair projects.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates the tribal school construction
and repair backlog at over $1 billion. Confounding this backlog,
inflation and facility deterioration severely increases this amount.
The administration's school construction request for fiscal year 2001
was over $62 million. In this budgetary climate, I believe every avenue
for efficiently stretching the Federal dollar should be explored.
Tribal schools in my State and around the country address the unique
learning needs and styles of Indian students, with sensitivity to
Native cultures, ultimately promoting higher academic achievement.
There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support of
tribal schools. In keeping with our special trust responsibility to
sovereign Indian nations, we need to promote the self-determination and
self-sufficiency of Indian communities. Education is absolutely vital
to this effort. Allowing the continued deterioration and decay of
tribal schools through lack of funding would violate the Government's
commitment and responsibility to Indian nations and only slow the
progress of self-sufficiency.
I urge my colleagues to closely examine the Indian School
Construction Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding
mechanism a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 243

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 ``Indian School Construction
Act''.

SEC. 2. INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian
Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
(2) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' means any individual who
is a member of a tribe.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Tribal school.--The term ``tribal school'' means an
elementary school, secondary school, or dormitory that is
operated by a tribal organization or the Bureau for the
education of Indian children and that receives financial
assistance for its operation under an appropriation for the
Bureau under section 102, 103(a), or 208 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450f,
450h(a), and 458d) or under the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) under a contract, a
grant, or an agreement, or for a Bureau-operated school.
(5) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' has the meaning given the
term ``Indian tribal government'' by section 7701(a)(40) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including the application
of section 7871(d) of such Code. Such term includes any
consortium of tribes approved by the Secretary.
(b) Issuance of Bonds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
program under which eligible tribes have the authority to
issue qualified tribal school modernization bonds to provide
funding for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of
tribal schools, including the advance planning and design
thereof.
(2) Eligibility.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to issue any qualified
tribal school modernization bond under the program under
paragraph (1), a tribe shall--
(i) prepare and submit to the Secretary a plan of
construction that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B);
(ii) provide for quarterly and final inspection of the
project by the Bureau; and
(iii) pledge that the facilities financed by such bond will
be used primarily for elementary and secondary educational
purposes for not less than the period such bond remains
outstanding.
(B) Plan of construction.--A plan of construction meets the
requirements of this subparagraph if such plan--
(i) contains a description of the construction to be
undertaken with funding provided under a qualified tribal
school modernization bond;
(ii) demonstrates that a comprehensive survey has been
undertaken concerning the construction needs of the tribal
school involved;
(iii) contains assurances that funding under the bond will
be used only for the activities described in the plan;
(iv) contains response to the evaluation criteria contained
in Instructions and Application for Replacement School
Construction, Revision 6, dated February 6, 1999; and
(v) contains any other reasonable and related information
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(C) Priority.--In determining whether a tribe is eligible
to participate in the program under this subsection, the
Secretary shall give priority to tribes that, as demonstrated
by the relevant plans of construction, will fund projects--
(i) described in the Education Facilities Replacement
Construction Priorities List as of FY 2000 of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (65 Fed. Reg. 4623-4624);
(ii) described in any subsequent priorities list published
in the Federal Register; or
(iii) which meet the criteria for ranking schools as
described in Instructions and Application for Replacement
School Construction, Revision 6, dated February 6, 1999.
(D) Advance planning and design funding.--A tribe may
propose in its plan of construction to receive advance
planning and design funding from the tribal school
modernization escrow account established under paragraph
(6)(B). Before advance planning and design funds are
allocated from the escrow account, the tribe shall agree to
issue qualified tribal school modernization bonds after the
receipt of such funds and agree as a condition of each bond
issuance that the tribe will deposit into such account or a
fund managed by the trustee as described in paragraph (4)(C)
an amount equal to the amount of such funds received from the
escrow account.
(3) Permissible activities.--In addition to the use of
funds permitted under paragraph (1), a tribe may use amounts
received through the issuance of a qualified tribal school
modernization bond to--
(A) enter into and make payments under contracts with
licensed and bonded architects, engineers, and construction
firms in order to determine the needs of the tribal school
and for the design and engineering of the school;
(B) enter into and make payments under contracts with
financial advisors, underwriters, attorneys, trustees, and
other professionals who would be able to provide assistance
to the tribe in issuing bonds; and
(C) carry out other activities determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
(4) Bond trustee.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any qualified tribal school modernization bond issued by
a tribe under this subsection shall be subject to a trust
agreement between the tribe and a trustee.
(B) Trustee.--Any bank or trust company that meets
requirements established by the Secretary may be designated
as a trustee under subparagraph (A).
(C) Content of trust agreement.--A trust agreement entered
into by a tribe under this paragraph shall specify that the
trustee, with respect to any bond issued under this
subsection shall--
(i) act as a repository for the proceeds of the bond;
(ii) make payments to bondholders;
(iii) receive, as a condition to the issuance of such bond,
a transfer of funds from the tribal school modernization
escrow account established under paragraph (6)(B) or from
other funds furnished by or on behalf of the tribe in an
amount, which together with interest earnings from the
investment of such funds in obligations of or fully
guaranteed by the United States or from other investments
authorized by paragraph (10), will produce moneys sufficient
to timely pay in full the entire principal amount of such
bond on the stated maturity date therefor;
(iv) invest the funds received pursuant to clause (iii) as
provided by such clause; and
(v) hold and invest the funds in a segregated fund or
account under the agreement, which fund or account shall be
applied solely to the payment of the costs of items described
in paragraph (3).
(D) Requirements for making direct payments.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the trustee shall make any payment referred to in
subparagraph (C)(v) in accordance with requirements that the
tribe shall prescribe in the trust agreement entered into
under subparagraph (C). Before making a payment to a
contractor under subparagraph (C)(v), the trustee shall
require an inspection of the project by a local financial
institution or an independent inspecting architect or
engineer, to ensure the completion of the project.
(ii) Contracts.--Each contract referred to in paragraph (3)
shall specify, or be renegotiated to specify, that payments
under the contract shall be made in accordance with this
paragraph.
(5) Payments of principal and interest.--
(A) Principal.--No principal payments on any qualified
tribal school modernization bond shall be required until the
final, stated maturity of such bond, which stated maturity
shall be within 15 years from the date of issuance. Upon the
expiration of such period, the entire outstanding principal
under the bond shall become due and payable.
(B) Interest.--In lieu of interest on a qualified tribal
school modernization bond there shall be awarded a tax credit
under section 1400K of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(6) Bond guarantees.--
(A) In general.--Payment of the principal portion of a
qualified tribal school modernization bond issued under this
subsection

[[Page S1020]]

shall be guaranteed solely by amounts deposited with each
respective bond trustee as described in paragraph
(4)(C)(iii).
(B) Establishment of account.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, beginning in fiscal year 2002, from amounts made
available for school replacement under the construction
account of the Bureau, the Secretary is authorized to deposit
not more than $30,000,000 each fiscal year into a tribal
school modernization escrow account.
(ii) Payments.--The Secretary shall use any amounts
deposited in the escrow account under clauses (i) and (iii)
to make payments to trustees appointed and acting pursuant to
paragraph (4) or to make payments described in paragraph
(2)(D).
(iii) Transfers of excess proceeds.--Excess proceeds held
under any trust agreement that are not needed for any of the
purposes described in clauses (iii) and (v) of paragraph
(4)(C) shall be transferred, from time to time, by the
trustee for deposit into the tribal school modernization
escrow account.
(7) Limitations.--
(A) Obligation to repay.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the principal amount on any qualified
tribal school modernization bond issued under this subsection
shall be repaid only to the extent of any escrowed funds
furnished under paragraph (4)(C)(iii). No qualified tribal
school modernization bond issued by a tribe shall be an
obligation of, nor shall payment of the principal thereof be
guaranteed by, the United States, the tribes, nor their
schools.
(B) Land and facilities.--Any land or facilities purchased
or improved with amounts derived from qualified tribal school
modernization bonds issued under this subsection shall not be
mortgaged or used as collateral for such bonds.
(8) Sale of bonds.--Qualified tribal school modernization
bonds may be sold at a purchase price equal to, in excess of,
or at a discount from the par amount thereof.
(9) Treatment of trust agreement earnings.--Any amounts
earned through the investment of funds under the control of a
trustee under any trust agreement described in paragraph (4)
shall not be subject to Federal income tax.
(10) Investment of sinking funds.--Any sinking fund
established for the purpose of the payment of principal on a
qualified tribal school modernization bond shall be invested
in obligations issued by or guaranteed by the United States
or in such other assets as the Secretary of the Treasury may
by regulation allow.
(c) Expansion of Incentives for Tribal Schools.--Chapter 1
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
the end the following new subchapter:

``Subchapter XI--Tribal School Modernization Provisions

``Sec. 1400K. Credit to holders of qualified tribal school
modernization bonds.

``SEC. 1400K. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TRIBAL SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION BONDS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified tribal school modernization bond on a
credit allowance date of such bond which occurs during the
taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year an amount
equal to the sum of the credits determined under subsection
(b) with respect to credit allowance dates during such year
on which the taxpayer holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified tribal school modernization bond is 25
percent of the annual credit determined with respect to such
bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified tribal school modernization bond is
the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the date of
sale of the issue) on outstanding long-term corporate
obligations (as determined by the Secretary).
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of
subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to
refundable credits).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Qualified Tribal School Modernization Bond; Other
Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified tribal school modernization bond.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified tribal school
modernization bond' means, subject to subparagraph (B), any
bond issued as part of an issue under section 2(c) of the
Indian School Construction Act, as in effect on the date of
the enactment of this section, if--
``(i) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of
a school facility funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of
the Department of the Interior or for the acquisition of land
on which such a facility is to be constructed with part of
the proceeds of such issue,
``(ii) the bond is issued by a tribe,
``(iii) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of
this section, and
``(iv) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.
``(B) National limitation on amount of bonds designated.--
``(i) National limitation.--There is a national qualified
tribal school modernization bond limitation for each calendar
year. Such limitation is--

``(I) $200,000,000 for 2002,
``(II) $200,000,000 for 2003, and
``(III) zero after 2004.

``(ii) Allocation of limitation.--The national qualified
tribal school modernization bond limitation shall be
allocated to tribes by the Secretary of the Interior subject
to the provisions of section 2 of the Indian School
Construction Act, as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this section.
``(iii) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (d)(1)
with respect to any tribe shall not exceed the limitation
amount allocated to such government under clause (ii) for
such calendar year.
``(iv) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar
year--

``(I) the limitation amount under this subparagraph,
exceeds
``(II) the amount of qualified tribal school modernization
bonds issued during such year,

the limitation amount under this subparagraph for the
following calendar year shall be increased by the amount of
such excess. The preceding sentence shall not apply if such
following calendar year is after 2010.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.

Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(3) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(4) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' has the meaning given the
term ``Indian tribal government'' by section 7701(a)(40),
including the application of section 7871(d). Such term
includes any consortium of tribes approved by the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(e) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(f) Bonds Held by Regulated Investment Companies.--If any
qualified tribal school modernization bond is held by a
regulated investment company, the credit determined under
subsection (a) shall be allowed to shareholders of such
company under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
``(g) Credits May Be Stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(1) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified tribal school
modernization bond and the entitlement to the credit under
this section with respect to such bond. In case of any such
separation, the credit under this section shall be allowed to
the person who on the credit allowance date holds the
instrument evidencing the entitlement to the credit and not
to the holder of the bond.
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in paragraph (1), the rules of section 1286 shall
apply to the qualified tribal school modernization bond as if
it were a stripped bond and to the credit under this section
as if it were a stripped coupon.
``(h) Treatment for Estimated Tax Purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
tribal school modernization bonds on a credit allowance date
shall be treated as if it were a payment of estimated tax
made by the taxpayer on such date.
``(i) Credit May Be Transferred.--Nothing in any law or
rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability
of the credit allowed by this section through sale and
repurchase agreements.
``(j) Credit Treated as Allowed Under Part IV of Subchapter
A.--For purposes of subtitle F, the credit allowed by this
section shall be treated as a credit allowable under part IV
of subchapter A of this chapter.

[[Page S1021]]

``(k) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified tribal school
modernization bonds shall submit reports similar to the
reports required under section 149(e).''.
(d) Additional Provisions.--
(1) Sovereign immunity.--This section and the amendments
made by this section shall not be construed to impact, limit,
or affect the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government or
any State or tribal government.
(2) Application.--This section and the amendments made by
this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act with respect to bonds issued after December 31,
2001, regardless of the status of regulations promulgated
thereunder.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Carper):
S. 244. A bill to provide for United States policy toward Libya; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday a Scottish court, meeting in
the Netherlands, convicted Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi for the 1988
bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. That court
sentenced him to life in prison. Two-hundred seven people, including
189 Americans, lost their lives in this barbaric act.
In addition, the court conclusively tied the planning and execution
of the bombing to Libya and Libya intelligence.
While no verdict could have fully comforted the families of the
victims, eased their anguish, or removed the haunting images from their
minds, they can take some solace in the fact that guilt has now been
established. I would like to personally thank the families of the
victims for their hard work, for their dedication, and for the
unyielding determination to ensure that their loved ones did not die in
vain. The international community truly owes them a debt of gratitude.
Nevertheless, the quest for justice is not over. Now some have
suggested the verdict brings the matter to a close, and at the
sanctions in place since 1992 should now be lifted. We, however,
believe that would be a serious mistake and an insult to the victims
and their families. U.N. Resolutions have required Libya to pay
compensation to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 if a guilty
verdict is rendered, and, second, to officially end support for
international terrorism before the multilateral sanctions can
permanently be lifted.
A formal lifting of the sanctions now would send Libya the wrong
signal. It would indicate that the international community has absolved
Libya of its role in the bombing, a role, to repeat, clearly
established by the Scottish court. It would say that Libya should be
accepted back into the community of responsible nations. It would
bestow upon Colonel Qadhafi's regime a respect and credibility it seeks
but has not earned.
The United States must press Libya to publicly accept its role in the
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, issue an apology, and compensate the
victims' families.
Consequently, today we are introducing the Justice for the Victims of
Pan Am 103 Act of 2001. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators
Helms, Brownback, Leahy, Reid of Nevada, Nelson of Nebraska, Clinton,
Dodd, Baucus, Boxer, Byrd, and Carper.
The legislation states that it shall be the policy of the United
States to oppose lifting U.N. and U.S. sanctions against Libya until
all cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have been resolved;
the Government of Libya has accepted responsibility, has issued an
apology, has paid compensation to the victims' families of Pan Am 103;
and has taken real and concrete steps to end support of international
terrorism; and the legislation would prohibit assistance to the
Government of Libya until the President determines and certifies that
Libya has fulfilled the above requirements.
In addition, the legislation expresses the sense of the Senate that
the Government of Libya should be condemned for its support of
international terrorism and the bombing of Pan Am 103.
Second, the Government of Libya should accept responsibility for the
bombing, issue a public apology, and provide due compensation.
Finally, the President, the Secretary of State, and other U.S.
officials should encourage other countries and the United Nations to
maintain sanctions against Libya until it fulfills the above
requirements. Until Libya accepts responsibility for its actions,
apologizes, and ends its support for international terrorism, the
United States should leave and will leave no stone unturned in the
quest for justice.
We owe the victims of Pan Am 103 no less.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

____________________