[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1465-S1527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 340. A bill to recruit and retain more qualified individuals to
teach in Tribal Colleges or Universities; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this week I had the honor and
pleasure of meeting with the presidents, faculty and student leaders
from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs
of Native Americans and the crucial role tribal colleges play in
strengthening tribal communities. It was a fascinating conversation.
We sat around a table in my office in the United States Capitol
building talking about the hopes and aspirations of the next generation
of Native American leaders. Every one of those young people had good
ideas and the poise and self-confidence to express them.
As the participants spoke of the importance and the power of
education as the key to unlock the promise of the future, the story I
heard was not one of bricks and mortar, but rather one of enduring
spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life.
Listening to the discussion and observing the people in the room, I had
no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands.
Tribal colleges and universities play a critical role in educating
Native Americans across the country, and I have come to believe they
may well be the best kept secret in higher education. For more than 30
years, these institutions have been instrumental in providing a quality
education for Native American students, many of whom our mainstream
educational system previously had failed.
Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of
100 Native American students attended college. Of those few who did,
only one or two would graduate with a degree.
Then tribal colleges emerged, offering curricula that is culturally
relevant and focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture,
language and economic needs. With this focus and a clear mission, these
institutions have had a high success rate in educating Native American
and Alaska Native people, and tribal college enrollment has increased
62 percent over the last six years.
The track record of tribal colleges is impressive. Recent studies
show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates
are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduation.
Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled
tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many
reservations overall.
While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in
helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, additional
challenges remain before the future of these institutions is assured.
These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational
opportunities for their students, and federal spending trends for these
schools have been woefully inadequate. It is imperative that the
bipartisan effort to provide additional core and facilities funding to
tribal colleges continue.
In addition to resource constraints, tribal college administrators
and faculty have expressed to me a particular frustration over the
difficulty they experience in attracting qualified teachers to Indian
Country. Geographic isolation and low salaries have made recruitment
and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools, and
this problem has been exacerbated by rising enrollment.
As a matter of public policy, it simply makes sense for Congress to
help tribal college administrators overcome these serious barriers to
the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty. Today, with the
support of the South Dakota delegation of Tribal Colleges, the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the National Indian Education
Association, and the co-sponsorship of my colleagues Senators Bingaman,
Conrad, Baucus, Akaka, Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, and Johonson, I am
pleased to introduce the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness
Act, which will provide forgiveness on federal student
[[Page S1466]]
loans to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of
the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Under this proposal, individuals who
have Perkins, Direct or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to
$15,000 in loan forgiveness, which will help tribal colleges attract
qualified teachers and encourage Native American students to fulfill
their promise.
The Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act will benefit
individual students and their communities. By expanding opportunities
for Native American students to develop valuable skills, it will not
only allow individuals to maximize their human potential, but also spur
economic growth and help facilitate self-sufficiency in communities
that desperately need it.
I believe our responsibility as legislators was perhaps best summed
up by one of my state's historic leaders, Sitting Bull, who said: ``Let
us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our
children.'' This message still resonates loudly and applies today, and
is reflected in the life's work of Sitting Bulls' great-great-great
grandson, Ron McNeil, the president of Sitting Bull College, with whom
I met on this very subject earlier in the week.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ron McNeil and his
fellow educators across the country to familiarize the public with the
accomplishments and the promise of the tribal college movement. And I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to pass the
Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act as quickly as
possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 340
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal
College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act''.
(b) Perkins Loans.--
(1) Amendment.--Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(J) as a full-time teacher at a tribal College or
University as defined in section 316(b).''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``or (I)'' and
inserting ``(I), or (J)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective for service performed during academic year
1998-1999 and succeeding academic years, notwithstanding any
contrary provision of the promissory note under which a loan
under part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.) was made.
(c) FFEL and Direct Loans.--Part G of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 493C. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program, through the holder of a loan, of assuming or
canceling the obligation to repay a qualified loan amount, in
accordance with subsection (b), for any new borrower on or
after the date of enactment of the Tribal College or
University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act, who--
``(1) has been employed as a full-time teacher at a Tribal
College or University as defined in section 316(b); and
``(2) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower
seeks repayment or cancellation.
``(b) Qualified Loan Amounts.--
``(1) Percentages.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall assume or cancel the obligation to repay under this
section--
``(A) 15 percent of the amount of all loans made, insured,
or guaranteed after the date of enactment of the Tribal
College or University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act to a
student under part B or D, for the first or second year of
employment described in subsection (a)(1);
``(B) 20 percent of such total amount, for the third or
fourth year of such employment; and
``(C) 30 percent of such total amount, for the fifth year
of such employment.
``(2) Maximum.--The Secretary shall not repay or cancel
under this section more than $15,000 in the aggregate of
loans made, insured, or guaranteed under parts B and D for
any student.
``(3) Treatment of consolidation loans.--A loan amount for
a loan made under section 428C may be a qualified loan amount
for the purposes of this subsection only to the extent that
such loan amount was used to repay a loan made, insured, or
guaranteed under part B or D for a borrower who meets the
requirements of subsection (a), as determined in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a
loan.
``(e) Prevention of Double Benefits.--No borrower may, for
the same service, receive a benefit under both this section
and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.).
``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`year', when applied to employment as a teacher, means an
academic year as defined by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 2. AMOUNTS FORGIVEN NOT TREATED AS GROSS INCOME.
The amount of any loan that is assumed or canceled under an
amendment made by this Act shall not, consistent with section
108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be treated as
gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
____
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 341. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require
that violent video programming is limited to broadcast after the hours
when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion
of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its
violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means
specifically on the basis of that content; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, Senator
Hutchison of Texas, Senator Inouye, Senator Kohl, Senator Dorgan, and
myself, I send to the desk a bill, the Children's Protection From
Violent Programming Act.
Mr. President, it has been a 50-year learning process. I am reminded
of Peter, Paul, and Mary, singing that song about, ``Where have all the
flowers gone? When will they ever learn?'' The truth of the matter is
that we have learned. We have had hearings starting back in the early
1950s with Senator Kefauver. We have had Surgeon General reports,
American Medical Association reports, American Psychological
Association reports, National Cable Television Association reports,
Kaiser Family Foundation reports--reports, reports, reports, again,
again, and again; and only this yet to be introduced ``Youth Violence:
A Report of the Surgeon General,'' which I quote, among other findings,
from page 93:
Research to date justifies sustained efforts to curb the
adverse effects of media violence on youth.
We have had Attorney General Janet Reno, along with other legal
scholars, attest to the constitutionality of the safe harbor approach.
The truth of the matter is that everybody is talking about
bipartisanship. We have had it with respect to TV violence and its
effect on children. In the last three Congresses, safe harbor has been
reported out of committee almost unanimously, with only one dissenting
vote in each Congress, 16-1, 19-1, 17-1, after a series of hearings in
the Commerce Committee. Then it gets to the full Senate's calendar and
it stops.
On Thursday, January 25, a thirteen year old boy was sentenced to
life in prison for the killing of a six year old family friend. Why did
he do it? To imitate pro wrestling he had watched on television. In
this instance, the defendant punched, kicked, and threw a 48 pound
little girl against a metal staircase after asking her ``Do you want to
play wrestling?'' His defense attorney stated: ``He wanted to emulate
them. . . . Like Batman and Superman, they were his heroes.'' He added,
that the defendant ``didn't understand that he could hurt the 48-pound
girl if he punched her and threw her because he had seen pro wrestlers
do that hundreds of times without injuring each other.'' Apparently,
the death was one of at least four cases in 1999 in which pro wrestling
inspired the killing of one child by another.
The day after this sentencing, another thirteen year old boy suffered
second and third degree burns when he tried to imitate an MTV
personality who set himself on fire as part of the
[[Page S1467]]
show ``Jackass,'' which airs on that music network. The injured teen,
who was from Torrington, CT, allowed his friend to douse his pants and
shoes with gasoline and then light them on fire mistakenly assuming
that he would not be injured. His burns, and required hospitalization
tell another tale.
Mr. President, enough is enough. And yet, we can never bring
ourselves to act. Remember, it was over three years ago, in Paducah,
Kentucky, when a fourteen year old savagely murdered three teenage
girls and shot five others who had just completed their morning prayer
meeting at school. Prosecutors alleged the defendant plotted his
killings after watching ``The Basketball Diaries,'' a movie in which a
tormented student dreams of brutally slaying his tormentors in the
classroom. In the scene in which the killings take place, popular rock
music resonates in the background and students high-five each other and
laugh while their friend guns down multiple students and the classroom
teacher.
And we all are familiar with the incident in which a young boy burned
down his home, thereby killing his sister, while imitating the
ritualistic pyromaniac practices that were glorified on the popular
cartoon show ``Beavis and Butthead.'' A few years before that, in 1991,
a thirteen year old boy in Jerusalem accidentally killed himself when
he imitated a TV hanging he had witnessed on one of his favorite
action-adventure programs. His friends discovered him dead, hanging
from the stairway bannister in his home.
How much copycat violence will it take? How many violent acts have to
be committed, how much vandalism, destruction, injury, and death has to
occur, before we act here in Congress? As we have seen in Littleton,
Colorado, and in Paducah, Kentucky, violence in our culture is
begetting violence by our youths. Violence is everywhere, it is readily
accessible, and it is a source of corporate profits. As a Washington
Post article entitled ``When Death Imitates Art'' stated two years
ago--``For young people, the culture at large is bathed in blood and
violence . . . where the more extreme the message, the more over the
top gruesomeness, the better.'' This assessment is based on established
evidence and facts. We know from the Congressional Research Service
that before completing elementary school, the average child will
witness 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television
alone. By the time he or she graduates from high school, the exposure
will rise to 40,000 televised murders. Often accompanied by popular
music, portrayed in a glorified light, and delivered without reference
to the negative consequences of such dire actions, television violence
has a direct, adverse impact on our children.
The legislation I offer today provides an opportunity for us to act
responsibly to lessen that impact, by limiting our children's exposure
to the poisonous effects of televised, glorified, violence. We need to
take advantage of that opportunity. The purveyors of violence in
corporate America will no doubt criticize this effort and seek the
mantle of the First Amendment while espousing the virtue of self-
regulation. What they won't say is that U.S. law already restricts the
broadcasting of indecent programming on television, a restriction the
federal courts have upheld as consistent with the First Amendment. A
similar approach for violence is also likely to be upheld, as has been
demonstrated in previous Congresses through the hearing testimony of
the U.S. Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, and numerous constitutional scholars. As for self-
regulation, it has been proven unequivocally that such an approach will
never work so long as it is pitted against the allure of the almighty
dollar.
Mr. President, this is an issue about accountability and
responsibility. Those responsible for supplying and distributing video
programming have been entrusted with public resources--through grants
of government spectrum and public rights of way--that allow them to
deliver their programming to America's children. Notwithstanding the
responsibility that accompanies the grant of this public trust, we know
from the studies that there is more violence on television during prime
time, during ``sweeps weeks'' and even on weekend afternoons. Why?
Because violence sells and money talks. And no amount of self-
regulation, and no number of antitrust exemptions is going to change
that profit incentive.
Moreover, we know that no issue is more developed, more researched,
and more debated than this one. Allow me to lay out the history.
We were in the last days of the Truman Administration when a House
Subcommittee first looked at the issue of violence on radio and
television.
The Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Estes Kefauver began to
examine media and youth violence in hearings in 1954 and the Senate
Commerce Committee began hearings in 1960. In the Senate Commerce
Committee alone we have held twenty two hearings on the issue of media
violence.
In 1972, the Surgeon General's report concluded that there is a
causal link between viewing violence as a child and subsequent violent
or aggressive behavior.
In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health, after ten years of
research, found that ``the consensus among most of the research
community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive
behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs.''
Congress finally responded to this overwhelming evidence in 1990,
when we granted the industry an antitrust exemption to meet and develop
ways to reduce violence on television. In response to that legislation,
the TV networks issued standards for the depiction of violence on
broadcast television. Let me quote from those standards:
All depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary
to the development of character, or to the advancement of
theme or plot. Gratuitous or excessive depictions of
violence, (or redundant violence shown solely for its own
sake), are not acceptable. Programs should not depict
violence as glamorous, nor as an acceptable solution to human
conflict. . . . Realistic depictions of violence should also
portray, in human terms, the consequences of that violence to
its victims and its perpetrators.
The goals articulated by these network standards are good ones--they
are the same goals I hope to achieve with this legislation.
Unfortunately, the standards developed pursuant to the 1990 antitrust
exemption were never adhered to by the networks. Instead, the
television industry ignored and violated those standards, thereby
rendering the antitrust exemption meaningless. We know this because an
industry commissioned study by the National Cable Television
Association tells us as much. That NCTA study, issued in 1998, reported
that:
The way that most TV violence is portrayed continues to
pose risks to viewers . . . Much of TV violence is still
glamorized. . . . Most violence on television continues to be
sanitized. Television often ignores or underestimates what
happens to the victims of violence . . . Much of the serious
physical aggression on television is still trivialized.
The NCTA report could not put it more plainly. The networks failed to
heed their own standards. I hope we have learned our lesson: no
antitrust exemption is going to protect children from the harms
associated with television violence.
With respect to the causal impact of exposure to televised violence,
the NCTA report was equally illuminating. It stated:
Prior to this study, it had already been well established
that television influences many kinds of attitudes and
behaviors by modeling them as appropriate and/or desirable. A
highly successful multi-billion dollar advertising industry
is built on that premise. More specifically, violence on
television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have an
influence on aggressive behavior. Over the past 20 years,
numerous respected academic and public health organizations
and agencies--including the American Psychological
Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S.
Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental
Health--have reviewed the existing body of evidence in this
area and have unanimously affirmed the validity of that
conclusion.
Finally, several weeks ago, the Surgeon General released a
preliminary report that concludes-- yet again--that there exists a
scientific link between violent television programming and increased
aggression in children. The report states: ``A diverse body of research
provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can
increase children's aggressive behavior in the short term.'' The report
notes further that a smaller body of reports demonstrates that ``long-
term effects exist, and there are strong theoretical reasons that this
is the case.'' Finally, the report concludes that ``Research to date
justifies sustained efforts to curb
[[Page S1468]]
the adverse effects of media violence on youths.''
So there you have it. We have come full circle with two significant
surgeon general reports almost thirty years apart and scores of studies
in between. In the interim, Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission have tried to address this problem with a mix of regulation
and self regulation. These attempts have been unsuccessful. In the
1970s, FCC Chairman Dick Wiley attempted to cajole industry to adopt a
family hour, but that ultimately was abandoned. Then, in addition to
the failed 1990 antitrust exemption, we acted in 1996, as part of the
Telecommunications Act, to require televisions to be equipped with a V-
Chip. We know today, however, almost five years since that provision
was passed, that the V-chip is not working. For example, an April 2000
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrates that only 9 percent
of parents of children aged 2-17 own a television with a V-Chip.
Moreover, only one-third of these parents (3 percent of all parents)
have programmed the chip to block unsuitable programming. Finally, the
survey indicated that 39 percent of parents of children aged 2-17 had
never heard of the V-Chip.
As if that was not bad enough, we know further that the industry
developed ratings system designed to work in conjunction with the V-
chip is failing as well. To be specific, although almost all broadcast
and cable channels now encode their programs with ratings, many violent
programs are in fact not specifically rated ``V'' for violence--thereby
rendering the system ineffective. The most recent survey by the Kaiser
Family Foundation on this subject found that 79 percent of shows with
violence did not receive the ``V'' rating. If the V-Chip and the
ratings system do not provide enough protection, it is our
responsibility to fill in the gap.
Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee held two high profile
hearings to examine an issue related to televised violence--that of
marketing violence to children. At those hearings we reviewed industry
practices as outlined in a Federal Trade Commission report that found
that the entertainment industry as a whole routinely marketed violent
fare to children that was in fact rated as inappropriate for those same
children. I raise this subject because some members of industry
responded to the FTC report and our hearings by choosing to limit the
advertising of violent material on television to certain hours of the
day. In other words, they too believe that it is better to shield
children from exposure to violent images when they are likely to
comprise a substantial portion of the audience. While I applaud those
voluntary actions, they do not go far enough, and as a result, we in
Congress have to do more. If it is good for children to limit violent
advertisements, it follows that it should be good for children to limit
violent programming.
A recent study by Stanford University supports this conclusion.
Released last month, the study determined that aggression by children
can be reduced by limiting their exposure to media violence--exactly
the approach advocated in our Safeharbor legislation.
Mr. President, that is why I am introducing my legislation today. My
bill takes a two track approach to television violence. First, it would
require the FCC to study whether the V-Chip and the content-based
ratings system can capably meet the compelling government interest in
protecting children from the harms associated with their exposure to
violence on television. The FCC is to complete this determination
within 12 months of enactment and is directed to continue an ongoing
annual assessment of this issue. If the FCC at any time determines that
the V-Chip and the ratings do not constitute an effective means of
satisfying the government's compelling interest in protecting children,
then it must institute a Safeharbor to shield children from violent
programs when they are likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
audience. While this legislation would apply to broadcast television
and basic satellite and cable programming, it would exempt pay-per-view
and premium cable and satellite programming from the Safeharbor.
Prior to the imposition of any safeharbor, the legislation directs
the FCC to develop rules penalizing broadcasters and cable and
satellite programmers for distributing violent programming on
television that is not blockable by the V-Chip. These penalties will be
triggered if violent shows are not in fact rated ``V'' for violence as
required by the ratings system. This provision will increase the
incentive for programmers to rate their shows accurately, and responds
to evidence that most violent programming is in fact not specifically
rated for violence, and therefore is not blockable by the V-Chip.
This legislation was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce
Committee last year by a 17-1 vote. I look forward to moving the bill
out of Committee again this year, and I hope that we can secure
enactment of this measure for the first time in this Congress.
Mr. President, the evidence is in, we know the results, and we have a
solution. Its time to enact a safeharbor for television violence.
Mr. President, I refer to page 23 of volume 3 of ``A History of
Broadcasting in the United States.'' It alludes to the year 1949 and
the production of the program ``Man Against Crime,'' starring Ralph
Bellamy. I begin right on page 23:
``Man Against Crime was sponsored by Camel Cigarettes. This affected
both writing and direction. Mimeographed instructions told writers,
``Do not have the heavy or any disreputable person smoking a cigarette.
Do not associate the smoking of cigarettes with undesirable scenes or
situations plot wise.''
Cigarettes had to be smoked gracefully, never puffed
nervously. A cigarette was never given to a character to calm
his nerves, since this might suggest a narcotic effect.
Writers received numerous plot instructions.
Listen carefully because this is the instruction that the writers
were given 50 years ago:
It has been found that we retain audience interest best
when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although
other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered,
preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come.
That is from the History of Broadcasting.
The industry knows that violence is a moneymaker. Ten years ago, the
distinguished Senator from Illinois said: No, no, wait a minute, don't
rush into this thing; freedom of speech, freedom of speech. We don't
want to damage the originality of the producers. So we gave an
antitrust exemption so they could work together because Senator Simon
said they could not work together and regulate because of antitrust
provisions in the Federal statute. We gave them that protection.
Then came a very interesting study from cable television. Every time
I speak in the Chamber, they give me another study. That is why I wish
I could sing: When will they ever learn?
This study, done a few years ago, was financed by the National Cable
Television Association, but it was done by the University of California
at Santa Barbara, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the
University of Texas at Austin and the University of Wisconsin at
Madison. It included, amongst other council members, the American
Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Producers Guild of
America, the Writers Guild of America West, the Caucus for Producers,
Writers and Directors, the American Bar Association, and the Directors
Guild of America. Point: The very people who are doing the producing
found that violence begets children's violence.
Three weeks ago, a 13-year-old was sentenced to life in prison for
bludgeoning to death a 48-pound 8 year old. He had seen this on a cable
wrestling show. These wrestlers jumped on each other, they beat each
others' heads against a post, and then flung opponents out of the ring.
That was the undisputed record: That the 13-year-old saw wrestling
matches where everybody got up and walked away unharmed and came back
the next week.
Just last month, someone else emulated a stunt on MTV showing how
people could be set on fire and then walk away unharmed. The individual
saw the MTV program, tried it, and got first- and second-degree burns
all over his body.
I will never forget years ago on the ``Johnny Carson Show,'' they had
a fellow with a tie around his neck, and he dropped through a trap door
and hung and, again, just walked away. The next day a couple found
their young teenager hanging from the bedroom fan. He
[[Page S1469]]
had tied himself up, got on the edge of the bed, and jumped off and
hanged himself.
We know monkey see-monkey do, and it begets violence. This country,
the industrial country of the United States, has more violence than all
other countries combined.
What have the other countries done? For years on end they have had a
safe harbor in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand, and other
places. They have a time set aside when children dominate the audience
and thou shalt not have violent shows during that time. It works. Their
children do not shoot up classrooms, they do not emulate violence, or
kill little girls. That does not go on in Europe, but it continues to
increase in our country, according to the Surgeon General's report just
about to be released. We see it on the increase.
The Kaiser Family Foundation counters with: Oh, well, you have to get
the V-chip. Under legal decisions, you have to use the least intrusive
method of regulating so-called free speech. So we put the V-chip into
the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That was supposed to allow parents to
take charge. We constantly hear that when we know it is not the case.
Sixty-two percent of young single women are in the workforce with
latchkey children at home. We have tried that V-chip. One, 40 percent
of those interviewed under the Kaiser Family Foundation have never even
heard of the V-chip--what are you talking about? Two, less than 10
percent have ever had the V-chip, and, three, less than 3 percent have
ever used it.
It is impractical. You have to run around to the three or four TVs in
the house and say: I have the program, and before I go to work this
morning, I am going to put in the chip. Come on, that is unreal, but
that is the political solution which has not worked.
I do not want to be put aside. I have been put aside. I offered an
amendment a couple of years ago to the juvenile justice bill. Some
colleagues said: Fritz, I would vote for your amendment, but I don't
want any amendments on the juvenile justice bill, or we have not tried
the V-chip. They gave any putoff they could think of.
We found out that we ought to just include it in a statute. In this
bill, we direct the Federal Communications Commission to have hearings
on this matter and determine whether or not the V-chip is effective
and, if it is not, to promulgate a safe harbor.
Constitutionally, the Federal Communications Commission has been
given that authority on indecency. Why not on violence? These programs
have not been properly rated. We prescribe in this measure that the
industry start rating violence--V for violence--on these shows. If they
do not, there is going to be a penalty.
A Stanford University study has just been issued whereby they have
tested the diminution of violence on television and there has been a
diminution then in children's violence in that particular community. We
will bring that to the floor. We are ready to debate this legislation.
This is a bipartisan bill. We have had Republican and Democrats in the
last three Congresses join in, but we have never had a fair hearing on
the floor.
We have done this in a deliberate, measured fashion so that we can
get it considered in this Congress.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hollings'
Children's Protection from Violent Television Programming Act. I thank
Senator Hollings for his leadership and hard work on this important
issue shielding our children from excessive violence in the media.
This proposal is vital to ensure that the promise of the V-chip is
fulfilled, that our public airwaves cannot be used and abused to the
detriment of our families and our children. But today, in spite of the
V-chip, our children are still being exposed to ultra-violent
programming on television, even during the early prime time period
known as ``family hour.''
Since my first term in office, I have fought to limit the amount of
violence that our children are exposed to on television, in video
games, in the movies and in music. Although I have focused on the video
game industry encouraging the manufacturers to create and implement a
ratings system I was also a vocal supporter of the V-chip provision
included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The V-chip legislation required the installation of blocking
technology in most televisions. That technology is used in conjunction
with a television ratings system so that parents can restrict their
children's access to violent programming at all times. We know that
parents can't realistically look over their children's shoulders every
minute they're in front of the television. But the V-Chip allows them
to configure their television to do essentially that.
Since January 2000, V-chip technology has been installed in every
television measuring over 13''. More than 25 million televisions have a
V-chip now. However, a recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy
Center revealed that nine in ten parents do not know about the
television ratings system, and of parents who own and know about their
V-chip, only half actually use the blocking technology.
Clearly, having a V-chip in a television is just not good enough. It
has to be combined with a good, easily understood ratings system and a
real commitment by manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to educate
parents. Without these elements, having a V-chip in your television is
about as effective at protecting your child as requiring car seats but
letting toddlers sit in the front seat without a seatbelt.
Mr. President, my first preference is to have V-chip technology that
works and that parents trust. But if it seems otherwise, we will not
stand idly by. This legislation presents a step-by-step approach: it
asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gauge the success
and public awareness of the V-chip. And if success is limited and
public awareness is low, this measure vests the Commission with the
power to remedy it.
So let's pass this legislation, and let's find out if the V-chip is
really helping parents shield their children from violence on
television. And if not, let's give the FCC the power to do something
about it. Our families and especially our children deserve nothing
less.
______
By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
S. 342. A bill to assist local educational agencies by providing
grants for proven measures for increasing the quality of education, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak
about an issue that is close to my heart and one that is essential to
the Nation's future--the education of our children.
Education was a priority for my husband, the late Mel Carnahan,
throughout his career, and it was a driving force during his two terms
as Governor of Missouri.
I recall that one of the things he enjoyed most as he traveled around
the State was visiting schools. He would come home excited about the
good things that were happening in Missouri schools.
His Outstanding Schools Act, passed during his first term as
Governor, brought major improvements to classrooms throughout our
State. He dreamed of doing even more. As he traveled across Missouri
seeking election to this body, he called for a new national commitment
to the education of America's children.
Though he did not live to pursue that dream, I am proud to stand here
in his place in the U.S. Senate to introduce my first bill--a bill
imprinted with his hopes, a bill that fulfills his pledge to the
citizens of Missouri, and a bill that reinforces the President's
promise ``to leave no child behind.''
Though teachers, students, and parents are trying harder than ever,
schools are facing difficult times.
My concern, and the focus of this legislation, is the classrooms of
America: Classrooms that are severely crowded and housed in
deteriorating facilities; classrooms where disorderly and sometimes
violent students are disrupting learning; classrooms in need of math,
science, and reading specialists.
As a result of these conditions, far too many students are failing to
learn and are falling behind in comparison with students in other
developed nations.
Increases in student population across the Nation further heighten
the
[[Page S1470]]
problems, as does the loss of teachers to retirement or other
professions. According to the 1998 National Assessment of Education
Progress, one-quarter of our students are still being taught in classes
of more than 25 students.
As we watch class sizes grow, we see the physical condition of our
older classrooms fall into dangerous disrepair. In Missouri alone, we
face the daunting prospect of $4 billion in construction needs for our
public schools over the next decade.
The threat and frequency of violence and disruptions in our
classrooms remain at unacceptable levels. A recent study by the
Educational Testing Service made this observation:
School discipline * * * problems are critical factors in
student achievement. Without order in our classrooms,
teachers can't teach and students can't learn.
Our national leaders have been bemoaning the condition of public
schools for many years. Over 50 years ago, President Truman said:
The schools in this country are crowded and teachers
underpaid. One of our greatest national needs is more and
better schools.
Later, President Eisenhower noted:
Millions of children were receiving substandard education
because of unsanitary, overcrowded, and unsafe classrooms. *
* * It was evident to many of us, but not all, that in view
of the financial positions of many states and school
districts, the federal government would have to help.
Yet decades after these remarks, the Federal Government still
provides a mere 7 percent of the national education budget.
I understand there are many who are weary of increased Federal
education funding because they fear that with such funds comes Federal
control of local schools. While this is a legitimate concern, it need
not be a paralyzing fear that prevents us from moving ahead with much
needed classroom improvements.
There is a way for us to fund public schools without adding redtape,
burdening our school districts, or enabling Federal bureaucrats to
dictate local education policy.
The legislation I introduce today--the Quality Classrooms Act--will
do just that. It calls for a new commitment of $50 billion over the
next decade to our local schools.
These funds would flow directly from the Federal Government to local
schools districts and would be dedicated exclusively to helping schools
provide what parents, teachers, and students most desire--more
intensive, individualized, face-to-face instruction in the classroom.
It recognizes that different school districts have different needs.
Some may need to reduce class size, others to improve classroom
conditions. In an attempt to provide more flexibility to each school
district and to keep decisionmaking at the local level, this bill
allows school districts to use the funding for one, or a combination of
purposes. Each of the five options addresses class size or conditions--
a formula that has led to improved student performance in the past.
Funds under the Quality Classrooms Act would be used to do one or
more of the following: Hire new classroom teachers to reduce student-
teacher ratios; build or renovate classrooms to relieve overcrowding;
hire experienced teaching specialists, focusing on basics such as
reading, science, and math; establish alternative discipline programs
for the education of chronically violent and disruptive students; and
provide a year-round schedule.
This menu of choices allows schools to retain flexibility, yet leaves
parents and taxpayers with the comfort of knowing that resources are
being spent on measures with proven success.
The bill provides added flexibility and innovation by setting aside
10 percent of the available funding for a competitive grant program.
These ``Innovation Grants'' would encourage schools to develop creative
approaches to quality instruction.
Grant recipients are required to evaluate these newly developed
programs to determine what approaches enhance student performance.
Aside from this evaluation, however, school districts will not be
required to file burdensome reports or abide by new Federal mandates.
This proposed legislation makes sure that money goes to schools,
teachers, and students, not the education bureaucracy. It requires the
Department of Education to spend only the bare minimum necessary to
operate the grant program. Funds flow directly from the Federal
Government to local school districts.
I present this legislation knowing that education improvement is
going to be one of the predominant themes in the 107th Congress. An
important part of this theme is the discussion about how to make our
schools more accountable. These discussions are centered around
proposals by the President, my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Lieberman,
and others. Accountability must be a part of our education debate, and
I look forward to participating in those efforts.
But even as we pursue that goal, we must make sure that all our
public school students are learning in modern facilities, with skilled
teachers, in classrooms with an appropriate number of well disciplined
students.
To achieve these goals, we need a greater Federal investment in
education. Families wanting to provide a better future for themselves
and their children know the wisdom of investing in a home, a savings
account, or a pension plan. It is a lesson worth noting as we ponder
the future of public education. To shortchange America's children not
only disheartens educators, parents, and communities, it violates our
national interests and the vision that has marked us as a people.
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider this legislation designed
to strengthen student achievement by promoting quality classrooms all
across America.
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. 342
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 ``Quality Classrooms Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to support local educational
agencies by awarding grants for--
(1) the implementation of specific measures, as selected by
local educational agencies from a local accountability menu,
that have been proven to increase the quality of education;
and
(2) the conduct of other activities that local educational
agencies demonstrate will provide enhanced individual
instruction for the students served by the agencies.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the same meaning given that term under section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) Local Accountability Menu Grants.--
(1) Program authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants
to local educational agencies to be used for the activities
described in paragraph (3).
(2) Application.--
(A) In general.--A local educational agency desiring a
grant under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) a description of the local educational agency's plan of
activities for which grant funds under this subsection are
sought;
(ii) a detailed budget of anticipated grant fund
expenditures;
(iii) a detailed description of the methodology that the
local educational agency will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of grants received by such agency under this
subsection; and
(iv) such assurances as the Secretary determines to be
essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this
Act.
(3) Authorized activities.--Grant funds awarded under this
subsection may be used for one or more of the following
measures, collectively established as the local
accountability menu:
(A) Reduction of student-teacher ratios through the hiring
of new classroom teachers.
(B) School construction assistance for the purpose of
relieving overcrowded classrooms and reducing the use of
portable classrooms.
(C) Hiring of additional experienced teachers who
specialize in teaching core subjects such as reading, math,
and science, and who will provide increased individualized
instruction to students served by the local educational
agency.
[[Page S1471]]
(D) Alternative programs for the education and discipline
of chronically violent and disruptive students.
(E) Assistance to facilitate the local educational agency's
establishment of a year-round school schedule that will allow
the agency to increase pay for veteran teachers and reduce
the agency's need to hire additional teachers or construct
new facilities.
(4) Administrative cap.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under this subsection shall not use more
than 3 percent of the funds received for administrative
expenses.
(b) Innovation Grants.--
(1) Program authorized.--The Secretary shall reserve 10
percent of the amount made available to carry out this Act in
each fiscal year to award grants, on a competitive basis, to
local educational agencies for the local educational agencies
to carry out the activities described in paragraph (3).
(2) Application.--
(A) In general.--A local educational agency desiring a
grant under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) a description of the local educational agency's plan of
activities for which grant funds under this subsection are
sought;
(ii) a detailed budget of anticipated grant fund
expenditures;
(iii) a detailed description of the methodology that the
local educational agency will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of grants received by such agency under this
subsection; and
(iv) such assurances as the Secretary determines to be
essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this
Act.
(3) Authorized activities.--Each local educational agency
receiving a grant under this subsection shall use the amounts
received under the grant for one or more activities that the
local educational agency sufficiently demonstrates, as
determined by the Secretary, will provide enhanced individual
instruction for students served by the agency, but that are
not part of the local accountability menu described in
subsection (a)(3).
(4) Limitation.--No funds awarded under this subsection
shall be used for tuition payments for students at private
schools or for public school choice programs.
(5) Administrative cap.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under this subsection shall not use more
than 3 percent of the funds received for administrative
expenses.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION.
(a) Administrative Cap.--The Secretary shall expend not
more than 0.25 percent of the funds made available to carry
out this Act on administrative costs.
(b) Funding to Indian Tribes.--From the amount made
available to carry out this Act for any fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve 0.75 percent to awards grants to
Indian tribes to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(c) Formula.--From the amount made available to carry out
this Act for any fiscal year, and remaining after the
reservations under subsections (a) and (b) and under section
4(b)(1), the Secretary shall distribute such remaining
amounts among the local education agencies as follows:
(1) 80 percent of such amount shall be allocated among such
eligible, local educational agencies in proportion to the
number of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school
district served by such local educational agency from
families with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by
the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in
accordance with section 673(2) of the Community Services
Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of
the size involved for the most recent fiscal year for which
satisfactory data are available as compared to the number of
such children who reside in the school districts served by
all eligible, local educational agencies for the fiscal year
involved.
(2) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated among such
eligible local educational agencies in proportion to the
relative enrollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and
private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the
boundaries of such agencies.
(d) Limitation on Carryover.--Not more than 20 percent of
the funds allocated to a local educational agency for any
fiscal year under this Act may remain available for
obligation by such agency for 1 additional fiscal year.
SEC. 6. SANCTIONS.
If the Secretary determines that the local educational
agency has used funds in violation of the provisions of this
Act or the regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant
to section 8, the Secretary may impose an appropriate
sanction that may include reimbursement or ineligibility for
additional funds for a period of years, depending upon the
severity of the misuse of funds.
SEC. 7. REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION.
(a) Report to the Secretary.--At such time as the Secretary
deems appropriate, and not less than once each year
thereafter, each recipient of a grant under this Act shall
submit to the Secretary a report that includes, for the year
to which the report relates--
(1) a description of how the funds made available under
this Act were expended in correlation with the plan and
budget submitted under sections 4(a)(2) and 4(b)(2), as
applicable; and
(2) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant
received under this Act, as required by sections 4(a)(2)(B)
and 4(b)(2)(B), as applicable.
(b) Documents and Information.--Each recipient of a grant
under this Act shall provide the Secretary with all documents
and information that the Secretary reasonably determines to
be necessary to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of
programs funded under this Act.
SEC. 8. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
The Secretary shall issue such regulations and guidelines
as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 9. NOTICE.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall provide specific notification
concerning the availability of grants authorized by this Act
to each local educational agency.
SEC. 10. ANTIDISCRIMINATION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify or affect
any Federal or State law prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin,
gender, age, or disability, or to modify or affect any right
to enforcement of this Act that may exist under other Federal
laws, except as expressly provided by this Act.
SEC. 11. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
Funds made available under this Act shall be used to
supplement, not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local
funds that would otherwise be available to carry out the
activities assisted under this Act.
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act, $50,000,000,000 for the 10-fiscal year period beginning
on October 1, 2002.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 343. A bill to establish a demonstration project to authorize the
integration and coordination of Federal funding dedicated to the
community, business, and economic development of Native American
communities; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, though there are glimmers of hope in
Native communities, most Native Americans remain racked by
unemployment, mired in poverty, and rank at or near the bottom of
nearly every social and economic indicator of well-being that is
tallied.
For years the Committee on Indian Affairs has made strengthening
Indian economies a top priority. Healthy tribal economies and lower
unemployment rates are imperative if tribes are to achieve the goals of
self-sufficiency and true self-determination.
Although federal economic development assistance has been available
for years, poverty, ill-health, and unemployment remain rampant on most
Indian reservations.
One reason for the lack of success, despite spending billions of
dollars promoting Indian economic development, is the absence of a
consistent and consolidated federal mechanism that targets development
resources to the areas and projects that are most promising. Indian
business, economic, and community development programs span the entire
federal government and for any given project undertaken by a tribe
there may be 6 to 8 or more agencies involved. This fragmentation and
lack of coordination is not producing the kind of results Indian
country so badly needs.
To begin to remedy this problem, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that builds on the most successful federal Indian policy to
date, Indian self-determination, and seeks to expand the principles of
self-determination, and seeks to expand the principles of self-
determination to the economic development realm.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to ``step into the
shoes'' of the federal government to administer programs and services
historically provided by the United States.
This act has worked as it was intended and has resulted in improved
efficiency of program delivery and service quality; increased tribal
administrative acumen; better managed tribal institutions; stronger
tribal economies; and a positive and healthy shift away from federal
control over Indian lives to more flexible decision making and local
control.
What began as a demonstration project in 1975 has blossomed into an
every-increasing number of tribal governments that have come to realize
the benefits of self-governance.
[[Page S1472]]
As of 1999, nearly 48 percent of all Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA,
and 50 percent of all Indian Health Service, IHS, programs and services
have been assumed by tribes pursuant to Indian Self-Determination Act
contracts and compacts.
The legislation I introduce today will launch the second phase of the
self-determination experiment by assisting Indian tribes in their use
and maximization of existing resources for purposes of economic
development.
By authorizing tribes and tribal consortia to consolidate and target
existing funds for development purposes, this bill will promote a more
efficient use of those resources. Perhaps more importantly, this
legislation will lay the foundation for a coordinated development
strategy that looks to employment creation, investment and improved
standards of living in Indian country rather than how much money is
spent by the federal government as the real measure of a successful
development policy.
One goal of this bill is to eliminate inconsistencies and duplication
in federal policies that continue to be a barrier to Indian development
through the issuance of uniform regulations and policies governing the
use of funds across agencies.
Similar to the demonstration project that will be authorized by this
bill is the 477 Program which was created by Public Law 102-477. Under
the 477 Program, tribes are eligible to consolidate all federally
funded employment training and related services into a single, fully
integrated program. This integration promotes tribal flexibility and
efficiency, and has been one of the few successes in federal Indian
economic development.
By authorizing federal-tribal arrangements to combine and coordinate
resources, this bill will make the best use of existing programs to
assist tribes in attracting private investment and capital into Indian
reservations.
In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing
on an almost identical version of this bill. At the hearing, the
committee received testimony strongly supporting the type of
consolidation and coordination of federal resources represented in this
legislation.
I am hopeful that the legislation introduced today will signal a new
day for how the federal government assists Native communities in
creating jobs and building a better future for their members.
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. 343
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TITLE.
The Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribal Development
Consolidated Funding Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A unique legal and political relationship exists
between the United States and Indian tribes that is reflected
in article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution,
various treaties, Federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions,
executive agreements, and course of dealing.
(2) Despite the infusion of substantial Federal dollars
into Native American communities over several decades, the
majority of Native Americans remain mired in poverty,
unemployment, and despair.
(3) The efforts of the United States to foster community,
economic, and business development in Native American
communities have been hampered by fragmentation of authority,
responsibility, and performance, and by lack of timeliness
and coordination in resources and decision-making.
(4) The effectiveness of Federal and tribal efforts to
generate employment opportunities and bring value-added
activities and economic growth to Native American communities
depends on cooperative arrangements among the various Federal
agencies and Indian tribes.
(b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act are to--
(1) enable Indian tribes and tribal organizations to use
available Federal assistance more effectively and
efficiently;
(2) adapt and target such assistance more readily to
particular needs through wider use of projects that are
supported by more than 1 executive agency, assistance
program, or appropriation of the Federal Government;
(3) encourage Federal-tribal arrangements under which
Indian tribes and tribal organizations may more effectively
and efficiently combine Federal and tribal resources to
support economic development projects;
(4) promote the coordination of Native American economic
programs to maximize the benefits of these programs to
encourage a more consolidated, national policy for economic
development; and
(5) establish a demonstration project to aid Indian tribes
in obtaining Federal resources and in more efficiently
administering those resources for the furtherance of tribal
self-governance and self-determination.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means an Indian
tribe or tribal organization, or a consortium of Indian
tribes or tribal organizations, that submits an application
under this Act for assistance for a community, economic, or
business development project, including a project designed to
improve the environment, housing facilities, community
facilities, business or industrial facilities, or
transportation, roads, or highways with respect to the Indian
tribe, tribal organization, or consortium.
(2) Assistance.--The term ``assistance'' means the transfer
of anything of value for a public purpose, support, or
stimulation that is--
(A) authorized by a law of the United States;
(B) provided by the Federal Government through grant or
contractual arrangements, including technical assistance
programs providing assistance by loan, loan guarantee, or
insurance; and
(C) authorized to include an Indian tribe or tribal
organization, or a consortium of Indian tribes or tribal
organizations, as eligible for receipt of funds under a
statutory or administrative formula for the purposes of
community, economic, or business development.
(3) Assistance program.--The term ``assistance program''
means any program of the Federal Government that provides
assistance for which Indian tribes or tribal organizations
are eligible.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(5) Project.--The term ``project'' means an undertaking
that includes components that contribute materially to
carrying out a purpose or closely-related purposes that are
proposed or approved for assistance under more than 1 Federal
Government program.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization''
has the meaning given such term in section 4(l) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(l)).
SEC. 4. LEAD AGENCY.
The lead agency for purposes of carrying out this Act shall
be the Department of the Interior.
SEC. 5. SELECTION OF PARTICIPATING TRIBES.
(a) Participants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may select from the
applicant pool described in subsection (b) Indian tribes or
tribal organizations, not to exceed 24 in each fiscal year,
to submit an application to carry out a project under this
Act.
(2) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes or tribal
organizations that are otherwise eligible to participate in a
program or activity to which this Act applies may form a
consortium to participate as an applicant under paragraph
(1).
(b) Applicant Pool.--The applicant pool described in this
subsection shall consist of each Indian tribe or tribal
organization that--
(1) successfully completes the planning phase described in
subsection (c);
(2) has requested participation in a project under this Act
through a resolution or other official action of the tribal
governing body; and
(3) has demonstrated, for the 3 fiscal years immediately
preceding the fiscal year for which the requested
participation is being made, financial stability and
financial management capability as demonstrated by the Indian
tribe or tribal organization, or each member of a consortium
of tribes or tribal organizations, having no material audit
exceptions in the required annual audit of the self-
determination contracts of the tribe or tribal organization.
(c) Planning Phase.--Each applicant seeking to participate
in a project under this Act shall complete a planning phase
that shall include legal and budgetary research and internal
tribal government and organizational preparation. The
applicant shall be eligible for a grant under this section to
plan and negotiate participation in a project under this Act.
SEC. 6. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL.
(a) Requirements.--Each applicant seeking to participate in
a project under this Act shall submit an application to the
head of the Federal executive agency responsible for
administering the primary Federal program to be affected by
the project that--
(1) identifies the programs to be integrated;
(2) is consistent with the purposes set forth in section
2(b);
(3) describes a comprehensive strategy that identifies the
way in which Federal funds are to be integrated and delivered
under the project and the results expected from the project;
(4) identifies the projected expenditures under the project
in a single budget;
[[Page S1473]]
(5) identifies the agency or agencies of the tribal
government that are to be involved in the implementation of
the project;
(6) identifies any Federal statutory provisions,
regulations, policies, or procedures that the applicant
believes need to be waived in order to implement the project;
and
(7) is approved by the governing body of the applicant,
including in the case of an applicant that is a consortium or
tribes or tribal organizations, the governing body of each
affected member tribe or tribal organization.
(b) Review.--Upon receipt of an application that meets the
requirements of subsection (a), the head of the Federal
executive agency receiving the application shall--
(1) consult with the head of each Federal executive agency
that is proposed to provide funds to implement the project
and with the applicant submitting the application; and
(2) consult and coordinate with the Department of the
Interior as the lead agency under this Act for the purposes
of processing the application.
(c) Approval.--
(1) Waivers.--
(A) In general.--With respect to any Federal statutory
provisions, regulations, policies, or procedures that the
applicant believes need to be waived in order to implement
the project that are identified in the application in
accordance with subsection (a)(6) or as a result of the
consultation required under subsection (b), the head of the
Federal executive agency responsible for administering such
provision, regulation, policy, or procedure shall, subject to
subparagraph (B), waive the requirement so identified,
notwithstanding any other provision of law.
(B) Limitation.--A statutory provision, regulation, policy,
or procedure identified for waiver under subparagraph (A) may
not be waived by the head of the Federal executive agency
responsible for administering the provision, regulation,
policy, or procedure if such head determines that a waiver
would be inconsistent with--
(i) the purposes set forth in section 2(b); or
(ii) the provisions of the statute from which the program
involved derives its authority that are specifically
applicable to Indian programs.
(2) Project.--Not later than 90 days after the receipt of
an application that meets the requirements of subsection (a),
the head of the Federal executive agency receiving the
application shall inform the applicant submitting the
application, in writing, of the approval or disapproval of
the application, including the approval or disapproval of a
waiver sought in accordance with paragraph (1). If an
application or a waiver is disapproved, the written notice
shall identify the reasons for the disapproval and the
applicant submitting the application shall be given an
opportunity to amend the application or to petition the head
of the Federal executive agency sending the notice to
reconsider the disapproval of the application or the waiver.
SEC. 7. AUTHORITY OF HEADS OF FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--The President, acting through the heads of
the appropriate Federal executive agencies, shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this Act and to ensure
that this Act is applied and implemented by all Federal
executive agencies.
(b) Scope of Coverage.--The Federal executive agencies that
are included within the scope of this Act shall include--
(1) the Department of Agriculture;
(2) the Department of Commerce;
(3) the Department of Defense;
(4) the Department of Education;
(5) the Department of Energy;
(6) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(7) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(8) the Department of the Interior;
(9) the Department of Justice;
(10) the Department of Labor;
(11) the Department of Transportation;
(12) the Department of the Treasury;
(13) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(15) the Small Business Administration.
(c) Activities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the head of each Federal executive agency, acting alone
or jointly through an agreement with another Federal
executive agency, may--
(1) identify related Federal programs that are likely to be
particularly suitable in providing for the joint financing of
specific kinds of projects with respect to Indian tribes or
tribal organizations;
(2) assist in planning and developing such projects to be
financed through different Federal programs;
(3) with respect to Federal programs or projects that are
identified or developed under paragraphs (1) or (2), develop
and prescribe--
(A) guidelines;
(B) model or illustrative projects;
(C) joint or common application forms; and
(D) other materials or guidance;
(4) review administrative program requirements to identify
those requirements that may impede the joint financing of
such projects and modify such requirements when appropriate;
(5) establish common technical and administrative
regulations for related Federal programs to assist in
providing joint financing to support a specific project or
class of projects; and
(6) establish joint or common application processing and
project supervision procedures, including procedures for
designating--
(A) an agency responsible for processing applications; and
(B) a managing agency responsible for project supervision.
(d) Requirements.--In carrying out this Act, the head of
each Federal executive agency shall--
(1) take all appropriate actions to carry out this Act when
administering a Federal assistance program; and
(2) consult and cooperate with the heads of other Federal
executive agencies to carry out this Act in assisting in the
administration of Federal assistance programs of other
Federal executive agencies that may be used to jointly
finance projects undertaken by Indian tribes or tribal
organizations.
SEC. 8. PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR JOINT
FINANCING.
In processing an application or request for assistance for
a project to be financed in accordance with this Act by at
least 2 assistance programs, the head of a Federal executive
agency shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that--
(1) required reviews and approvals are handled
expeditiously;
(2) complete account is taken of special considerations of
timing that are made known to the head of the Federal agency
involved by the applicant that would affect the feasibility
of a jointly financed project;
(3) an applicant is required to deal with a minimum number
of representatives of the Federal Government;
(4) an applicant is promptly informed of a decision or
special problem that could affect the feasibility of
providing joint assistance under the application; and
(5) an applicant is not required to get information or
assurances from 1 Federal executive agency for a requesting
Federal executive agency when the requesting agency makes the
information or assurances directly.
SEC. 9. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--To make participation in a project simpler
than would otherwise be possible because of the application
of varying or conflicting technical or administrative
regulations or procedures that are not specifically required
by the statute that authorizes the Federal program under
which such project is funded, the head of a Federal executive
agency may promulgate uniform regulations concerning
inconsistent or conflicting requirements with respect to--
(1) the financial administration of the project including
with respect to accounting, reporting, and auditing, and
maintaining a separate bank account, to the extent consistent
with this Act;
(2) the timing of payments by the Federal Government for
the project when 1 payment schedule or a combined payment
schedule is to be established for the project;
(3) the provision of assistance by grant rather than
procurement contract; and
(4) the accountability for, or the disposition of, records,
property, or structures acquired or constructed with
assistance from the Federal Government under the project.
(b) Review.--In making the processing of applications for
assistance under a project simpler under this Act, the head
of a Federal executive agency may provide for review of
proposals for a project by a single panel, board, or
committee where reviews by separate panels, boards, or
committees are not specifically required by the statute that
authorizes the Federal program under which the project is
funded.
SEC. 10. DELEGATION OF SUPERVISION OF ASSISTANCE.
Pursuant to regulations established to implement this Act,
the head of a Federal executive agency may delegate or
otherwise enter into an arrangement to have another Federal
executive agency carry out or supervise a project or class or
projects jointly financed in accordance with this Act. Such a
delegation--
(1) shall be made under conditions ensuring that the duties
and powers delegated are exercised consistent with Federal
law; and
(2) may not be made in a manner that relieves the head of a
Federal executive agency of responsibility for the proper and
efficient management of a project for which the agency
provides assistance.
SEC. 11. JOINT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND PROJECT FACILITATION.
(a) Joint Assistance Fund.--In providing support for a
project in accordance with this Act, the head of a Federal
executive agency may provide for the establishment by the
applicant of a joint assistance fund to ensure that amounts
received from more than 1 Federal assistance program or
appropriation are more effectively administered.
(b) Agreement.--A joint assistance fund may only be
established under subsection (a) in accordance with an
agreement by the Federal executive agencies involved
concerning the responsibilities of each such agency. Such an
agreement shall--
(1) ensure the availability of necessary information to the
executive agencies and Congress; and
(2) provide that the agency administering the fund is
responsible and accountable by program and appropriation for
the amounts provided for the purposes of each account in the
fund.
(c) Use of Excess Funds.--In any demonstration project
conducted under this Act under which a joint assistance fund
has been
[[Page S1474]]
established under subsection (a) and the actual costs of the
project are less than the estimated costs, use of the
resulting excess funds shall be determined by the head of the
Federal executive agency administering the joint assistance
fund, after consultation with the applicant.
SEC. 12. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND AUDITS.
(a) Single Audit Act.--Recipients of funding provided in
accordance with this Act shall be subject to the provisions
of chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Records.--With respect to each project financed through
an account in a joint management fund established under
section 11, the recipient of amounts from the fund shall
maintain records as required by the head of the Federal
executive agency responsible for administering the fund. Such
records shall include--
(1) the amount and disposition by the recipient of
assistance received under each Federal assistance program and
appropriation;
(2) the total cost of the project for which such assistance
was given or used;
(3) that part of the cost of the project provided from
other sources; and
(4) other records that will make it easier to conduct an
audit of the project.
(c) Availability.--Records of a recipient related to an
amount received from a joint management fund under this Act
shall be made available to the head of the Federal executive
agency responsible for administering the fund and the
Comptroller General for inspection and audit.
SEC. 13. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PERSONNEL TRAINING.
Amounts available for technical assistance and personnel
training under any Federal assistance program shall be
available for technical assistance and training under a
project approved for joint financing under this Act where a
portion of such financing involves such Federal assistance
program and another assistance program.
SEC. 14. JOINT STATE FINANCING FOR FEDERAL-TRIBAL ASSISTED
PROJECTS.
Under regulations promulgated under this Act, the head of a
Federal executive agency may enter into an agreement with a
State to extend the benefits of this Act to a project that
involves assistance from at least 1 Federal executive agency,
the State, and at least 1 tribal agency or instrumentality.
The agreement may include arrangements to process requests or
administer assistance on a joint basis.
SEC. 15. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report concerning the actions taken under this Act together
with recommendations for the continuation of this Act or
proposed amendments thereto. Such report shall include a
detailed evaluation of the operation of this Act, including
information on the benefits and costs of jointly financed
projects that accrue to participating Indian tribes and
tribal organizations.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 344. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century to make certain amendments with respect to Indian tribes; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing a bill
that provides needed clarifications in the law to improve the
administration of both the Indian Reservation Roads Program and the
Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program to better meet the
transportation needs in native communities.
There is still an enormous need for physical infrastructure on Indian
lands throughout the country. This infrastructure is necessary for
Indian tribes and their citizens to carry out emergency services, law
enforcement, and the transportation of goods and services.
Good transportation is fundamental to attracting private investment
and enterprise into Native communities. When entrepreneurs or investors
are calculating whether to invest in a community they first look to see
if the basic building blocks exist within the community. Roads,
highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities are critical
factors that investors look to before making their investment
decisions.
For Indian communities, efficient and effective federal road
financing and construction are one factor leading to healthy economies
and higher standards of living.
In 1998 Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act of the twenty-
first century, ``TEA-21,'' to authorize federal surface transportation
programs with the goals of improved highways, increased safety,
protecting the environment, and increased economic growth.
In passing TEA-21, Congress approved several Indian provisions that I
was proud to have sponsored. One important provision required
negotiated rule-making to develop an allocation formula that is both
flexible and fair in addressing the needs of all Indian communities
throughout the country. Another provision provided that all Indian
reservation road monies under TEA-21 are eligible for tribes to
contract and compact under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975, P.L. 93-638, as amended.
In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs held two
hearings on the Indian reservation roads program and TEA-21. From
testimony and other evidence presented, it is evident that there remain
serious obstacles to a more efficient functioning of TEA-21 in Indian
communities. I am sorry to say that one of the obstacles appears to be
the administration of the program by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA,
itself.
Although reservation roads comprise 2.63 percent of the federal
highway system, less than 1 percent of federal aid has been allocated
to Indian roads. This bill would remove the so-called ``obligation
limitation'' contained within TEA-21 and would allow the already-
authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries. In
fiscal year 2001, imposition of the obligation limitation diverted $34
million from the Indian Reservation Road program.
This bill also authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Program, FLHP, to
establish a pilot program in which up to 12 tribes may, in their
discretion, contract directly with the FLHP for the administration of
their roads programs. The dual goals of this pilot program are to
promote a more efficient use of existing resources, and to further the
policy of Indian self-determination.
Under current law, the BIA is authorized to use ``up to 6 percent''
of roads funding for oversight and administration of the Indian roads
program. If it was not clear in 1998, it should be clear now that these
funds are not intended to be available to subsidize other BIA roads
operations nor are they intended to be used for other BIA purposes.
The bill I am introducing today contains a provision that clarifies
the ``up to 6 percent'' language by reiterating Congress' intent that
the figure was and is intended as a maximum, not a minimum, funding
level with regard to the BIA's administrative costs.
This bill also clarifies that tribes who are administering their
Indian reservation roads program under Public Law 93-638 are authorized
to receive the monies that the BIA would have used to administer these
tribes' roads programs. Because tribes that are either ``638''
contractors or compactors have assumed the BIA's administrative
functions, it is unnecessary for the BIA to withhold either
administrative or project related funding from these tribes.
Finally, this bill seeks to eliminate the redundancy that is
currently required in the health and safety certification process by
allowing tribes to meet statutorily required health and safety
standards without the need for a second, duplicative effort by the BIA.
It is important to note that the standards themselves will not change,
nor will the need for tribal compliance with those standards change.
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. 344
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 Tribal Surface
Transportation Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Obligation Limitation.--Section 1102(c)(1) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 104
note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Code, and'' and inserting ``Code,''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
and for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, amounts
authorized for Indian reservation roads under section 204 of
title 23, United States Code''.
(b) Pilot Program.--Section 202(d)(3) of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S1475]]
``(C) Federal lands highway program demonstration
project.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project under which all funds made available
under this title for Indian reservation roads and for highway
bridges located on Indian reservation roads as provided for
in subparagraph (A), shall be made available, upon request of
the Indian tribal government involved, to the Indian tribal
government for contracts and agreements for the planning,
research, engineering, and construction described in such
subparagraph in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act.
``(ii) Exclusion of agency participation.--In accordance
with subparagraph (B), all funds for Indian reservation roads
and for highway bridges located on Indian reservation roads
to which clause (i) applies, shall be paid without regard to
the organizational level at which the Federal lands highway
program has previously carried out the programs, functions,
services, or activities involved.
``(iii) Selection of participating tribes.--
``(I) Participants.--
``(aa) In general.--The Secretary shall select 12
geographically diverse Indian tribes in each fiscal year from
the applicant pool described in subclause (II) to participate
in the demonstration project carried out under clause (i).
``(bb) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes that are
otherwise eligible to participate in a program or activity to
which this title applies may form a consortium to be
considered as a single tribe for purposes of becoming part of
the applicant pool under subclause (II).
``(cc) Funding.--An Indian tribe participating in the pilot
program under this subparagraph shall receive funding in an
amount equivalent to the funding that such tribe would
otherwise receive pursuant to the funding formula established
under section 1115(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century, plus an additional percentage of such
amount, such additional percentage to be equivalent to the
percentage of funds withheld during the fiscal year involved
for the road program management costs of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs under section 202(f)(1) of title 23, United States
Code.
``(II) Applicant pool.--The applicant pool described in
this subclause shall consist of each Indian tribe (or
consortium) that--
``(aa) has successfully completed the planning phase
described in subclause (III);
``(bb) has requested participation in the demonstration
project under this subparagraph through the adoption of a
resolution or other official action by the tribal governing
body; and
``(cc) has, during the 3-fiscal year period immediately
preceding the fiscal year for which participation under this
subparagraph is being requested, demonstrated financial
stability and financial management capability through a
showing of no material audit exceptions by the Indian tribe
during such period.
``(III) Criteria for determining financial stability and
financial management capacity.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, evidence that, during the 3-year period
referred to in subclause (II)(cc), an Indian tribe had no
uncorrected significant and material audit exceptions in the
required annual audit of the Indian tribe's self-
determination contracts or self-governance funding agreements
with any Federal agency shall be conclusive evidence of the
required stability and capability.
``(IV) Planning phase.--An Indian tribe (or consortium)
requesting participation in the project under this
subparagraph shall complete a planning phase that shall
include legal and budgetary research and internal tribal
government and organization preparation. The tribe (or
consortium) shall be eligible to receive a grant under this
subclause to plan and negotiate participation in such
project.''.
(c) Administration.--Section 202 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(f) Indian Reservation Roads, Administration.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not to exceed 6 percent of the contract authority
amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be used to pay the
administrative expenses of the Bureau for the Indian
reservation roads program and the administrative expenses
related to individual projects that are associated with such
program. Such administrative funds shall be made available to
an Indian tribal government, upon the request of the
government, to be used for the associated administrative
functions assumed by the Indian tribe under contracts and
agreements entered into pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
``(2) Health and safety assurances.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, an Indian tribe or tribal
organization may commence road and bridge construction under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (25 U.S.C.
104) that is funded through a contract or agreement under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act so
long as the Indian tribe or tribal organization has--
``(A) provided assurances in the contract or agreement that
the construction will meet or exceed proper health and safety
standards;
``(B) obtained the advance review of the plans and
specifications from a licensed professional who has certified
that the plans and specifications meet or exceed the proper
health and safety standards; and
``(C) provided a copy of the certification under
subparagraph (B) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
``(g) Indian Reservation Roads Program, Safety Incentive
Grants.--
``(1) Seat belt safety incentive grant eligibility.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe
that is eligible to participate in the Indian reservation
roads program under subsection (d) shall be deemed to be a
State for purposes of being eligible for safety incentive
allocations under section 157 to assist Indian communities in
developing innovative programs to promote increased seat belt
use rates.
``(2) Intoxicated driver safety incentive grant
eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
Indian tribe that is eligible to participate in the Indian
reservation roads program under subsection (d) shall be
deemed to be a State for purposes of being eligible for
safety incentive grant funding under section 163 to assist
Indian communities in the prevention of the operation of
motor vehicles by intoxicated persons.
``(3) Grant funding procedures and eligibility criteria.--
The Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribal
governments, may develop funding procedures and eligibility
criteria applicable to Indian tribes with respect to
allocations or grants described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
The Secretary shall ensure that any such procedures or
criteria are published annually in the Federal Register.''.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 346. A bill to amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to
divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two
circuits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Stevens, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Inhofe, and Gordon Smith in introducing
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2001. While
this bill is not the first attempt to solve the crisis of the Ninth
Circuit, I believe the need for change has never been greater. The
Ninth Circuit has grown so large, and has drifted so far from prudent
legal reasoning, that sweeping change is in order.
Congress has already recognized that change is needed. In 1997, we
commissioned a report on structural alternatives for the federal courts
of appeals. The Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice
Byron R. White, found numerous faults within the Ninth Circuit. In its
conclusion, the Commission recommended major reforms and a drastic
reorganization of the Circuit.
This bill will divide the Ninth Circuit into two independent
circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would contain Arizona, California, and
Nevada. A new Twelfth Circuit would be composed of Alaska, Hawaii,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands. Immediately upon enactment, the concerns of the White
Commission will be addressed. A more cohesive, efficient, and
predictable judiciary will emerge.
In this debate, let us not forget why change is in order. The Ninth
Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, spans the
tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the
Mariana Islands. Encompassing some 14 million square miles, the Ninth
Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal. It is larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined!
The Circuit serves a population of more than 50 million people,
almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest circuit. By
2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population
will be more than 63 million. That's an increase of 13 million people
in just 10 years! How many people does this court have to serve before
Congress will realize that the Ninth Circuit is overwhelmed by its
population?
As I noted before, legislation to split the Ninth Circuit is
certainly not novel. Since the day the Ninth Circuit was founded over a
century ago, Congress has tinkered with the structure of the Circuit
and has debated its split.
In 1866, Congress established a newly numbered Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals consisting of California, Nevada,
[[Page S1476]]
and Oregon. Congress included Montana, Washington, and Idaho in the
Circuit at the time each gained statehood. The present Ninth Circuit
was completed by including Hawaii in 1911, Alaska in 1925, Arizona in
1929, Guam in 1951 and the Northern Mariana Islands in 1977. During
this period of geographic expansion, Congress determined a split of the
Ninth Circuit to be inevitable; numerous proposals to divide the Ninth
Circuit were debated in Congress since before World War II.
Congressional members were not alone in advocating a split. In 1973,
the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of
Appellate System Commission, commonly known as the Hruska Commission,
recommended that the Ninth Circuit be divided. Also that year, the
American Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of dividing
the Ninth Circuit. The Hruska recommendation sparked controversy
because it called for a Circuit division that split the state of
California in half. Instead of that radical approach, Congress, in
1978, created the en banc proceedings as an effort to streamline the
Ninth Circuit's docket. In 1990, the United States Department of
Justice endorsed legislation to split the Ninth Circuit in a surprising
reversal of the official ``no position'' approach it had previously
assumed.
In 1995, a bill was reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee in
which Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah declared in his Committee's report
that the time for a split had arrived:
The legislative history, in conjunction with available
statistics and research concerning the Ninth Circuit,
provides an ample record for an informed decision at this
point as to whether to divide the Ninth Circuit . . . Upon
careful consideration the time has indeed come.
Even more recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had
stated his concerns regarding the size of the Ninth Circuit. Justice
Kennedy, a former member of the Ninth Circuit for twelve years,
testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, and stated that
he has ``increasing doubts about the wisdom of retaining, the Circuit's
current size.'' During a House subcommittee hearing, Justice Kennedy
had earlier voiced his reservations about the Circuit's size, saying
that it ``is larger than it ought to be,'' and he recommended ``looking
very hard'' at dividing the Circuit.
Arguments in support of dividing the Ninth Circuit are both
qualitative and quantitative. The magnitude of case filings in the
Ninth Circuit creates a slow and cumbersome docket. Once a final brief
is filed, it takes longer to receive a hearing or submission in the
Ninth Circuit than any other Circuit. And, from the time of a
lower court filing to final disposition, the Ninth Circuit is the
second slowest Circuit in the nation.
The Ninth Circuit's travel expenses are the largest in the federal
system, and operating costs of the Ninth Circuit surpass the costs of
all other Circuits. In 1990, Congress allocated to the Ninth Circuit 28
active judges, which surpasses by twelve the second largest appellate
court. This increase means that judicial travel expenses in 1996 were
over double the amount of any other circuit. Additionally, support
staff of the Circuit is so large and unwieldy that one appellate judge
facetiously complained that it was ``impossible to determine who
actually was assigned to clerk.''
The ever-expanding docket in the Ninth Circuit creates an inherent
difficulty in keeping abreast of legal developments within its own
jurisdiction, rendering inconsistency in Constitutional interpretation
within the Court. Interestingly, the statistical opportunities for
inconsistency on a 28 panel court calculates out to be 3,276
combinations of panels that could resolve any given issue. Former
Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield expressed much concern about the growing
inconsistency of the Ninth Circuit, stating that the ``increased
likelihood of intra-
circuit conflicts is an important justification for splitting the
court.''
One only needs to review the appallingly high reversal rate of Ninth
Circuit cases to appreciate the severity of the problem. For example,
between the years 1990 and 1995, the Ninth Circuit's average rate of
reversal was higher than any other circuit. During its 1995-1996
session, the Supreme Court overturned an astounding 83% of the cases
heard from the Ninth Circuit, a figure which is 30 percent higher than
the national average reversal rate. In the 1996-1997 session alone, an
astounding 95% of its cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were
overturned. This number should raise more than a few eyebrows. A split
of the Circuit would enable a more complete and sound review, thereby
reducing the Circuit's rate of reversal before the Supreme Court.
Many who oppose legislation to bifurcate the Ninth Circuit, contend
that all the Circuit needs is the appropriation of more federal dollars
for more federal judges. However, history reveals this contention to be
false. In fact, Congressional increases in the number of judges have
yielded few improvements. Studies on omnibus judgeships legislation
concluded that adding ``judges only delayed what appeared to be a
nearly inexorable climb in appeals taken to the court'' and only served
to further tax the judicial confirmation process.
As early as 1954, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned that
the courts' growing business could not ``be met by a steady increase in
the number of federal judges'' because this increase was ``bound to
depreciate the quality of the federal judiciary and thereby adversely
affect the whole system.'' Soon after Congress divided the former Fifth
Circuit, former Senator and Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Howell
Heflin, a Democrat from Alabama, remarked that ``Congress recognized
that a point is reached where the addition of judges decreases the
effectiveness of the court, complicates the administration of uniform
law, and potentially diminishes the quality of justice within a
Circuit.''
Former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood believed that a circuit split
would enable judges to achieve a greater mastery of applicable, but
unique, state law and state issues. He believed such a mastery was
necessary because ``burgeoning conflicts in the area of natural
resources and the continuing expansion of international trade efforts
will all expand the demand for judicial excellence . . . By reforming
our courts now, they will be better able to dispense justice in a fair
and expeditious manner.''
I concur. The uniqueness of the Northwest, and in particular, Alaska,
cannot be overstated. An effective appellate process demands mastery of
state law and state issues relative to the geographic land mass,
population and native cultures that are unique to the relevant region.
Presently, California is responsible for almost 50 percent of the
appellate court's filings, which means that California judges and
California judicial philosophy dominate judicial decision on issues
that are fundamentally unique to the Pacific Northwest. This need for
greater regional representation is demonstrated by the fact that the
East Coast is comprised of five federal circuits. A division of the
Ninth Circuit will enable judges, lawyers and parties to master a more
manageable and predictable universe of relevant caselaw.
Further, a division of the Ninth Circuit would honor Congress'
original intent in establishing appellate court boundaries that respect
and reflect a regional identity. In spite of efforts to modernize the
administration of the Ninth Circuit, its size works against the
original purpose of its creation: the uniform, coherent and efficient
development and application of federal law in the region. Establishing
a circuit comprised solely of states in the Northwest region would
adhere to Congressional intent. Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii,
Idaho, and Montana share similar land bases, populations and economies.
Each state contains a high percentage of public lands, fairly
comparable populations, is financially dependent upon tourism, and is
blessed with an abundance of natural resources. A new Twelfth Circuit,
comprised of states of the Pacific Northwest, would respect the
economic, historical, cultural and legal ties which philosophically
unite this region.
No one Court can effectively exercise its power in an area that
extends from the Arctic Circle to the tropics. Legislation dividing the
Ninth Circuit will create a regional commonality which will lead to
greater uniformity and
[[Page S1477]]
consistency in the development of federal law, and will ultimately
strengthen the constitutional guarantee of justice to all.
While I may believe even more sweeping change is in order, I strongly
urge that this body address the crisis in our judiciary system. It is
the 50 million residents of the Ninth Circuit that suffer from our
inaction. These Americans wait years before their cases are heard. And
after these unreasonable delays, justice may not even be served by an
over-stretched and out of touch judiciary.
Congress has known about the problem in the Ninth Circuit for a long
time. Justice has been delayed too long. The time for reform has come,
and I urge action on this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 346
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 ``Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals Reorganization Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.
Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter before the table, by striking
``thirteen'' and inserting ``fourteen''; and
(2) in the table--
(A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and
inserting the following:
Arizona, California, Nevada.'';........................................
and
(B) by inserting between the last 2 items the following:
Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon,
Washington.''.
SEC. 3. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.
The table in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and
inserting the following:
``Ninth.......................................................20'';....
and
(2) by inserting between the last 2 items the following:
``Twelfth......................................................8''.....
SEC. 4. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.
The table in section 48(a) of title 28, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and
inserting the following:
San Francisco, Los Angeles.'';.........................................
and
(2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end the
following:
Portland, Seattle.''...................................................
SEC. 5. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.
Each circuit judge in regular active service of the former
ninth circuit whose official station on the day before the
effective date of this Act--
(1) is in Arizona, California, or Nevada is assigned as a
circuit judge of the new ninth circuit; and
(2) is in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern
Mariana Islands, Oregon, or Washington is assigned as a
circuit judge of the twelfth circuit.
SEC. 6. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.
Each judge who is a senior judge of the former ninth
circuit on the day before the effective date of this Act may
elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or to the
twelfth circuit and shall notify the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such
election.
SEC. 7. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.
The seniority of each judge--
(1) who is assigned under section 5 of this Act; or
(2) who elects to be assigned under section 6 of this Act;
shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a
judge of the former ninth circuit.
SEC. 8. APPLICATION TO CASES.
The provisions of the following paragraphs of this section
apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective
date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been
filed with the former ninth circuit:
(1) If the matter has been submitted for decision, further
proceedings in respect of the matter shall be had in the same
manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been
enacted.
(2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the
appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers,
printed records, and record entries duly certified, shall, by
appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which the
matter would have been submitted had this Act been in full
force and effect at the time such appeal was taken or other
proceeding commenced, and further proceedings in respect of
the case shall be had in the same manner and with the same
effect as if the appeal or other proceeding had been filed in
such court.
(3) A petition for rehearing or a petition for rehearing en
banc in a matter decided before the effective date of this
Act, or submitted before the effective date of this Act and
decided on or after the effective date as provided in
paragraph (1), shall be treated in the same manner and with
the same effect as though this Act had not been enacted. If a
petition for rehearing en banc is granted, the matter shall
be reheard by a court comprised as though this Act had not
been enacted.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the term--
(1) ``former ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial
circuit of the United States as in existence on the day
before the effective date of this Act;
(2) ``new ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial circuit
of the United States established by the amendment made by
section 2(2); and
(3) ``twelfth circuit'' means the twelfth judicial circuit
of the United States established by the amendment made by
section 2(3).
SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATION.
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted
on the day before the effective date of this Act may take
such administrative action as may be required to carry out
this Act and the amendments made by this Act. Such court
shall cease to exist for administrative purposes on July 1,
2003.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on October 1, 2001.
______
By Mr. THOMAS.
S. 347. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve
the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and
Delisting Reform Act of 2001. The Endangered Species Act has become one
of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am
taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has
become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the
law more effective for local landowners, public land managers,
communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any
successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve
the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that
recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.
In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible
data that has been peer-reviewed. Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow
Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process
for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of
good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's
Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of
as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and
current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid
plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the
state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately
needed to the Endangered Species Act.
Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie
dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were being filed with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and
I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for
economic survival.
My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right
[[Page S1478]]
now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants
to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no
scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by
establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes
an analyses of the status of the species, its range, population trends
and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list
a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological
information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my
proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the
general public is provided a more substantial role.
This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed.
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
In the past in my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several
listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what
measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could
not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a
consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully
apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary
cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so
that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is,
in fact, threatened?
This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve
the goal of recovering the species?
This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is
all that this provision would require.
Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise
the end of the process the de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is
virtually impossible to currently de-list a species. There is no
certainty in the process and the states the folks who have all the
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not
true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the
species should be de-listed.
Wyoming's experience with the grizzly bear pinpoints some of the
problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for years over this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so,
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big
impacts. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly
need protection will be protected, but let's not lost sight of the real
goal recovery and delisting. I ask unamious 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. 347
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 ``Endangered Species Listing
and Delisting Process Reform Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. LISTING PROCESS REFORMS.
(a) Best Scientific and Commercial Data Available.--
(1) In general.--Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS'';
(B) by striking ``For the purposes of this Act--'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this Act:''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) General Provisions.--In any case in which this Act
requires the Secretary to use the best scientific and
commercial data available, the Secretary shall obtain and use
scientific or commercial data that are empirical or have been
field-tested or peer-reviewed.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in the
first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by striking the item relating
to section 3 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 3. Definitions and general provisions.''.
(b) Finding of Sufficient Biological Information To Support
Recovery Planning.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``shall make'' and inserting the following:
``shall--
``(i) make'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) determine that a species is an endangered species or
a threatened species only if the Secretary finds that there
is sufficient biological information to support recovery
planning for the species under subsection (f).''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and as to
whether the petition presents sufficient biological
information to support recovery planning for the species
under subsection (f)''.
(c) Petition Process.--Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(E) Listing petition information.--In the case of a
petition to add a species to a list published under
subsection (c), a finding that the petition presents the
information described in subparagraph (A) shall not be made
unless the petition provides--
``(i) documentation from a published scientific source that
the fish, wildlife, or plant that is the subject of the
petition is a species;
``(ii)(I) a description of the available data on the
historical and current range and distribution of the species;
``(II) an explanation of the methodology used to collect
the data; and
``(III) identification of the location where the data can
be reviewed;
``(iii) an appraisal of the available data on the status
and trends of all extant populations of the species;
``(iv) an appraisal of the available data on the threats to
the species;
``(v) an identification of the information contained or
referred to in the petition that has been peer-reviewed or
field-tested; and
``(vi) a description of at least 1 study or credible expert
opinion, from a person not affiliated with the petitioner, to
support the action requested in the petition.
``(F) Notification to states.--
``(i) Petitioned actions.--If a petition is found to
present information described in subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall--
``(I) notify and provide a copy of the petition to the
State agency of each State in which the species is believed
to occur; and
``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether
the petitioned action is warranted, which assessment shall be
submitted to the Secretary during a comment period ending 90
days after the date of the notification.
``(ii) Other actions.--If the Secretary has not received a
petition to add a species to a list published under
subsection (c) and the Secretary is considering proposing to
list the species as an endangered species or a threatened
species under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
``(I) notify the State agency of each State in which the
species is believed to occur; and
``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether
the listing would be in accordance with subsection (a), which
assessment shall be submitted to the Secretary during a
comment period ending 90 days after the date of the
notification.
``(iii) Consideration of state assessments.--Before
publication of a finding described in subparagraph (A) that a
petitioned
[[Page S1479]]
action is warranted, the Secretary shall consider any
assessments submitted with respect to the species within the
comment period established under clause (i) or (ii).''.
(d) Improvement of Public Hearings in the Listing
Process.--
(1) In general.--Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) is amended by striking
subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
``(E) promptly hold at least 2 hearings in each State in
which the species proposed for determination as an endangered
species or a threatened species is located (including at
least 1 hearing in an affected rural area if 1 or more rural
areas within the State are affected by the determination),
except that the Secretary may not be required to hold more
than 10 hearings under this subparagraph with respect to the
proposed regulation.''.
(2) Definition of rural area.--Section 3(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532(a)) (as
amended by subsection (a)(1)(B)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (14) as
paragraphs (11) through (13), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before paragraph (15) the following:
``(14) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means a county or
unincorporated area that has no city or town with a
population of more than 10,000 individuals.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 7(n) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended in the
first sentence by striking ``, as defined by section 3(13) of
this Act,''.
(e) Emergency Listing.--Section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) is amended in the
first sentence by striking ``posing a significant risk to the
well-being'' and inserting ``that poses an imminent threat to
the continued existence''.
(f) Other Listing Reforms.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(9) Availability of listing data.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon
publication of a proposed regulation determining that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species, the
Secretary shall make publicly available--
``(i) all information on which the determination is based,
including all scientific studies and data underlying the
studies; and
``(ii) all information relating to the species that the
Secretary possesses and that does not support the
determination.
``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) does not require
disclosure of any information that--
``(i) is not required to be made available under section
552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
`Freedom of Information Act'); or
``(ii) is prohibited from being disclosed under section
552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
`Privacy Act').
``(10) Establishment of criteria for scientific studies to
support listing.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations that establish criteria that must be met for
scientific and commercial data to be used as the basis of a
determination under this section that a species is an
endangered species or a threatened species.
``(11) Field data.--
``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary may not determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species
unless the determination is supported by data obtained by
observation of the species in the field.
``(B) Data from landowners.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) accept and acknowledge receipt of data regarding the
status of a species that is collected by an owner of land
through observation of the species on the land; and
``(ii) include the data in the rulemaking record compiled
for any determination that the species is an endangered
species or a threatened species.''.
SEC. 3. DEADLINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RECOVERY PLANS.
Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1533(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Deadline for development of recovery plans.--The
Secretary shall--
``(A) begin developing a recovery plan required for a
species under paragraph (1) on the date of promulgation of
the proposed regulation to implement a determination under
subsection (a)(1) with respect to the species; and
``(B) issue a recovery plan in final form not later than
the date of promulgation of the final regulation to implement
the determination.''.
SEC. 4. DELISTING.
Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1533(f)) (as amended by section 3) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Effect of fulfillment of recovery plan criteria.--
``(A) Change in status.--If the Secretary finds that the
criteria of a recovery plan have been met for a change in
status of the species covered by the recovery plan from an
endangered species to a threatened species, or from a
threatened species to an endangered species, the Secretary
shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of
the change in status of the species.
``(B) Removal from listing.--If the Secretary finds that
the criteria of a recovery plan have been met for the removal
of the species covered by the recovery plan from a list
published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall promptly
publish in the Federal Register a notice of an intent to
remove the species from the list.''.
____
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 348. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to extend the
authorization for the drug-free workplace program; to the Committee on
Small Business.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug-
Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001. This important
legislation will reduce the number of employees who engage in substance
abuse while on the job and will thus directly improve worker safety. As
employee substance abuse declines, there will be a corresponding
decline in the number of drug-related fatalities, injuries, and lost
workdays. Workers who abuse substances not only hurt themselves, but
their coworkers as well.
Approximately 1,000 workers are currently being injured and killed
each year as a direct result of their own and their coworkers'
substance abuse. Prior to 1993, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS,
reported that toxicological reports for occupational fatalities
indicated that one-sixth of the nation's workers who died on the job
were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.
Unfortunately, the true extent of this problem is not definitively
known as a result of the Department of Labor's decision to order the
BLS to discontinue the tracking of this statistic. In the meantime, we
can commit to providing additional funding to enhance drug-free
workplace programs.
The Drug-Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001 would simply
amend the Small Business Act, SBA, to authorize another $10 million, $5
million each, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for grants to states and
non-profit organizations working with small businesses to promote drug-
free workplaces. I ask my colleagues to join me in this simple, non-
partisan attempt to enhance the safety of American workers and 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. 348
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 ``Drug-Free Workplace Program
Extension Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PROGRAM EXTENSION.
(a) In General.--Section 27(g)(1) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 654(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and
inserting ``2005''.
(b) Small Business Development Centers.--Section
21(c)(3)(T) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(c)(3)(T)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2005''.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 349. A bill to provide funds to the National Center for Rural Law
Enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues
Senator Harkin, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Thomas to introduce
the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001. This important
legislation will authorize the funding necessary to ensure that rural
law enforcement agencies are able to secure the technical assistance,
education, and training they need.
As in my home state of Arkansas, many rural law enforcement agencies
are comprised of a handful of officers and don't have the financial
resources to provide them with crucial technical assistance, education,
and training. However, the need for these services is greater than ever
as these officers are increasingly facing violent crimes that were once
confined to urban settings. When one considers the fact that ten
officers in 100,000 die in the line of duty each year in rural counties
and communities with a population less than 25,000, as contrasted with
seven in 100,000 in the largest cities, this legislation becomes
necessary.
I am very proud that, under the leadership of Dr. Lee Colwell, the
former
[[Page S1480]]
Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National
Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas has taken the
lead in addressing this problem. Since 1985, the Center has been
providing the technical assistance, education, and training that rural
law enforcement agencies so critically need. For instance, the Center
is currently providing Internet access, forensic science education and
training, and model management and investigative policies to rural law
enforcement agencies throughout the nation. Its effectiveness is
readily apparent as it is strongly supported by law enforcement
agencies located in the following 40 states: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona;
Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; Georgia;
Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland;
Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada;
New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma;
Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas;
Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming.
The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001 will establish eight
regional centers to compliment the Center and thereby expand the
technical assistance, education, and training available to local law
enforcement agencies throughout our nation. Thus, I ask my colleagues
to join with me as I work to see that this important measure is enacted
into law and 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. 349
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 ``Rural Law Enforcement
Assistance Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the members of the
Board of the Center elected in accordance with the bylaws of
the Center.
(2) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the National Center
for Rural Law Enforcement, a nonprofit corporation located in
Little Rock, Arkansas.
(3) Executive director.--The term ``Executive Director''
means the Executive Director of the Center as appointed in
accordance with the bylaws of the Center.
(4) Institutions of higher education.--The term
``institutions of higher education'' has the meaning given
the term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(5) Metropolitan statistical area.--The term ``metropolitan
statistical area'' has the same meaning given the term by the
Bureau of the Census of the Department of Commerce.
(6) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means an area that
is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area.
(7) Rural law enforcement agency.--The term ``rural law
enforcement agency'' means a criminal justice or law
enforcement agency that serves a county, parish, city, town,
township, borough, or village that is located in a rural
area.
SEC. 3. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM GRANTS.
(a) Grant Authority.--The Attorney General shall annually
make a grant to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement
through the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Affairs, if the Executive Director certifies in writing to
the Attorney General that the Center--
(1) is incorporated in accordance with applicable State
law;
(2) is in compliance with the bylaws of the Center;
(3) will use amounts made available under this section in
accordance with subsection (b); and
(4) will not support any political party or candidate for
elected or appointed office.
(b) Uses of Funds.--
(1) Required uses of funds.--The Center shall use amounts
made available under this section to develop an education and
training program for criminal justice or law enforcement
agencies in rural areas and the employees of those agencies,
which shall include--
(A) the development and delivery of management, forensic
and computer education and training, technical assistance,
and practical research and evaluation for employees of rural
law enforcement agencies (including tribal law enforcement
agencies and railroad law enforcement agencies), including
supervisory and executive managers of those agencies;
(B) conducting research into the causes and prevention of
criminal activity in rural areas, including the causes,
assessment, evaluation, analysis, and prevention of criminal
activity;
(C) the development and dissemination of information
designed to assist States and units of local government in
rural areas throughout the United States;
(D) the establishment and maintenance of a resource and
information center for the collection, preparation, and
dissemination of information regarding criminal justice and
law enforcement in rural areas, including programs for the
prevention of crime and recidivism; and
(E) the delivery of assistance, in a consulting capacity,
to criminal justice agencies in the development,
establishment, maintenance, and coordination of programs,
facilities and services, education, training, and research
relating to crime in rural areas.
(2) Permissive uses of funds.--The Center may use amounts
made available under a grant under this section to enhance
the education and training program developed under paragraph
(1), through--
(A) educational opportunities for rural law enforcement
agencies;
(B) the development, promotion, and voluntary adoption of
educational and training standards and accreditation
certification programs for rural law enforcement agencies and
the employees of those agencies;
(C) grants to, and contracts with, State, and local
governments, law enforcement agencies, public and private
agencies, educational institutions, and other organizations
and individuals to carry out this paragraph;
(D) the formulation and recommendation of law enforcement
policy, goals, and standards in rural areas applicable to
criminal justice agencies, organizations, institutions, and
personnel; and
(E) coordination with institutions of higher education for
the purpose of encouraging and delivering programs of study
with those institutions for employees of rural law
enforcement agencies.
(c) Powers.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Executive
Director may--
(1) request the head of any Federal department or agency to
detail, on a reimbursable basis, 1 or more employees of the
Federal department or agency to the Center to assist the
Center in carrying out subsection (b), and any such detail
shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status
or privilege;
(2) request the Administrator of the General Services
Administration to provide the Center, on a reimbursable
basis, the administrative support services necessary for the
Center to carry out subsection (b); and
(3) procure temporary and intermittent services under
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates of
compensation established by the Board, but not to exceed the
daily equivalent of the maximum rate of pay payable for a
position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Executive Director shall
annually submit to the Attorney General a report, which shall
include--
(1) a description of the education and training program
developed under subsection (b);
(2) the number and demographic representation of
individuals who attended programs sponsored by the Center;
(3) a description of the extent to which resources of other
governmental agencies or private entities were used in
carrying out subsection (b); and
(4) a description of the extent to which contracts with
other public and private entities were used in carrying out
subsection (b).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007.
SEC. 4. REGIONAL CENTERS.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Center shall establish 8 regional
centers, 1 in each geographic region listed in subsection (b)
that will be under the supervision, direction, and control of
the Center.
(2) Requirement.--The 8 regional centers shall be
established 2 per year during 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
(b) Regions.--For purposes of subsection (a), the regions
shall be as follows:
(1) Region 1.--Region 1 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Connecticut;
(B) Maine;
(C) Massachusetts;
(D) New Hampshire;
(E) New York;
(F) Rhode Island; and
(G) Vermont.
(2) Region 2.--Region 2 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Delaware;
(B) Maryland;
(C) New Jersey;
(D) Ohio;
(E) Pennsylvania;
(F) West Virginia; and
(G) Virginia.
(3) Region 3.--Region 3 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Alabama;
(B) Florida;
(C) Georgia;
(D) Mississippi;
(E) North Carolina; and
(F) South Carolina.
(4) Region 4.--Region 4 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Iowa;
[[Page S1481]]
(B) Minnesota;
(C) Nebraska;
(D) North Dakota;
(E) South Dakota; and
(F) Wisconsin.
(5) Region 5.--Region 5 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Arkansas;
(B) Illinois;
(C) Indiana;
(D) Kentucky;
(E) Louisiana;
(F) Michigan;
(G) Missouri; and
(H) Tennessee.
(6) Region 6.--Region 6 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Colorado;
(B) Kansas;
(C) New Mexico;
(D) Oklahoma; and
(E) Texas.
(7) Region 7.--Region 7 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Arizona;
(B) California;
(C) Nevada; and
(D) Utah.
(8) Region 8.--Region 8 shall be comprised of the following
States--
(A) Alaska;
(B) Hawaii;
(C) Idaho;
(D) Montana;
(E) Oregon;
(F) Washington; and
(G) Wyoming.
(c) Funding.--
(1) In general.--All funds for the regional centers shall
be distributed by the Center which shall determine the budget
base of each regional center based upon the budget request
required to be submitted by each regional center under
paragraph (2).
(2) Budget request.--Each regional center shall submit a
budget request to the Center at such time and in such manner
as the Executive Director may reasonably require.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(5) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2006 and 2007.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Reid,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Specter, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Carper, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 350. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote the cleanup and
reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields
revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Together with
Chairman Bob Smith, Senators Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer, and other
members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am
reintroducing the popular bipartisan legislation that I co-authored in
the 106th Congress. That bill eventually amassed sixty-six co-sponsors
and I look forward to the bill enjoying the same strong bipartisan
support it did last year.
As the chairman of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, I have made
brownfields reform my top environmental priority. As one of six former
mayors in the Senate, I understand the environmental, economic, and
social benefits that can be realized in our communities from
revitalizing brownfields. Estimates show there to be between 450,000
and 600,000 brownfield sites in the United States. Why do we have so
many of these abandoned sites? The shift away from an industrialized
economy, the migration of land use from urban areas to suburban and
rural areas, and our nation's strict liability contamination statutes
have all contributed. By enacting this legislation, we can recycle our
nation's contaminated land, reinvigorate our urban cores, stimulate
economic development, revitalize blighted communities, abate
environmental health risks, and reduce the pressure to develop pristine
land.
People may legitimately question the necessity of enacting federal
brownfields legislation. Given the frequent touting of brownfield
success stories, is federal legislation necessary? The short answer is
``yes''. While many states have implemented innovative and effective
brownfield programs, they cannot remove the federal barriers to
brownfield redevelopment. By providing federal funding, eliminating
federal liability for developers, and reducing the role of the federal
government at brownfield sites, we will allow state and local
governments to improve upon what they are already doing well.
I would like to briefly describe the highlights of our legislation.
The bill authorizes $150 million per year to state and local
governments to perform assessments and cleanup at brownfield sites. In
addition, that money will allow EPA to issue grants for cleanup of
sites to be converted into parks or open space. It also authorizes $50
million per year to establish and enhance state brownfield programs.
The bill clarifies that prospective purchasers, innocent landowners,
and contiguous property owners, that act appropriately, are not
responsible for paying cleanup costs. Finally, this legislation offers
finality by precluding EPA from taking an action at a site being
addressed under a state cleanup program unless there is an ``imminent
and substantial endangerment'' to public health or the environment, and
additional work needs to be done.
Enactment of this legislation and the accompanying redevelopment will
provide a building block for the revitalization of our communities.
Communities whose fortunes sank along with the decline of mills and
factories will once again attract new residents and well-paying jobs.
We will bring vibrant industry back to the brownfield sites that
currently host crime, mischief and contamination. There will be parks
at sites that now contain more rubble than grass. City tax rolls will
burgeon; schools will be invigorated; new homes will be built, and
community character will be restored. This vision for our communities
can be realized with enactment of this legislation.
As with all legislation, we must reach across the aisle and work with
bipartisan cooperation to be successful. The legislation we are
introducing today garnered sixty-six bipartisan co-sponsors in the
106th Congress. It also enjoyed broad support from the real estate
community, local government officials, state officials, business
groups, and environmental groups. I hope that the bill will continue to
attract such broad support in the 107th Congress. I would like to thank
Chairman Bob Smith, and Senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer for their
leadership on this issue and their steadfast commitment to moving this
legislation forward. I look forward to working with all my colleagues
and with the Administration on this very important measure.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of
support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 350
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.
TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING
SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
(a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(39) Brownfield site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not
include--
``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or
ongoing removal action under this title;
[[Page S1482]]
``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities
List or is proposed for listing;
``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties under this Act;
``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a
permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized
State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.);
``(v) a facility that--
``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u)
or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6924(u), 6928(h)); and
``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has
been issued or modified to require the implementation of
corrective measures;
``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--
``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been
submitted; and
``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a
closure plan or permit;
``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
``(viii) a portion of a facility--
``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated
biphenyls; and
``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or
``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion,
assistance for response activity has been obtained under
subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et
seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President
may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an
eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v),
(vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President
finds that financial assistance will protect human health and
the environment, and either promote economic development or
enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to
parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational
property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128,
the term `brownfield site' includes--
``(i) a site that is contaminated by a controlled substance
(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 802)); and
``(ii) mine-scarred land.''.
(b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.
``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term `eligible entity' means--
``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
governmental entity that operates under the supervision and
control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local
government;
``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units
of local government;
``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise
sanctioned by a State;
``(6) a State; or
``(7) an Indian Tribe.
``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant
Program.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall
establish a program to--
``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess,
and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under
paragraph (2); and
``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield
sites.
``(2) Assistance for site characterization and
assessment.--
``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an
eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the
eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory,
characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or
more brownfield sites.
``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site
characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a
grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance
with section 101(35)(B).
``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to
subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a
program to provide grants to--
``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of
revolving loan funds; and
``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where
warranted, as determined by the President based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for
remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites that is owned by
the entity or organization that receives the grant and in
amounts not to exceed $200,000 for each site to be
remediated.
``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An
eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A)
shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the
remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner,
a site developer, or another person; or
``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other
nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the
eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on
considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned
by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that
receives the grant.
``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under
paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the
eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into
consideration--
``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes;
``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community;
``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure;
``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability
of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation; and
``(E) such other factors as the Administrator considers
appropriate to consider for the purposes of this section.
``(4) Compliance with applicable laws.--An eligible entity
that provides assistance under paragraph (2) shall include in
all loan and grant agreements a requirement that the loan or
grant recipient shall comply with all laws applicable to the
cleanup for which grant funds will be used and ensure that
the cleanup protects human health and the environment.
``(5) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been
established before the date of enactment of this section may
be used in accordance with this subsection.
``(d) General Provisions.--
``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--
``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
wide or site-by-site basis; and
``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site
covered by the grant, $200,000.
``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000
limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site
to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the
anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of
ownership of the site.
``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may
be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make
an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause
(i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant
is made, taking into consideration--
``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that
are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that
have not previously received a grant under this section;
``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to
use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and
provide funds on a continuing basis; and
``(IV) any other factors that the Administrator considers
appropriate to carry out this section.
``(2) Prohibition.--
``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this
section may be used for the payment of--
``(i) a penalty or fine;
``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
``(iii) an administrative cost;
``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the
recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under
section 107; or
``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including
a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)).
``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph
(A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the
cost of--
``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of
contamination;
``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
``(3) Assistance for development of local government site
remediation programs.--A local government that receives a
[[Page S1483]]
grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of
the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields
program that may include--
``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or
more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional
control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous
substance from a brownfield site.
``(e) Grant Applications.--
``(1) Submission.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the
Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may
require, an application for a grant under this section for 1
or more brownfield sites (including information on the
criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under
paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is
available).
``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in
any requirement for submission of an application under clause
(i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to
the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate
to the program under this section.
``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate
with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible
entities aware of other available Federal resources.
``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance
to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this
section.
``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
``(A) complete an annual review of applications for grants
that are received from eligible entities under this section;
and
``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities
that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings
under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish
a system for ranking grant applications received under this
subsection that includes the following criteria:
``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the
availability of other funds for environmental assessment or
remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or
more brownfield sites are located.
``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the
development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield
sites are located to stimulate economic development of the
area on completion of the cleanup.
``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or
facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to
human health and the environment.
``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use
or reuse of existing infrastructure.
``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a
community that has an inability to draw on other sources of
funding for environmental remediation and subsequent
redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is
located because of the small population or low income of the
community.
``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for
funding from other sources.
``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair
distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for
involvement of the local community in the process of making
decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield
site.
``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may
provide, or fund eligible entities to provide, training,
research, and technical assistance to individuals and
organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate the inventory of
brownfield sites, site assessments, remediation of brownfield
sites, community involvement, or site preparation.
``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be
expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not
exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry
out this section in any fiscal year.
``(g) Audits.--
``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or
audits of grants and loans under this section as the
Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this
section.
``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be
conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the
General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code.
``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a
person that receives a grant or loan under this section has
violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant,
loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the
Administrator.
``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a
project at a brownfield site for which funding is received
from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the
purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this
section shall be subject to an agreement that--
``(1) requires the recipient to comply with all applicable
Federal and State laws;
``(2) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan
exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c),
as applicable;
``(3) in the case of an application by an eligible entity
under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay
a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution
of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from
non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator
determines that the matching share would place an undue
hardship on the eligible entity; and
``(4) contains such other terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this
section.
``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a
facility may not be a brownfield site within the meaning of
section 101(39)(A) has no effect on the eligibility of the
facility for assistance under any other provision of Federal
law.
``(k) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006.''.
TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS
SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.
Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is
contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect
to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real
property that is not owned by that person shall not be
considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason
of the contamination if--
``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to
the release or threatened release;
``(ii) the person is not--
``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship
or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship
(other than a contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of
goods or services); or
``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable;
``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--
``(I) stop any continuing release;
``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or
from property owned by that person;
``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance,
and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response
actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or
facility from which there has been a release or threatened
release (including the cooperation and access necessary for
the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of
any complete or partial response action at the vessel or
facility);
``(v) the person--
``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a facility; and
``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed in connection with a
response action;
``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for
information or administrative subpoena issued by the
President under this Act;
``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices
with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous
substances at the facility; and
``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the
property, the person--
``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning
of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the
property was or could be contaminated by a release or
threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from
other real property not owned or operated by the person.
``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in
subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through
(viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that
does not qualify as a person described in this paragraph
because the person had knowledge specified in subparagraph
(A)(viii) at the time of acquisition of the real property may
qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser under section
101(40) if the person is otherwise described in that section.
``(D) Ground water.--If a hazardous substance from 1 or
more sources that are not on the property of a person enters
ground
[[Page S1484]]
water beneath the property of the person solely as a result
of subsurface migration in an aquifer, subparagraph (A)(iii)
shall not require the person to conduct ground water
investigations or to install ground water remediation
systems, except in accordance with the policy of the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning owners of property
containing contaminated aquifers, dated May 24, 1995.
``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in
this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available
to the person under any other provision of law; or
``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise
imposed by subsection (a).
``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under
this Act will be initiated against a person described in
paragraph (1); and
``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection
against a cost recovery or contribution action under section
113(f).''.
SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.
(a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section
101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as
amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona
fide prospective purchaser' means a person (or a tenant of a
person) that acquires ownership of a facility after the date
of enactment of this paragraph and that establishes each of
the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of
hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the
person acquired the facility.
``(B) Inquiries.--
``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate
inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the
facility in accordance with generally accepted good
commercial and customary standards and practices in
accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and
practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph
(35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of
this subparagraph.
``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in
residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a
nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.
``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required
notices with respect to the discovery or release of any
hazardous substances at the facility.
``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with
respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by
taking reasonable steps to--
``(i) stop any continuing release;
``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural
resource exposure to any previously released hazardous
substance.
``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person
provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons
that are authorized to conduct response actions at a vessel
or facility (including the cooperation and access necessary
for the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance
of any complete or partial response actions at the vessel or
facility).
``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions
established or relied on in connection with the response
action at a vessel or facility; and
``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of
any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility
in connection with a response action.
``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any
request for information or administrative subpoena issued by
the President under this Act.
``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other
person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a
facility through--
``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial
relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or
financial relationship that is created by the instruments by
which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a
contract for the sale of goods or services); or
``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity
that was potentially liable.''.
(b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by
section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential
liability for a release or threatened release is based solely
on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or
operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the
bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the
performance of a response action or natural resource
restoration.
``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs
incurred by the United States at a facility for which an
owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph
(1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3)
is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility,
or may by agreement with the party obtain from an appropriate
party a lien on any other property or other assurance of
payment satisfactory to the Administrator, for the
unrecovered response costs.
``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(2) are the following:
``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there
are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at
the facility.
``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the
fair market value of the facility above the fair market value
of the facility that existed before the response action was
initiated.
``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in
fair market value of the property attributable to the
response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of
the property;
``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first
incurred by the United States with respect to a response
action at the facility;
``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection
(l)(3); and
``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under
section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the
facility.''.
SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.
Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(35)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds,
easements, leases, or''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to
the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions
at the facility (including the cooperation and access
necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and
maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the
facility), and is in compliance with any land use
restrictions established or relied on in connection with the
response action at a facility, and does not impede the
effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control
employed at the facility in connection with a response
action.''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Reason to know.--
``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the
defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in
subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a
court that--
``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired
the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate
inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the
previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance
with generally accepted good commercial and customary
standards and practices; and
``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--
``(aa) stop any continuing release;
``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or
natural resource exposure to any previously released
hazardous substance.
``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, the Administrator
shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the
purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all
appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that
establish the standards and practices referred to in clause
(ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:
``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental
professional.
``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators,
and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering
information regarding the potential for contamination at the
facility.
``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of
title documents, aerial photographs, building department
records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and
occupancies of the real property since the property was first
developed.
``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens
against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or
local law.
``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government
records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank
records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment,
disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or
near the facility.
``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining
properties.
[[Page S1485]]
``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of
the defendant.
``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the
value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property.
``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely
presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to
detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.
``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--
``(I) Property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With respect
to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a
determination with respect to a defendant described of clause
(i), a court shall take into account--
``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part
of the defendant;
``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value
of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property;
``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence
of contamination at the property; and
``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the
contamination by appropriate inspection.
``(II) Property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--With
respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and
until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described
in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, including the document known as
`Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause
(i).
``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of
property for residential use or other similar use purchased
by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility
inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further
investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements
of this subparagraph.''.
TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS
SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(41) Eligible response site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means
a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site'
includes--
``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a
facility, for which portion assistance for response activity
has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section
9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions
provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the
President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after
consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement
under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v),
(vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and
will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the
creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a
greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or
other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does
not include--
``(i) a facility for which the President--
``(I) conducts or has conducted a remedial site
investigation; and
``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has
determined that the site qualifies for listing on the
National Priorities List;
unless the President has made a determination that no further
Federal action will be taken; or
``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant
particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as
sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer
or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
(b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
``(a) Assistance to States.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a
State or Indian tribe that--
``(i) has a response program that includes each of the
elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of
the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the
Administrator for voluntary response programs.
``(B) Use of grants by states.--
``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant
under this subsection to establish or enhance the response
program of the State or Indian tribe.
``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under
clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under
this subsection to--
``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation under section 128(c); or
``(II) develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or
insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions
under a State response program.
``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe
response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the
following:
``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in
the State.
``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other
mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
``(i) a response action will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal
and State law; and
``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails
to complete the necessary response activities, including
operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities,
the necessary response activities are completed.
``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful
opportunities for public participation, including--
``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian
tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or
developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site
activities; and
``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed
cleanup plans and site activities.
``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a
requirement for verification by and certification or similar
documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed
site professional to the person conducting a response action
indicating that the response is complete.
``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State
Program.--
``(1) Enforcement.--
``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible
response site at which--
``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response
action regarding the specific release that is addressed by
the response action that is in compliance with the State
program that specifically governs response actions for the
protection of public health and the environment;
the President may not use authority under this Act to take an
administrative or judicial enforcement action under section
106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover
response costs under section 107(a) against the person
regarding the specific release that is addressed by the
response action.
``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an enforcement
action under this Act during or after completion of a
response action described in subparagraph (A) with respect to
a release or threatened release at an eligible response site
described in that subparagraph if--
``(i) the State requests that the President provide
assistance in the performance of a response action;
``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has
migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in
the need for further response action to protect human health
or the environment, or the President determines that
contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto
property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of
a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal
property;
``(iii) after taking into consideration the response
activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--
``(I) a release or threatened release may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare or the environment; and
``(II) additional response actions are likely to be
necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release
or threatened release; or
``(iv) the Administrator determines that information, that
on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was approved or
completed, was not known by the State, as recorded in
documents prepared or relied on in selecting or conducting
the cleanup, has been discovered regarding the contamination
or conditions at a facility such that the contamination or
conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further
remediation to protect public health or welfare or the
environment.
``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of
the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in
States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make
available to the public a record of sites, by name and
location, at which response actions have been completed in
the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the
State program that specifically governs response actions for
the protection of public health and the environment in the
upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or
not the site, on completion of the response action, will be
[[Page S1486]]
suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the
institutional controls relied on in the remedy. Each State
and tribe receiving financial assistance under subsection (a)
shall maintain and make available to the public a record of
sites as provided in this paragraph.
``(D) EPA notification.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site
at which there is a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which
the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be
barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--
``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator
intends to take; and
``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under
clause (ii); or
``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or
if the Administrator makes a determination under clause
(iii), take immediate action under that clause.
``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State
receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the
State shall notify the Administrator if--
``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has
been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program;
and
``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or
threatened release, any actions that are planned.
``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may
take action immediately after giving notification under
clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause
(ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more
exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President
under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the
President shall submit to Congress a report describing the
basis for the enforcement action, including specific
references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action
is permitted under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Savings provision.--
``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover
costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section
or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph
(1)(A) were not applicable.
``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing
in paragraph (1)--
``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of
agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar
agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an
Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or
before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement
shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the
agreement); or
``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President
to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian
tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by
the President of statutory authorities.
``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to
response actions conducted after June 8, 2000.
``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section
affects any liability or response authority under any Federal
law, including--
``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); and
``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.).''.
SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) NPL Deferral.--
``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request
of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with
or order from the State, is conducting a response action at
the eligible response site--
``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically
governs response actions for the protection of public health
and the environment; and
``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human
health and the environment; or
``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to
perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at
the site with a person that the State has reason to believe
is capable of conducting a response action that meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of
the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list an eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, the President determines that the
State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward
completing a response action at the eligible response site,
the President may list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List.
``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible
response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day
of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the
President proposes to list the eligible response site on the
National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph
(1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the
listing of the eligible response site on the National
Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180
days if the President determines deferring the listing would
be appropriate based on--
``(A) the complexity of the site;
``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the
President.
``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or
elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible
response site on the National Priorities List if the
President determines that--
``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State,
as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of
hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially
responsible party;
``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for
issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as
applicable, are no longer being met.''.
____
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk
Assessment, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon Harry Reid,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste
Control, and Risk Assessment, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: On behalf of
The United States Conference of Mayors, I am writing to
express the strong support of the nation's mayors for your
bipartisan legislation, the ``Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental restoration Act of 2001.'' The mayors believe
that this legislation can dramatically improve the nation's
efforts to recycle abandoned and other underutilized
brownfield sites, providing new incentives and statutory
reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of
these properties.
This is a national problem that deserves a strong and
prompt federal response. The mayors believe that this
bipartisan legislation will help accelerate ongoing private
sector and public efforts to recycle America's land.
We thank you for your leadership on this priority
legislation for the nation's cities. We strongly support this
legislation and we encourage you to move forward
expeditiously so that the nation can secure the many positive
benefits to be achieved from the reuse and redevelopment of
the many thousands of brownfields throughout the U.S.
Sincerely,
H. Brent Coles,
President,
Mayor of Boise.
____
National Association of Realtors',
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of the more than 760,000
members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ',
I wish to convey our strong support for the ``Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act.'' NAR
commends you for your efforts in crafting a practical and
effective bill which has garnered bipartisan support from the
leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee.
NAR supports this bill because it:
Provides liability relief for innocent property owners who
have not caused or contributed to hazardous waste
contamination;
Increases funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the
hundreds of thousands of our nation's contaminated
``brownfields'' sites;
Recognizes the finality of successful state hazardous waste
cleanup efforts.
Brownfields sites offer excellent opportunities for the
economic, environmental and social enrichment of our
communities. Unfortunately, liability concerns and a lack of
adequate resources often deter redevelopment of such sites.
As a result, properties that could be enhancing community
growth are left dilapidated, contributing to nothing
[[Page S1487]]
but economic ruin. Once revitalized, however, brownfields
sites benefit their surrounding communities by increasing the
tax base, creating jobs and providing new housing.
The new Administration has clearly indicated its support
for brownfields revitalization efforts. The ``Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act'' is a
positive, broadly-supported policy initiative. NAR looks
forward to working together with you to enact brownfields
legislation in the 107th Congress.
Sincerely,
Richard Mendenhall,
2001 President.
____
American Insurance Association,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Senator Lincoln D. Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, Risk
Assessment, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Insurance
Association, I want to congratulate you upon the introduction
of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act.
We believe this bill will provide necessary relief to many
cities struggling with the problem of abandoned, contaminated
properties. While insurance is now emerging as one of the
most useful tools for managing environmental liability risk
in the redevelopment of contaminated properties, insurance
products alone are not enough. The predicament for many
cities is that they don't have the resources to address the
brownfields problem, but they can't develop the resources
without addressing the brownfields problem. Your bill is a
giant step toward resolving this conundrum.
In sum, we believe this bill constitutes a positive step
toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites. We are especially
happy to observe that the bill does this through a mechanism
other than litigation. Finally, we are pleased to note the
bill is the product of a bipartisan consensus of the
leadership of the Senate Environment Committee.
We look forward to working with you to see that this
legislation becomes law.
Sincerely,
John G. Arlington,
Assistant Vice President.
____
National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties,
Herndon, VA, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of The National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), I am writing to
voice our support for the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. This legislation is
very important to the development community as it promotes
the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, provides financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization and helps to
provide incentives to put unused industrial sites back into
productive use.
NAIOP, with over 9,400 members, is a national association
that represents the interests of developers, owners and
investors of industrial, office and related commercial real
estate throughout North America. We applaud the efforts of
the Committee to once again encourage brownfields
revitalization.
With respect to brownfields, NAIOP is encouraged by the
grant program proposed in the bill and supports federal
assistance to states in establishing and expanding voluntary
clean up programs. These provisions demonstrate a serious
attempt toward achieving much-needed brownfields
revitalization, which is a primary concern to the commercial
real estate industry.
All across the country there is debate about how to control
urban sprawl. We believe that this legislation will go
further to address the issue of sprawl, especially since it
will encourage the revitalization of our nations urban areas.
NAIOP urges swift passage of this bill, and we look forward
to working with you to achieve this result.
Sincerely,
Anne Evans Estabrook,
Chairman of the Board.
Thomas J. Bisacquino,
President.
____
International Council of
Shopping Centers,
Alexandria, VA, February 13, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: The International Council of Shopping
Centers (ICSC) strongly commends your plans to introduce the
``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001.'' Along with your co-sponsors, you have
displayed critical leadership on a public policy issue to
often caught up in partisan rhetoric. ICSC enthusiastically
supports the legislation, as we did last year with S. 2700,
and looks forward to working with you and your staff to
ensure its passage.
Shopping centers are America's marketplace, representing
economic growth, environmentally responsibility, and
community strength. Founded in 1957, the ICSC is the global
trade association of the shopping center industry. Its nearly
35,000 U.S. members represent almost all of the 44,426
shopping centers in the United States. In addition, shopping
centers employ over 11 million people, about nine percent of
non-agricultural jobs in the United States. Legislation such
as the ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001'' will allow center developers to
further step-up their efforts to assist in the redevelopment
of urban areas in their continuing efforts to enhance the
environmental and economic quality of America's cities.
The 2001 Act will provide practical solutions to many of
the issues developers confront when debating the merits of
brownfields redevelopment. Provisions providing liability
relief for innocent property owners who have not caused or
contributed to hazardous waste contamination; increased
funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the hundreds of
thousands of the country's brownfields sites; and,
recognition that sites remediated under the authority of
state voluntary clean up laws should constitute final action
are all vital to encouraging development in sites that may
otherwise be left abandoned.
The targeted reforms you have focused on will result in
greater infill development and enhance the urban landscape.
The 2001 Act will not only spur economic development but also
improve environmental quality throughout the country. ICSC
looks forward to working with you in the coming months in
support of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
William H. Hoffman, III,
Manager, Environmental Issues.
____
The Real Estate Roundtable,
February 14, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing on behalf of the Real
Estate Roundtable to express our members' enthusiastic
support for ``The Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001'' (BRERA). This
important legislation would make welcome reforms to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act or ``Superfund'' law.
Last year's similar legislation achieved an astonishing
degree of bipartisan support--picking up a total 67 co-
sponsors and broad support from a diverse array of
environmental, state and local government and business
organizations. Today we believe there is a great
opportunity--with help from the Bush Administration--to move
BRERA quickly through Congress and to the president's desk
for signature. In that regard, we have been heartened by the
strong signal of support for this type of bill sent by
President Bush during his campaign for the presidency. As
indicate by her remarks during her confirmation hearings,
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman will also clearly be an
ally.
There are brownfields in every state--and almost every
community--in this country. If enacted into law, BRERA would
significantly advance the economic prospects for remediating
and recycling those properties into a broad range of
productive uses. The economic and regulatory incentives
included in the bill would help thousands of brownfield sites
across the country become vibrant new employment centers. In
other cases, the clean-up properties would provide many
communities with environmentally sound housing alternatives.
As you know, The Real Estate Roundtable's members are
America's leading real estate owners, advisors, builders,
investors, lenders and managers. The Real Estate Roundtable
(and its predecessor organization the National Realty
Committee) has long supported enactment of bipartisan
legislation that includes meaningful incentives for
brownfields redevelopment. BRERA is clearly just such a piece
of legislation.
In particular, the proposed legislation would go far in
assuring those parties purchasing already contaminated
``brownfields'' properties that they have not also acquired
unwarranted Superfund liability. Such assurance is critical
to successfully financing and closing on brownfields
transaction. In addition, we are pleased the bill recognizes
the need to clarify the innocence of those individuals or
companies whose real property has become contaminated simply
because hazardous substances have migrated from adjacent
sites.
The legislation also includes a provision that will, in
most cases, reassure participants in state voluntary cleanup
programs that their state-approved cleanup is not likely to
be ``second-guessed'' by federal officials. This so-called
``finality'' assurance is crucial not only to potential
buyers and sellers of brownfields properties but to their
financial partners as well. The bill presents a welcome
compromise on a very difficult policy challenge.
[[Page S1488]]
We look forward to working with you, other Senate leaders
and the Administration to encourage the swift passage of
BRERA.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. DeBoer,
President and Chief Operating Officer.
____
The Trust for Public Land,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and
Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Trust for Public Land, I am
writing to thank you for introducing the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. We
appreciate your outstanding efforts to promote local
environmental quality, as typified by your energetic advocacy
of this brownfields legislation.
TPL was honored to be part of the coalition that helped to
push this legislation to the brink of enactment at the end of
the 106th Congress, and we again look forward to working with
you to make this legislation a reality within the near
future. We are particularly grateful that you have re-
introduced identical legislation this time around.
Given our experience in community open-space issues, we are
heartened by the emphasis the legislation places on
brownfields-to-parks conversion where appropriate, and its
flexibility to tailor loan and grant funding based on
community needs and eventual uses. In all, this legislation
provides the framework and funding that an effective national
approach to brownfields requires, and offers the promise of a
much-needed federal partnership role in brownfields
reclamation.
Brownfields afford some of the most promising
revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural
locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the
pronounced needs in underserved communities to reclaim
abandoned sites and create open spaces where they are most
needed. By transforming these idled sites into urgently
needed parks and green spaces, or by focusing investment into
their appropriate redevelopment, reclamation of brownfield
properties brings new life to local economies and to the
spirit of neighborhoods.
The Trust for Public Land gratefully recognizes the vision
and careful craftsmanship you have shown in your work to
advance this vital legislation, and we look forward to
working with you towards its enactment.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President.
____
Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc.,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith Reid, Chafee and Boxer: The Institute
of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI), strongly supports
the passage of the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Passage of this
bipartisan bill will reduce the many legal and regulatory
barriers that stand in the way of brownfields redevelopment.
This important brownfields legislation will provide
liability relief for innocent property owners who purchase a
property without knowing that it is contaminated, but who
carry out a good faith effort to investigate the site. It
also recognizes the finality of successful state approved
voluntary cleanup efforts and provides funds to cleanup and
redevelop brownfields sites.
ISRI stands ready to help build support for passage of this
bipartisan brownfields bill. In the previous Congress, ISRI's
membership worked to build grassroots support and sought
cosponsors for S. 2700 of the 106th Congress, the predecessor
bill to the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001.
ISRI looks forward to continuing to work with you to see
that the brownfields bill you have sponsored becomes law. We
believe that the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 is a model for sensible bipartisan
environmental policy.
Sincerely,
Robin K. Wiener,
President.
____
February 15, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and
Senator Boxer: We are writing to thank you for the
outstanding leadership you have demonstrated by your re-
introduction of the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Our organizations, and
our many community partners across America, are heartened by
the benefits that this legislation would impart upon our
landscapes, economies, public parks and our communities as a
whole. Transforming abandoned brownfield sites into
greenfields or new development will provide momentum for
increasing ``smart growth'' and reducing sprawl by utilizing
existing transportation infrastructure, which in turn will
lead to better transportation systems and the revitalization
of historic areas and our urban centers.
As you are well aware, brownfields pose some of the most
critical land-use challenges--and afford some of the most
promising revitalization opportunities--facing our nations'
communities, from our cities to more rural locales.
Revitalization of these idled sites into urgently needed
parks and green spaces or into appropriate redevelopment will
provide great benefits to our neighborhoods and local
economies. In the process, it has also proven to be an
extremely powerful too in local efforts to control urban
sprawl by directing economic growth to already developed
areas, encouraging the restoration and reuse of historical
sites, and in addressing longstanding issues of environmental
justice in underserved areas.
We acknowledge the commitment that the Environmental
Protection Agency and other federal agencies have
demonstrated to brownfields restoration through existing
programs. At the same time, given that there are estimated
450,000-600,000 brownfield properties nationwide, we
recognize that these limited resources have been stretched
too far to allow for an optimal federal role. Additional
investment, at higher levels and in new directions, is
essential to meeting the enormous backlog of need and to
establishing the truest federal partnership with the many
state, local, and private entities working to renew
brownfield sites.
The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Amendments Act of 2001 would provide this much needed federal
response. Through our work with local governments, our
organizations have witnessed first-hand--and have often
worked as a partner to help create--the benefits that this
bill would provide. We are particularly gratified by the
emphasis your legislation places on brownfields-to-parks
conversion, and the flexibility its provides to tailor
funding based on a community's a particular needs. In all,
this bill provides the framework and funding that an
effective national approach to brownfields will require.
Accordingly, we appreciate your vision in developing this
legislation, and we look forward to working with you towards
its enactment.
Sincerely,
The Trust for Public Land; Scenic America; American
Planning Association; The Enterprise Foundation;
National Association of Regional Councils; Smart Growth
America; Surface Transportation Policy Project;
National Recreation and Park Association.
____
Environmental Business
Action Coalition,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
Hon. Robert Smith,
Chairman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, Boxer: On behalf of the
Environmental Business coalition (EBAC), I am writing to
strongly support your introduction of the
[[Page S1489]]
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
of 2001. EBAC endorses this bipartisan effort and will work
with you to secure its passage this year.
EBAC is an organization of nearly thirty-five environmental
engineering, scientific and construction firms representing
over 60,000 professional, managerial and support personnel in
the hazardous waste cleanup field. Our companies are the
experts in environmental cleanup, including Superfund and
brownfields nationwide.
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environment Restoration
Act of 2001 would provide the much-needed ``finality'' for
states that already have successful cleanup programs. In
addition, the measure would provide critically needed
financial support for assessment and cleanup of brownfields.
Finally, the proposal's liability reforms will go a long way
in returning to productive use these abandoned sites
burdening communities across the country.
While EBAC supports these provisions and believe they will
make important contributions to the redevelopment of
countless abandoned properties nationwide, we strongly urge
you to expand the liability reform provisions contained in
this legislation to include protections for Response Action
Contractors (RAC's) form the Superfund law's unfair liability
scheme. This will greatly increase the resources available
for cleanups across the country. Similarly, we urge you to
support the use of professional engineering judgment that
will increase program efficiency as opposed to imposing
nationwide ASTM standards on site cleanups. These ``one-size-
fits-all'' dictates will needlessly complicate efforts by
creating legal uncertainty for professionals addressing the
inherently unique characteristics of contaminated sites.
EBAC appreciates your hard work in drafting this important
legislation. We are committed to working closely with you to
move this measure to enactment.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah D. Jackson,
President.
____
Washington, DC,
February 15, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk
Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and
Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid and
Senator Boxer. Smart Growth America would like to thank you
for your leadership on the introduction the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. A
broad coalition of elected officials, public and private
sector professionals, community groups, and environmentalists
have been championing the need for brownfields redevelopment
for many years. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently
conducted a survey and found that across the country, 210
cities are plagued with 21,000 industrial or commercial sites
whose redevelopment is hindered by environmental
contamination or sometimes just the perception of
contamination.
As advocates of smart growth--growth that revitalizes
neighborhoods, creates and preserves affordable housing,
promotes transportation choice, preserves scenic and historic
resources, and conserves open space and farmland--we regard
brownfields redevelopment as a top priority. Although we
support the bill, we are concerned that the bill may not
provide adequate protection of the environment and public
health in certain cases. We believe this would be unwise and
hope to work with you on appropriate amendments to the
language.
The primary obstacle to brownfields redevelopment has been
inadequate funding and liability issues for contiguous
landowners, prospective purchasers and innocent landowners.
This legislation addresses these issues and presents a
tremendous opportunity for communities to capitalize on their
untapped resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors found that
176 cities estimated that between $878 million and $2.4
billion annually could be generated by fully tapping into the
potential of brownfields sites. In addition, 189 cities
predict that 554,419 new jobs could be generated.
We believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 will allow communities nationwide to
utilize their existing infrastructure to encourage economic
development, remove environmental and public health hazards,
promote neighborhood revitalization and preserve open space.
We support your efforts and look forward to working with you
to pass this truly groundbreaking legislation.
Sincerely,
Smart Growth America; National Trust for Historic
Preservation; Surface Transportation Policy Project;
Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Environmental Justice
Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University; Great
American Station Foundation, Center for Neighborhood
Technology; Scenic America; American Planning
Association; The Enterprise Foundation; National Center
for Bicycling and Walking; and Environmental & Energy
Study Institute.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to join Senator
Reid, the ranking member of the Committee; Senator Chafee, the chairman
of the Superfund Subcommittee; and Senator Boxer, ranking member of the
Subcommittee, to introduce a bill that protects the environment,
encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment,
provides incentive for the preservation of green spaces, and sets the
stage for future comprehensive Superfund reform.
As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous
contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although
the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low,
and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers
often shy away from redeveloping these sites. Behind their reluctance:
uncertainty regarding the level of contamination, the extent of
potential liability, or the likely costs of cleanup.
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of
2001 addresses the uncertainty that has long plagued developers,
property owners, and communities seeking to make use of these otherwise
desirable sites. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last
year, a bill that had the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, but
unfortunately never saw floor time.
How is our bill better than current law? Simply stated, our bill
provides an element of finality which does not exist today, while
allowing for federal involvement under a specific universe of
conditions. Our bill strikes a solid balance on the issue of finality
between so-called ``Republican bills'' and ``Democratic bills''
championed in previous years with no bipartisan support. Furthermore,
our bill provides authorization for critically needed funds to assess
and clean up brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax
revenues, and preserve and create open space and parks. This is a
balanced bill. If you never had a chance to review it last year, do so
now. This year, we are determined to move this bill through the
process--and quickly. Senator Reid and I have committed to marking up
this bill in early March, and we hope to have floor time soon
afterwards.
There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States.
These are low risk sites, not the traditional Superfund sites that
would be impacted by comprehensive Superfund reform. However, if States
and citizens continue to be discouraged form cleaning up brownfield
sites, these sites will never be redeveloped, and may in fact become
Superfund sites. While I strongly believe that comprehensive Superfund
reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield
legislation without compromising our chances for comprehensive reform.
As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe
that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfield
legislation. As I have done in the past, I continue to oppose narrow
carve-outs. Carve-outs weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy
selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund
statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. Our brownfield
legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund
sites; instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides
certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields
from being included in the superfund web. Brownfield legislation
presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on
substantive Superfund reform.
Let me just say that last year, the Congress made a bold move in
approving bipartisan legislation to restore the Florida Everglades. One
of the proudest moments of my Senate career was witnessing the signing
into law of that landmark environmental legislation. I want to use the
Everglades model--cooperation, partnership, bipartisanship--as an
example of what Congress can do when it puts aside personal politics
for good policy. No one thought we'd get Everglades to the President's
desk in a presidential election year, but we proved them wrong.
Pessimists
[[Page S1490]]
have little faith that an equally divided Senate will accomplish more
than partisan bickering. Let's prove them wrong, too, by committing to
enact brownfield legislation in the first session of this Congress. By
doing so, not only do we demonstrate to a skeptical nation that
bipartisan cooperation is possible, but once again, the environment
wins.
Our bill represents a carefully negotiated compromise, and as is the
nature of a compromise, both sides had to give a little to reach common
ground. Now that we stand together on that common ground, let's not
undermine our widespread support by trying to bring the bill farther to
the left or to the right. The Brownfield Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 is a strong bill and represents
our best chance of addressing the issues plaguing brownfield sites. I
urge your support for this bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bi-partisan
legislation to cleanup American's brownfields. I am joined by my
colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee in
introducing this important legislation, Senators Chafee, Smith, Box,
Baucus, Graham, Corzine, and Warner.
This is an exciting beginning to my tenure as the ranking member of
the Environment and Public Works--this bill which I hope will be
enacted swiftly, has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and
which is supported by environmentalists, realtors and the business
community.
What are brownfields? They are contaminated, abandoned sites that
blight our communities, but also offer great promise for the future.
there are, according to the Conference of Mayors, over 450,000
brownfields in the US, in every state of the union, and in both rural
and urban areas. The Conference of Mayors has estimated that
redeveloping these sites would create more than 587,000 jobs nationally
and increase annual tax revenues from between $902 million to $2.4
billion dollars.
So, it is clear that there are great benefits to be realized from
cleaning up these sites. For example, in Las Vegas alone, there are
roughly 30 brownfields sites. It is estimated that cleaning up these
sits would generate between $1.6 and $4 million per year of additional
tax revenues, and create an estimated 320 jobs.
Some think of brownfields cleanup as just an urban issue, but
brownfields can be found anywhere, even in our most rural areas. Their
cleanup will have important economic benefits for rural America. For
example, Hawthorne, a small town in Nevada has limited private lands to
accommodate the town's growth. To the west of the city, 240 acres of
valuable space have been used as a landfill for years. Nevada's
brownfield program completed the first contamination assessment and
companies are already interested in developing the land.
Brownfields funding can be used to complete the assessment and
cleanup of this valuable rural land, allowing the town to grow, provide
new jobs, and expand its tax base.
Let me give you another specific example of what we can do with
brownfields funding. The National Guard Armory site in Las Vegas was
the first site in the nation to be cleaned up under a loan from EPA's
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund. This site had been used for a
variety of military purposes, including chemical storage. The cleanup,
including removal of over 600 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
hazardous waste and petroleum hydrocarbons, cost only $50,000, but
freed the site up for reuse. The city is making the site a community
center with space for a senior center, a small business center, a
cultural center and retail stores.
This bill will provide for many years more such success stories. With
this bill, we can begin to address in a significant way those 450,000
sites and help our neighborhoods and business thrive.
These blighted areas pose threats to human health and the
environment, contributing to economic depression, crime and job loss.
They push new development into farmland and green spaces and cause
sprawl, increasing driving time, traffic, congestion and air pollution.
The brownfields bill we are introducing today will directly spur such
cleanup of these sites, in a number of ways.
It provides critically needed money to assess and clean up abandoned
and underutilized brownfield sites.
It encourages cleanup and redevelopment of these properties, by
providing legal protections for innocent parties, such as contiguous
property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
It provides for funding and expansion of state cleanup programs, and
provides ``certainty'' for developers, but still ensures protection of
public health and the environment.
Creating a public record of brownfield sites and enhances community
involvement in site cleanup and reuse.
In conclusion, this bill has the support of a wide variety of groups,
including environmentalists, mayors, businesses, and the real estate
community. We are fortunate enough to have an opportunity to do well by
so many. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this
legislation this Congress and seeing the payoff in clean sites and new
jobs in communities across the country.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I am pleased to join
my colleagues in sponsoring the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act--a very important piece of legislation.
Our nation's industrial history has left us with the unfortunate
legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned sites that are contaminated
with hazardous materials.
Unfortunately, many of these sites are located in low-income,
minority communities. The result is that this toxic legacy
disproportionately impacts some of our most vulnerable and disempowered
populations.
For many of my constituents in places like Oakland, Anaheim, Long
Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton these polluted
areas--or so-called ``brownfields''--are a blight on the community.
They are dead zones that sit unused or only partially used, sometimes
posing health hazards, sometimes merely eyesores.
The idea behind the Brownfields Initiative is that those areas of
light, or moderate, contamination should be restored for economic
redevelopment, community use, or made into parks and greenways.
In Oakland, for instance, an abandoned industrial brownfield site is
going to be transformed into a large-scale, mixed use development area.
It will include a pedestrian walkway, retail shops, child care
facilities, medical care facilities, a senior center, and a branch of
the Oakland Public Library.
I'm proud to note that two California sites, in East Palo Alto and
Los Angeles, have been selected by the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, to be ``Showcase Communities.'' These communities are at the
cutting edge of the brownfields effort; their experiences will help us
learn how to bring together federal, state, local, and non-governmental
interests to address the brownfields problem. They will serve as a
model for the rest of the Nation.
While EPA has made important strides in the development of the
Brownfields Initiative, there is much more than could be done.
By authorizing increased funding for this program, clarifying some of
the liability questions, and directing the program to the areas of
greatest need, this legislation will help expand the scope of this
program and elevate its visibility in the eyes of the American public.
This legislation helps us set right some of the mistakes that were
made in the past. And it illustrates what we have had to learn the hard
way--that a prosperous economy and a healthy environment go hand in
hand.
By cleaning up these contaminated brownfields, we can protect public
health, while at the same time curbing the devastating impact of urban
sprawl on our environment.
Encouraging the clean up of these contaminated properties will also
mean new jobs and greater economic growth for the communities that need
it most.
We owe it to our children to leave them an environment that is
cleaner and healthier than the one we have inherited. This bill will
help take us in that direction.
[[Page S1491]]
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-
used commercial or industrial properties where development or expansion
is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Businesses located on brownfields were once the economic foundations of
communities. Today, brownfields lie abandoned--the legacy of our
industrial past. These properties taint our urban landscape.
Contamination, or the perception of contamination, impedes brownfields
redevelopment, stifles community development and threatens the health
of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped, brownfields can be
engines for economic development. They represent new opportunities in
our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing, jobs and
recreation. Today, Senator Smith, Senator Reid, Senator Chafee and
Senator Boxer introduced the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I support their efforts to
address this issue and I will co-sponsor the legislation.
As cochair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe
brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to
revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of
brownfields, is one fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure
that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban
fringe and farmlands.
The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment--
offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help
communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will compliment
State and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill
provides much needed funding to State and local jurisdictions for the
assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites.
Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous
landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental
barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability
concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in
older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help
communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill
provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the
cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be
second- guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty
combined with private investment can provide incentives for
redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field
between greenfields and brownfields.
I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial,
residential and recreational development in our nation's communities
where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close
proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging
markets and future potential for economic growth lies in our cities and
older suburbs. This potential is reflected in locally unmet consumer
demand, underutilized labor resources and developable land that is rich
in infrastructure. In Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development estimates that there is a $1.4 billion retail gap (the
purchasing power of residents minus retail sales). In Flint, HUD
estimates the retail gap to be $186 million and in East Lansing, $160
million. The redevelopment of brownfields will help communities realize
the development potential of our urban communities. It is a critical
tool for metropolitan areas to grow smarter--allowing us to recycle our
Nation's land to promote continued economic growth while curtailing
urban sprawl and cleaning up our environment.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 351. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the
quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting use of mercury fever
thermometers and improving collection, recycling, and disposal of
mercury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Kerry, I am
introducing the Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act of 2001. This bill
addresses the very serious problem of mercury in the environment and
mercury disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and
widely distributed sources of mercury, and that is mercury fever
thermometers.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment
and particularly harmful to developing children and pregnant women. In
fact, a National Academy of Sciences report released last year
attributed mercury exposure to birth defects and brain damage in up to
60,000 newborn children each year.
Although mercury can be safe in an elemental form or in amalgamations
such as dental fillings, mercury takes on a highly toxic organic form
known as methylmercury when it enters the environment. Methylmercury is
almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all
tissues, including the brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in
the food chain and become concentrated in some species of fish, posing
a health threat to those who consume them. For this reason, 40 States
have issued public health warnings advising certain individuals to
restrict or avoid consuming fish from certain affected bodies of water.
Mr. President, the largest sources of mercury in the environment
include incinerated solid waste, powerplant emissions, and emissions
from chlor-alkali plants, such as the now closed HoltraChem
Manufacturing Company in Orrington, ME.
About 50 tons of mercury are estimated to enter the environment from
medical and solid waste incinerators, about 45 tons from powerplant
emissions, and a large but uncertain amount derives from chlor-alkali
plants.
Of the 50 tons of mercury that enters the environment from medical
and solid waste incinerators, mercury thermometers are one of the
largest, if not the largest, source. The EPA has estimated that mercury
thermometers contributed approximately 17 tons of mercury to solid
waste per year in the early 1990s. Although this number may well be
declining due to innovative efforts, such as those in towns like
Freeport, ME--the first town in Maine to ban the sale of mercury fever
thermometers--it is still a very large amount.
Mr. President, I have a mercury thermometer right here. It is very
familiar to all of us. Many of us know from personal experience how
easily it can be broken. I have broken a couple myself, and not
realizing the dangers of mercury back then, I used my hands to gather
up the various beads of mercury and throw them away, not realizing the
danger I was creating.
In fact, in 1998, the American Poison Control Center received 18,000
phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury thermometers.
This one mercury thermometer contains about 1 gram of mercury. That
does not sound like much, but let me tell you, despite its small size,
just one of these thermometers per year contains enough mercury to
contaminate all of the fish in a 20-acre lake.
Let me repeat that. The mercury in one of these thermometers is
sufficient to pollute a 20-acre lake.
The bill I am introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the
sale of mercury fever thermometers such as the one I just showed. It
will also provide grants for swap programs to help consumers exchange
mercury thermometers for digital or other alternatives.
I have an example of an alternative right here. This is a digital
thermometer. Digital thermometers like this one are easier to read,
much quicker to use, they do not break easily, and, most important of
all, they do not contain a toxic element such as mercury.
My bill will allow millions of consumers across the Nation to receive
free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury thermometers.
By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, consumers will
ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end up polluting
our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce the risk of
breakage and contamination inside the home.
Another important component of my bill is the safe disposal of the
mercury
[[Page S1492]]
collected from thermometer exchange programs. My legislation directs
the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and stored to
make sure it is kept out of the environment and out of commerce. This
mercury will not reenter the environment, and it will not be sent, for
example, to India, one of the largest manufacturers of mercury
thermometers.
The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs addresses
only one part of the problem. The other aspect is the global
circulation of mercury. When the HoltraChem chlor-alkali manufacturing
plant in Orrington, ME, shut down last year, the plant was left with
over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no way to permanently dispose of
it. In total, about 3,000 tons of mercury are held at similar plants
across the United States.
In addition, large amounts of mercury are still being mined around
the world. In 1999, Algeria mined 400 tons of virgin mercury and
Kyrgyzstan mined 600 tons. In total, approximately 2,000 tons of new
mercury are mined every year. Moreover, the Department of Defense
currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of mercury it does not
want and does not know what to do with.
What can we do about these problems? What can we do about the
situation where some countries are still mining large amounts of an
element that is a known neurotoxin, while the United States and other
countries are doing their best to remove this extremely toxic element
from the environment? How will the United States dispose of the huge
amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants and other no longer needed
sources?
My legislation creates an interagency task force to address these
very issues. This task force will be chaired by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and comprised of representatives
from the States, other Federal agencies involved with mercury, and
public health officials.
Specifically, my bill directs this task force to find ways to reduce
the mercury threat to humans and the environment, to identify a long-
term means of disposing of mercury, and to address the excess mercury
problems from mines as well as from industrial sources.
In sum, this task force is directed to identify comprehensive
solutions to the global mercury problem. In one year, the mercury task
force will make recommendations to Congress for permanently disposing
of mercury, for retiring mercury from chlor-alkali plants and other
sources, and for reducing the amount of new mercury mined every year.
At that time, it will be up to Congress to act on their
recommendations.
In the meantime, this bill will make significant progress toward
reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury contamination in
the environment, something that many of us still have in our medicine
chests at home, and that is the mercury fever thermometer.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I urge support and
cosponsorship of my colleagues for this initiative.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 351
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 ``Mercury Reduction and
Disposal Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) mercury is a persistent and toxic pollutant that
bioaccumulates in the environment;
(2) according to recent studies, mercury deposition is a
significant public health threat in many States throughout
the United States;
(3) 40 States have issued fish advisories that warn certain
individuals to restrict or avoid consuming mercury-
contaminated fish from affected bodies of water;
(4) according to a report by the National Academy of
Sciences, over 60,000 children are born each year in the
United States at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects
due to exposure to methyl mercury in utero;
(5) studies have documented that exposure to elevated
levels of mercury in the environment results in serious harm
to species of wildlife that consume fish;
(6) combustion of municipal and other solid waste is a
major source of mercury emissions in the United States;
(7) according to the Mercury Study Report, prepared by the
Environmental Protection Agency and submitted to Congress in
1997, mercury fever thermometers contribute approximately 17
tons of mercury to solid waste each year;
(8) the Governors of the New England States have endorsed a
regional goal of ``the virtual elimination of the discharge
of anthropogenic mercury into the environment'';
(9) mercury fever thermometers are easily broken, creating
a potential risk of dangerous exposure to mercury vapor in
indoor air and risking mercury contamination of the
environment; and
(10) according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
quantity of mercury in 1 mercury fever thermometer,
approximately 1 gram, is enough to contaminate all fish in a
lake with a surface area of 20 acres.
SEC. 3. MERCURY.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 3024. MERCURY.
``(a) Prohibition on Sale of Mercury Fever Thermometers
Except by Prescription.--Effective beginning 180 days after
the date of enactment of this section--
``(1) a person shall not sell or supply mercury fever
thermometers to consumers, except by prescription; and
``(2) with each mercury fever thermometer sold or supplied
by prescription, the manufacturer of the thermometer shall
provide clear instructions on--
``(A) careful handling of the thermometer to avoid
breakage; and
``(B) proper cleanup of the thermometer and its contents in
the event of breakage.
``(b) Thermometer Exchange Program.--The Administrator
shall make grants to States, municipalities, nonprofit
organizations, or other suitable entities for implementation
of a national program for the collection of mercury fever
thermometers from households and their exchange for
thermometers that do not contain mercury.
``(c) Disposal of Collected Mercury Waste.--
``(1) Interagency task force.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established an advisory
committee to be known as the `Interagency Task Force on
Mercury' (referred to in this section as the `Task Force').
``(B) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of 7
members, of whom--
``(i) 1 member shall be the Administrator, who shall serve
as Chairperson of the Task Force;
``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed by each of--
``(I) the Secretary of State;
``(II) the Secretary of Defense;
``(III) the Secretary of Energy; and
``(IV) the Director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences of the Department of Health and
Human Services;
``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed by the President to
represent the American Public Health Association; and
``(iv) 1 member shall be appointed by the President from
the Environmental Council of the States.
``(C) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Task Force shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
``(D) Term; vacancies.--
``(i) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of
the Task Force.
``(ii) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Task Force--
``(I) shall not affect the powers of the Task Force; and
``(II) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
``(E) Meetings.--
``(i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Task Force have been
appointed, the Task Force shall hold the initial meeting of
the Task Force.
``(ii) Calling of meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at
the call of the Chairperson.
``(iii) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Task
Force shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of
members may hold hearings.
``(F) Duties.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
initial meeting of the Task Force, the Task Force shall
submit to Congress a report containing recommendations
concerning--
``(i) the long-term management and retirement of mercury
collected from--
``(I) mercury fever thermometers;
``(II) other medical and commercial sources; and
``(III) government sources, including mercury stored by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy;
``(ii) collection of mercury from industrial or other
sources in the United States in cases in which the mercury is
no longer needed, such as from retired chlor-alkali plants;
``(iii) programs to test the long-term durability of
promising technologies for sequestration of mercury that has
been retired from use;
``(iv) storage of mercury collected or sequestered under
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) in a manner that ensures that
there is no release of the mercury into the environment;
``(v) reduction of the total threat posed by mercury to
humans and the environment; and
[[Page S1493]]
``(vi) reduction of the total quantity of mercury produced,
used, and released on a global basis, including whether and
how--
``(I) the quantity of virgin mercury mined from the ground
and placed in circulation each year can be reduced through
bilateral or international agreements or other means;
``(II) the quantity of mercury used in products and
manufacturing can be reduced through substitution of mercury-
free alternatives that are safer, available, and affordable;
and
``(III) essential mercury needs can be met through use of
stockpiles in existence on the date of enactment of this
section and increased recycling rather than through use of
virgin mercury.
``(G) Hearings.--The Task Force may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Task Force considers advisable
to carry out this section.
``(H) Information from federal agencies.--
``(i) In general.--The Task Force may secure directly from
a Federal agency such information as the Task Force considers
necessary to carry out this section.
``(ii) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Task Force, the head of the agency shall
provide the information to the Task Force.
``(I) Postal services.--The Task Force may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the Federal Government.
``(J) Gifts.--The Task Force may accept, use, and dispose
of gifts or donations of services or property.
``(K) Compensation of members; travel expenses.--
``(i) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Task Force
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Task Force.
``(ii) Federal employees.--A member of the Task Force who
is an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
serve without compensation in addition to the compensation
received for the services of the member as an officer or
employee of the Federal Government.
``(iii) Travel expenses.--A member of the Task Force 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 Task
Force.
``(L) Staff and funding.--
``(i) Determination.--The Chairperson of the Task Force
shall determine the level of staff and funding that are
adequate to carry out the activities of the Task Force.
``(ii) Source.--The staff and funding shall be provided by
and drawn equally from the resources of--
``(I) the Department of Energy;
``(II) the Department of Defense; and
``(III) the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(iii) Appointment of staff.--The Chairperson may, without
regard to the civil service laws (including regulations),
appoint and terminate such staff as are necessary to enable
the Task Force to perform the duties of the Task Force.
``(iv) Compensation.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
the Chairperson may fix the compensation of the staff of the
Task Force that are not officers or employees of the Federal
Government without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates.
``(II) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the staff
shall not exceed the rate payable for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(v) Detail of federal government employees.--
``(I) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government
may be detailed to the Task Force without reimbursement.
``(II) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee
shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status
or privilege.
``(vi) Procurement of temporary and intermittent
services.--The Chairperson of the Task Force may procure for
the purposes of the Task Force temporary and intermittent
services in accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
``(M) Termination of task force.--The Task Force shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Task Force submits the report required under subparagraph
(F).
``(2) Responsibility of the administrator for safe disposal
and storage of mercury.--In consultation with the Task Force,
the Administrator shall--
``(A)(i) take title to the mercury collected under the
thermometer exchange program established under subsection
(b), or an equivalent quantity of mercury; and
``(ii) manage (or designate a contractor to manage) the
mercury collected in a manner that ensures that the mercury
collected is not released into the environment or
reintroduced into commerce; and
``(B)(i) identify potential mercury stabilization
technologies and measures that ensure minimal release of
mercury into the environment; and
``(ii) conduct such research, development, and
demonstration of the technologies and measures as the
Administrator determines to be appropriate.
``(d) Relation to Other Law.--Nothing in this section--
``(1) precludes any State from imposing any additional
requirement; or
``(2) diminishes any obligation, liability, or other
responsibility under other Federal law.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of
which--
``(1) not more than 2.5 percent shall be used to carry out
the activities of the Task Force; and
``(2) not more than 2.5 percent shall be used to carry out
subsection (c)(2)(B).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by adding at
the end of the items relating to subtitle C the following:
``Sec. 3024. Mercury.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Carnahan,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh):
S. 352. A bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for
low-income energy assistance, weatherization, and state energy
conservation grant programs, to expand the sue of energy savings
performance contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
increase the authorization for low-income energy assistance,
weatherization and state energy conservation grants and to increase the
energy efficiency of federal facilities. I am offering this bill on
behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, and many of my colleagues.
Energy costs have been, and are expected, to remain especially high
this year. We have had a long period of economic growth, enabled in
part by extremely low oil and natural gas prices. But, we are finally
experiencing the end of the excess capacity cushion that had kept the
system functioning with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the
way. Those extremely low oil and gas prices that consumers loved so
much a few years ago devastated the domestic drilling industry.
Drilling has recovered, so we will start seeing an impact on prices in
the coming months as those supplies find their way to market.
In the interim, unusually cold weather early in the winter has
resulted in natural gas bills at least 70 percent-100 percent higher
than last year. Heating oil and propane prices correlate closely with
natural gas. Farmers, especially, are seeing huge increases in propane
prices this winter and are looking at dramatically higher fertilizer
prices this spring. Natural gas prices and tight generating capacity
are driving up electricity prices around the country, and many people
in the southern states with high air conditioning needs will be
especially hard hit this summer.
Applications for assistance have increased dramatically this year.
Most states have already depleted the LIHEAP and Weatherization funds
we appropriated for this year. Many states have laws prohibiting
cutting off heating supplies during the winter, but when those
prohibitions expire in March or April, the seriousness of the situation
for low-income and working families will become harshly obvious. And
assistance to low-income and working families for the summer cooling
season will be impossible at current levels.
Some will say we need to address these issues as part of some
comprehensive energy bill, yet to be written. I disagree.
We have immediate needs that cannot wait months, as we debate an
ideal
[[Page S1494]]
energy policy. The Administration has told us it will not even have its
proposal to us for another two months. Individuals, families and small
businesses are suffering today from energy bills they cannot pay. This
bill authorizes changes to the LIHEAP program to help alleviate the
financial burdens in the near term. The bill also focuses attention
on investment in energy efficiency through the low income
weatherization program, state conservation grants and the federal
energy management program. This bill covers needed changes to existing
authorizations. Next we need to ensure that full funding is forthcoming
as soon as possible.
Specifically, the base authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program to $3.4 billion for fiscal years 2001 to 2005. The
base funding has been relatively flat at roughly $2 billion since the
mid-1980's. This increase comes close to addressing the erosion in the
program due to inflation, but does not take into consideration the
increase in population.
The bill provides states with additional flexibility on the income
level for recipients, by increasing eligibility from 150 percent to 200
percent of the poverty level. This change, which only applies for the
remainder of this fiscal year, will give the states the flexibility to
help working families.
The bill also increases the authorization for the weatherization
program to $310 million. The current appropriation is at $162 million,
down from $300 million in the mid-1980s. The weatherization program is
a long term investment in energy efficiency.
A one-time investment in weatherization yields savings of $300-$470
per household annually thereafter. The program requires trained staff,
erratic and insufficient funding of the program has diminished its
effectiveness in recent years. Increased energy efficiency is the least
cost solution to meeting energy needs. Even at $310 million the program
is still lower in real dollars than in the 1980's.
The bill increases the authorization for grants to state energy
programs to $75 million. This program funds state conservation and
emergency planning. The low level of funding in recent years has
diminished the states' ability to implement state level conservation
plans and to plan for emergencies in coordination with the Department
of Energy and neighboring states.
Finally, Executive Order 13123 requires federal facilities to
increase energy efficiency by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010
relative to 1985. The Federal Energy Management Program requires
federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities for energy and
water efficiency improvements and opportunities for siting renewable
projects. Federal agencies spend $4 billion per year to heat, coal and
power facilities, we can and should do better.
The bill includes several amendments to the program clarifying and
enhancing the use of alternative financing tools to minimize the need
for additional government outlays. The bill calls for a concerted
effort by facility managers to meet those targets early, thereby saving
taxpayer dollars, reducing stress on the power grid and demand for
fuels.
Companion measures, that I support, have been introduced by Senator
Kerry, S. 295, Senator Feinstein, S. 286, to provide emergency loans to
small businesses.
There will be plenty of time in this Congress to consider the highly
complex issues of U.S. energy supply and consumption. Senator Murkowski
and I intend to proceed with a series of hearings to evaluate the
different elements of our energy policy and systems. We need to focus
on how we can ensure adequate fuel supplies and sufficient
infrastructure to deliver those fuels, whether electricity, natural
gas, or gasoline without degradation of environmental quality. We also
need to look at issues of supply diversity and efficiency. Those
efforts will require some time on the part of the Congress and the
Administration, in consultation with the states and the various
stakeholders.
We should not allow that lengthy process, though, to prevent us from
meeting clear and present needs. I urge my colleagues to support
immediate passage of this bill and the small business bills.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 352
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 ``Energy Emergency Response
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) high energy costs are causing hardship for families;
(2) restructured energy markets have increased the need for
a higher and more consistent level of funding for low income
energy assistance programs;
(3) conservation programs implemented by the States and the
low income weatherization program reduce costs and need for
additional energy supplies;
(4) energy conservation is a cornerstone of national energy
security policy;
(5) the Federal Government is the largest consumer of
energy in the economy of the United States;
(6) many opportunities exist for significant energy cost
savings within the Federal Government.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide
assistance to those individuals most affected by high energy
prices and to promote and accelerate energy conservation
investments in private and Federal facilities.
SEC. 3. INCREASED FUNDING FOR LIHEAP, WEATHERIZATION AND
STATE ENERGY GRANTS.
(b) LIHEAP.--(1) Section 2602(b) of the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)) is amended
by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:
``These are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of this title (other than section 2607A),
$3,400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
(2) Section 2605(b)(2) of the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``And except that during fiscal year 2001, a State may make
payments under this title to households with incomes up to
and including 200 percent of the poverty level for such
State;''.
(b) Weatherization Assistance.--Section 422 of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6872) is amended
by striking ``For fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such sums as
may be necessary'' and inserting: ``$310,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
(b) State Energy Conservation Grants.--Section 365(f) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6325(f)) is
amended by striking ``for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such
sums as may be necessary'' and inserting: ``$75,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT REVIEWS.
Section 543 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 8253) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
(b) Priority Response Reviews.--Each agency shall--
``(1) not later than October 1, 2001, undertake a
comprehensive review of all practicable measures for--
``(A) increasing energy and water conservation, and
``(B) using renewable energy sources; and
``(2) not later than 180 days after completing the review,
implement measures to achieve not less than 50 percent of the
potential efficiency and renewable savings identified in the
review.''.
SEC. 5. COST SAVINGS FROM REPLACEMENT FACILITIES.
Section 801(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3)(A) In the case of any energy savings contract or
energy savings performance contract providing for energy
savings through the construction and operation of one or more
buildings or facilities to replace one or more existing
buildings or facilities, benefits ancillary to the purpose of
such contract under paragraph (1) may include savings
resulting from reduced costs of operation and maintenance at
such replacement buildings or facilities being replaced.
``(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(B), aggregate annual
payments by an agency under an energy savings contract or
energy savings performance contract referred to in
subparagraph (A) may take into account (through the
procedures developed pursuant to this section) savings
resulting from reduced costs of operation and maintenance
as described in subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 6. REPEAL OF ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT SUNSET.
Section 801(c) of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(c)) is repealed.
SEC. 7. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT DEFINITIONS.
(a) Energy Savings.--Section 804(2) of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) the term `energy savings' means a reduction in the
cost of energy or water, from a base cost established through
a methodology set forth in the contract, used in either--
``(A) an existing federally owned building or buildings or
other federally owned facilities as a result of--
``(i) the lease or purchase of operating equipment,
improvements, altered operation and maintenance, or technical
services;
[[Page S1495]]
``(ii) the increased efficient use of existing energy
sources by congeneration or heat recovery, excluding any
cogeneration process for other than a federally owned
building or buildings or other federally owned facilities; or
``(iii) the increased efficient use of existing water
sources; or ``(B) a replacement facility under section
801(a)(3).''.
(b) Energy Savings Contract.--Section 804(3) of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(3))
is amended to read as follows:
``The terms `energy savings contract' and `energy savings
performance contract' mean a contract which provides for--
``(A) the performance of services for the design,
acquisition, installation, testing, operations, and, where
appropriate, maintenance and repair, of an identified energy
or water conservation measure or series of measures at one or
more locations; or
``(B) energy savings through the construction and operation
of one or more buildings or facilities to replace one or more
existing buildings or facilities.''.
(c) Energy or Water Conservation Measure.--Section 804(4)
of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8287c(4) is amended to read as follows:
``The term `energy or water conservation measure' means--
``(A) an energy conservation measure, as defined in section
551(4) (42 U.S.C. 8459(4)); or
``(B) a water conservation measure that improves water
efficiency, is life cycle cost effective, and involves water
conservation, water recycling or reuse, improvements in
operation or maintenance efficiencies, retrofit activities or
other related activities, not at a Federal hydroelectric
facility.''.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Energy
Emergency Response Act of 2001, which will help low-income residents
cope with high energy costs brought on by the crisis in California. I
thank Senator Bingaman and others on the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources for their leadership in preparing this valuable
legislation. The current crisis in energy supply and costs is a crucial
and immediate problem for the people of Washington state. I am working
on several fronts to help alleviate these effects.
The Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001 authorizes increased
funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The
program is a lifeline to many of our most vulnerable people, providing
direct assistance to eligible households to pay for home energy.
Because of the energy crisis, applications for LIHEAP assistance in
Washington state have increased by more than 50 percent this year. We
need to bolster the program, or it will fall short at a time when low-
income people need it the most.
This bill also authorizes increased funding for the Weatherization
Program that provides insulation for Washington state homes, educates
families on energy conservation, tests furnaces and ovens for safety
and efficiency, and makes homes safer and healthier places to live. An
average household saves 20 percent in fuel and energy costs every year
as a result of participating in the Weatherization program. In these
times of soaring energy costs, those savings are especially important.
That is why this bill authorizes increased funding and raises the
eligibility to 200 percent of the poverty level.
The bill requires Federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities
to increase efficiency of energy and water use and installation of
renewable energy projects at federal facilities. It also requires that
the evaluation period be followed by implementation of energy and water
savings within the 180 days.
Energy Savings Performance Contract usage is enhanced by this bill.
These are innovative financing methods that leverage private sector
investment and expertise to accomplish energy savings and cost savings
in federal facilities. The bill amends the Federal Energy Management
Program to include savings realized from operation and maintenance
efficiencies.
This bill also authorizes a total of $75 million for state energy
conservation. This is for energy efficiency and emergency planning at
the state level. The bill also clarifies the definition of energy
savings to include water conservation, excluding Federal hydroelectric
facilities.
We are going to push for the funding of this bill to be appropriated
through a special supplemental appropriation for 2001, adding $1
billion to base funding for LIHEAP, $152 million for weatherization,
and $37 million for state energy conservation grants. We will also
attempt to get forward funding for LIHEAP for 2002.
I will be working with the Washington State delegation, Senator
Bingaman, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this
bill and to push for funding as soon as possible. The energy crisis
will not be resolved easily, but we can and should make this investment
a part of our overall response to this issue. I urge my colleagues to
move quickly on this legislation, and I hope that the President will
make LIHEAP a priority in his upcoming budget.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Gramm, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 353. A bill to provide that a certification of the cooperation of
Mexico with United States counterdrug efforts not be required in fiscal
year 2001 for the limitation on assistance for Mexico under section 490
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 not to go into effect in that
fiscal year, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will begin to reform our relationship with Mexico, particularly as
it relates to our partnership in fighting drugs. I am pleased to be
joined in this effort by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Pete Domenici, Phil
Gramm, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions, who are cosponsoring the legislation
I will introduce today.
As you know, President Bush will visit Mexico on February 16th. He
will hold a one day summit with Mexico's new President Vicente Fox.
Improving cooperation between our two countries in the war on drugs
will figure prominently on the President's agenda when he meets with
President Fox.
Now is the time that we take the right first step in our mutual
efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States through
Mexico.
Last year, the Senate passed a resolution expressing a Sense of the
Senate that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the United
States must develop and implement a counter-drug program that more
effectively addresses illegal drug trafficking.
The resolution stated that a one-year waiver of the requirement that
the President certify Mexico is warranted to permit both new
governments time to implement such strategies and programs.
The legislation I am offering today again provides that a waiver is
appropriate for this year. It also directs that a long term solution be
found to the massive drug problem.
As you know, by March 1, after just six weeks in office, President
Bush will be required to re-certify to Congress that Mexico is making
progress in the war on drugs.
Forcing a confrontation so soon on the most important issue that we
face with Mexico will serve neither country, and it will not loosen the
grip that the drug culture has on both of our societies and economies.
Our bill will authorize a one-year waiver for Mexico from the annual
certification process. The various reports and assessments prepared by
the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or the Office of
National Drug Control Policy will still be required.
The legislation will simply eliminate the requirement that the
President in effect ``grade'' Mexico's performance in this area a scant
12 weeks after a new Mexican President has taken office.
Our legislation also takes another important step. It asks the
President, no later than June 30, 2001, to develop and submit to
Congress, a strategic plan outlining proposed efforts to increase
cooperation between our two countries in the fight against drugs.
We need proposals on both sides of the border that will combat drug
gangs; money laundering; drug smuggling and any other items the
President believes should be addressed.
It seems to me that we must look for a comprehensive solution to this
problem. We must look beyond the certification process--that in many
ways is broken.
The strategic plan called for in this resolution should serve as the
beginning of a new effort in the war against drugs.
We have two new leaders who are committed to tackling this problem.
This bill is a good first step for building on the new relationship. I
submit
[[Page S1496]]
this to the Senate. I hope that we can consider this measure soon.
I want to say about the new leader of Mexico that he is taking a very
positive approach and I think an aggressive one.
It was reported on February 2 of this year in the Washington Post in
a by-line that has the Mexico City date line that the new head of
Mexico's customs agency has fired more than 90 people, including
virtually every manager, in the first major purge of government
officials since President Fox took office in December.
Forty-five out of the customs department's 47 supervisors were fired
on corruption issues. In addition, in the first month of this year 150
tractor-trailers containing contraband were stopped by the Mexican
customs office. Last year, for the entire year, 38 tractor-trailers
were stopped for contraband merchandise.
That is a good sign. That is a sign that President Fox is going to
make good on his promise to purge the corruption out of the system. We
applaud him. That is why I think we should give him a chance to sit
down with President Bush and work out a cooperative plan, one that is
not punitive or unilateral but one that is cooperative. It will be in
the best interest of both our countries to stop the cancer of drug
trafficking. It is a cancer on both of our societies. The criminal
element in Mexico certainly takes away from the productivity of that
country. The criminal element that has arisen in the United States that
is preying on our children certainly must be stopped.
I hope we can have an expedited action on this bill because I think
we can do some good. I intend to talk to our majority leader and the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to see if we can agree on
something that will stop this decertification. Let's sit down and do
something that will produce the results that both of our countries
want.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 354. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
include additional information in social security account statements;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bicameral piece
of legislation with my colleague Representative DeMint ensuring that
every American worker is provided with honest information about the
financial status of the Social Security program, including the real
value of their personal retirement benefits. It is our obligation to
talk straight with working Americans about the true financial status of
the Social Security program.
Under the current system, hard working Americans--young and old--are
not receiving straight, honest information regarding the actual
financial status of the Social Security program, including how much it
is receiving in payroll taxes and how much is needed to give promised
benefits to seniors. It is our obligation to ensure that all Americans
are provided with accurate information regarding exactly when the
Social Security program will no longer have sufficient funds for paying
full benefits.
Furthermore, we must begin providing working Americans with accurate,
easy to understand information regarding the average rate of return
they can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the
amount of taxes an individual pays into the program. It is only fair to
be straight with everyone and let them know the true facts about how
much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be
on their contributions.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind
my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire
Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan
effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans'
retirement planning.
The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is
to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the
irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security.
Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into
voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using
Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must
stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more
government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as
Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the
American people with a common obligation to protect their interests.
We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are
paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today and
tomorrow's workers. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans
about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan
fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the
nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 354
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 ``Straight Talk on Social
Security Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT
STATEMENT.
Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320b-13(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) a statement of the current social security tax rates
applicable with respect to wages and self-employment income,
including an indication of the combined total of such rates
of employee and employer taxes with respect to wages; and
``(F)(i) as determined by the Chief Actuary of the Social
Security Administration, a comparison of the total annual
amount of social security tax inflows (including amounts
appropriated under subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of
this Act and section 121(e) of the Social Security Amendments
of 1983 (26 U.S.C. 401 note)) during the preceding calendar
year to the total annual amount paid in benefits during such
calendar year;
``(ii) as determined by such Chief Actuary--
``(I) a statement of whether the ratio of the inflows
described in clause (i) for future calendar years to amounts
paid for such calendar years is expected to result in a cash
flow deficit,
``(II) the calendar year that is expected to be the year in
which any such deficit will commence, and
``(III) the first calendar year in which funds in the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will cease to be
sufficient to cover any such deficit;
``(iii) an explanation that states in substance--
``(I) that the Trust Fund balances reflect resources
authorized by the Congress to pay future benefits, but they
do not consist of real economic assets that can be used in
the future to fund benefits, and that such balances are
claims against the United States Treasury that, when
redeemed, must be financed through increased taxes, public
borrowing, benefit reduction, or elimination of other Federal
expenditures,
``(II) that such benefits are established and maintained
only to the extent the laws enacted by the Congress to govern
such benefits so provide, and
``(III) that, under current law, inflows to the Trust Funds
are at levels inadequate to ensure indefinitely the payment
of benefits in full; and
``(iv) in simple and easily understood terms--
``(I) a representation of the rate of return that a typical
taxpayer retiring at retirement age (as defined in section
216(l)) credited each year with average wages and self-
employment income would receive on old-age insurance benefits
as compared to the total amount of employer, employee, and
self-employment contributions of such a taxpayer, as
determined by such Chief Actuary for each cohort of workers
born in each year beginning with 1925, which shall be set out
in chart or graph form with an explanatory caption or legend,
and
``(II) an explanation for the occurrence of past changes in
such rate of return and for the possible occurrence of future
changes in such rate of return.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall consult
with the Chief Actuary to the extent the Chief Actuary
determines necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraph
(F).''.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, Mr. Reid, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
[[Page S1497]]
Brownback, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Specter, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Miller, and Mrs. Carnahan):
S. 355. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins
in commemoration of the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
to the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which
is long overdue. February is a particularly appropriate time to
introduce this legislation, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative
Coin Act of 2001, as this month we celebrate Black History Month.
Historian Carter G. Woodson began what was first called Negro History
Week in 1926 when he realized schools were not teaching children about
the history and achievements of black Americans. Now, for one month out
of every year, we focus on the contributions of African-Americans
during Black History Month. However, celebrations of the history and
culture of black Americans should not be limited to just one month. By
recognizing the history of black Americans every day of the year, we
build the respect and perspective necessary to face the challenges
before us.
During the 1960s, a young and gifted preacher from Georgia gave a
voice to the voiceless by bringing the struggle for freedom and civil
rights into the living rooms of all Americans. Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. raised his voice rather than his fists as he helped lead our nation
into a new era of tolerance and understanding. He ultimately gave his
life for this cause, but in the process brought America closer to his
dream of a nation without racial divisions.
It has been said that, ``Those who do not understand history are
condemned to repeat it.'' America's history includes dark chapters--
chapters in which slavery was accepted and discrimination against
African-Americans, women and other minorities was commonplace. It is in
acknowledgment of that history, and in honor of Dr. King's bright
beacon of hope, which has lead us to a more enlightened era of civil
justice, that I introduce the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative
Coin Act of 2001.
This bill would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins
in commemoration of Dr. King's contributions to the United States.
Revenues from the surcharge of the coin would be used by the Library of
Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other
materials associated with the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.
As we start the 21st century, I cannot think of a better way to honor
the civil and human rights legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Today, Dr. King's message goes beyond any one group, embracing all
who have been denied civil or human rights because of their race,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. This Congress, as well
as previous Congresses, has taken important steps to put these beliefs
into civil code.
However, upholding Dr. King's dream is a continuing struggle. As a
society, we must always remember Dr. King's message, ``that one day
this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
`We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created
equal.' ''
Dr. King's majestic and inspiring voice as he made this speech will
remain in our collective memory forever. His writings and papers
compliment the visual history of his legacy. Keeping Dr. King's papers
available for public access will serve to remind us of what our country
once was, and how a solitary voice changed the path of a nation. It
also would be a constant reminder of the vigilance needed to ensure we
never return to such a time.
This legislation has been developed in consultation with the King
family, the Library of Congress, the Citizens Commemorative Coin
Advisory Committee, and the U.S. Mint. Similar legislation has been
introduced in the House of Representatives by the chairman of the House
Banking and Financial Services Committee, Congressman Jim Leach of
Iowa.
Although African-Americans have played a vital role in our nation's
history, African-Americans were included on only 4 out of 157
commemorative coins:
Jackie Robinson who broke baseball's color barrier and brought about
a cultural revolution with the courage and dignity in which he played
the great American pass time, and the way he lived his life;
Booker T. Washington who founded Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and
served as a role model for millions of African-Americans who thought a
formal education would forever be outside of their grasp;
George Washington Carver whose scientific experiments began as a way
to improve the lot in life of sharecroppers, but ended up
revolutionizing agriculture throughout the South; and
The Black Revolutionary War Patriots, a commemorative half-dollar
which recognized the 275th anniversary of the birth of Crispus Attucks,
who was the first revolutionary killed in the Boston Massacre.
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin will give us an
opportunity to recognize the valuable contributions of all Americans
who stood and were counted during our nation's civil rights struggle.
Americans such as the late Reverend Avery C. Alexander, a patriarch
of the New Orleans' civil rights movement. He championed anti-
discrimination, voter registration, labor rights, and environmental
regulations as a six-term state legislator and as an advisor to
Governor Morrison of Louisiana in the 1950s.
Heroes such as Dr. C.O. Simpkins of Shreveport, Louisiana, whose home
was bombed simply because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that
the buses in Shreveport be integrated, and Reverend T.J. Jemison of
Baton Rouge--a front-line soldier and good friend of Dr. King who
helped coordinate one of the earliest boycotts of the civil rights
movement.
Louisiana also was fortunate enough to have elected leaders such as
my father Moon Landrieu and Dutch Morial, both former mayors of New
Orleans during those turbulent times. They led the way when the
personal and political stakes were very high.
These are just a few of the great civil rights leaders from my state.
However, throughout Louisiana and all across America thousands of
citizens--black and white, young and old, rich and poor--listened to
Dr. King, followed his voice and dreamed his dreams. It is in memory of
all of our struggles that I introduce this bill.
The great Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza said, ``If you want the
present to be different from the past, study the past.'' This
legislation not only ensures we are able to preserve and study our
past, but also honors Dr. King, who played such an integral role in
shaping both our present and our future. Most importantly, this coin
would serve as a reminder every day of the year, not just during Black
History Month, of the great contributions of Dr. King and all black
Americans who have shaped this nation's history and future.
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. 355
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 ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Commemorative Coin Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to
securing the Nation's fundamental principles of liberty and
justice for all its citizens;
(2) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the leading civil
rights advocate of his time, spearheading the civil rights
movement in the United States during the 1950's and 1960's;
(3) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the keynote speaker at
the August 28, 1963, March on Washington, the largest rally
of the civil rights movement, during which, from the steps of
the Lincoln Memorial and before a crowd of more than 200,000
people, he delivered his famous ``I Have A Dream'' speech,
one of the classic orations in American history;
(4) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a champion of
nonviolence, fervently advocated nonviolent resistance as the
strategy to end segregation and racial discrimination in
America, and was awarded the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize in
recognition of his efforts;
(5) all Americans should commemorate the legacy of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. so
[[Page S1498]]
``that one day this Nation will rise up and live out the true
meaning of its creed: `We hold these truths to be self-
evident; that all men are created equal.' ''; and
(6) efforts are underway to secure the personal papers of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for the Library of Congress so
that they may be preserved and studied for generations to
come.
SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of
which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.
The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under
this Act from all available sources, including stockpiles
established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act.
SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the human rights legacy and
leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2003''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
Librarian of Congress, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the
estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.
SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States
Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the
coins minted under this Act.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
minted under this Act only during the 1-year period beginning
on January 1, 2003.
SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in subsection (c) with respect
to such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Surcharges.--All sales of coins issued under this Act
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.
Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, United States Code,
all surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of
coins issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by the
Secretary to the Library of Congress for the purposes of
purchasing and maintaining historical documents and other
materials associated with the life and legacy of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of S. 355, the Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act. The bill
would instruct the U.S. Treasury to mint coins to commemorate the many
contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The proceeds from the sale
of the proposed commemorative coin will be used by the Library of
Congress to purchase and maintain historical materials related to the
legacy of Dr. King and America's Civil Rights era for future
generations.
The coin will be silver and will be minted under the Act for only a
1-year period beginning on January 1, 2003.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an extraordinary leader whose march
for justice stretched far beyond the red clay hills of our beloved
Georgia. His was a long, tumultuous journey and his vision of equality
is one that touched the lives of so many people around this country,
including my own.
I will continue to do all I can to assure that we preserve his legacy
for generations to come. It is my hope that this commemorative coin
will become a collector's treasure and that its popularity will help us
preserve the timeless and poignant story of Dr. King and the civil
rights movement for our children.
Dr. King spoke these words in his final sermon on the day before he
died in 1968:
Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us
stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in
these powerful days, these days of challenge, to make America
what it ought to be.
I hope that every American who holds one of these commemorative coins
in their hands will remember Dr. King's powerful message.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 356. A bill to establish a National Commission on the Bicentennial
of the Louisiana Purchase; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senators
Lincoln, Breaux, and Carnahan, to introduce a bill to establish a
National Commission on the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase. This
legislation has particularly special meaning to Senators from Louisiana
because the site of the actual transfer of the Louisiana Purchase in
1803, the Cabildo, is a building still located in Jackson Square in New
Orleans.
The bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase, which occurs in 2003,
marks an event that more than any other, determined the character of
our national life--determined that we should be a great expanding
nation instead of a relatively small and stationary one.
For only $15 million, three cents an acre, a remarkable bargain, all
or part of 14 states were created out of vast territory acquired in the
Louisiana Purchase, virtually doubling the size of the United States.
The largest peaceful land transaction in history, the Purchase opened
the heartland of North America for exploration, settlement and
achievement to the people of the United States and immigrant from
around the world.
It made possible the travels of Lewis and Clark, whose invaluable
knowledge of the land and peoples beyond the Mississippi River
emboldened thousands of Americans to search for a new life Out West.
Around the world, the American Frontier became synonymous with the
search for spiritual, economic and political freedom.
The bill we are introducing today creating this Commission would
require an appropriation of no more than $4,000,000. The Commission
would be composed of a bipartisan group of 24 members, appointed by the
President through recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the
Senate majority and minority leaders. A year after enactment of this
order, the Commission will submit a report to the President and
Congress detailing its recommendations for activities to celebrate the
event. By March 31, 2005, the Commission is to submit a final report
describing all activities, programs, expenditures and donations
relating to its work.
Commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the subsequent opening of
the West can enhance public understanding of the impact of westward
expansion on American society and can provide lessons for democratic
governance in our own time. I call on my colleagues to join us in
honoring this momentous occasion in our nation's history and provide
the proper ways and means for us to celebrate it appropriately.
Mr. President, again, this bill is to establish a national commission
on the bicentennial of the Louisiana purchase. This, hopefully, is
going to be an exciting celebration for our Nation. Of course, it will
take place in the year 2003. This legislation has particularly special
meaning to the Senators from Louisiana because the site of the actual
transfer of the Louisiana purchase, of course, which was in 1803, took
place in the Cabildo, a building that still stands right there on the
historic Jackson Square in New Orleans.
The bicentennial of the Louisiana purchase which will occur in 2003
marks an event that more than any other determined the character of our
national life. It determined that we should be a great and expanding
Nation instead of a relatively small and stationary one.
As we all remember from our history classes, for only $15 million, 3
cents an acre--a remarkable bargain, actually, for part or all of 14
States that were created out of this vast territory acquired in the
Louisiana Purchase, virtually doubling the size of the United States--
this was, in fact, the largest
[[Page S1499]]
peaceful land transaction in history. The purchase opened the heartland
of North America for exploration, settlement, and achievement to the
people of the United States and immigrants from around the world. It
made possible the travel of Lewis and Clark, whose invaluable knowledge
of the land and peoples beyond the Mississippi River emboldened
thousands of Americans to search for a new life out West.
Around the world, the American frontier became synonymous with the
search for spiritual, economic, and political freedom. So the bill we
are introducing today creates a commission. It would require an
appropriation of no more than $4 million. The commission would be
composed of a bipartisan group of 24 members appointed by the President
through recommendations of the Speaker of the House and the Senate
majority and minority leaders. A year after enactment of this order,
according to our legislation, the commission will submit a report to
the President and Congress detailing its recommendations and activities
to celebrate this wonderful event.
Hopefully, by March of 2005, the commission will submit a final
report describing all of the activities and programs, expenditures, and
donations relating to its work.
The commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the subsequent
opening of the West can enhance a public understanding of the impact of
the westward expansion on American society, and, I think, provide for
all of us, adults and children alike, lessons we can use each day as we
press forward for more stable and robust and terrific democracy and for
governance in our time.
I call on colleagues today to join us in honoring this occasion in
our Nation's history so we can provide the proper ways and means for us
to celebrate it fully and appropriately.
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. 356
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 ``Louisiana Purchase
Bicentennial Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase occurs in
2003, 200 years after the United States, under the leadership
of President Thomas Jefferson and after due consideration and
approval by Congress, paid $15,000,000 to France in order to
acquire the vast area in the western half of the Mississippi
River Basin;
(2) the Louisiana Purchase was the largest peaceful land
transaction in history, virtually doubling the size of the
United States;
(3) the Louisiana Purchase opened the heartland of the
North American continent for exploration, settlement, and
achievement to the people of the United States;
(4) in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase, the new frontier
attracted immigrants from around the world and became
synonymous with the search for spiritual, economic, and
political freedom;
(5) today the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming make up
what was the Louisiana Territory; and
(6) commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase and the opening
of the West would--
(A) enhance public understanding of the impact of westward
expansion on the society of the United States; and
(B) provide lessons for continued democratic governance in
the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Bicentennial.--The term ``Bicentennial'' means the
200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase
established under section 4(a).
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the ``National Commission on the Bicentennial of the
Louisiana Purchase''.
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall plan, encourage,
coordinate, and conduct the commemoration of the
Bicentennial.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 24
members, of which 12 members shall be Republicans and 12
members shall be Democrats, including--
(A) 12 members, of which 6 members shall be Republicans and
6 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President to
represent the United States;
(B) 6 members, of which 3 members shall be Republicans and
3 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President, on
the recommendation of the majority and minority leaders of
the Senate; and
(C) 6 members, of which 3 members shall be Republicans and
3 members shall be Democrats, appointed by the President, on
the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(2) Criteria.--A member of the Commission shall be chosen
from among individuals that have demonstrated a strong sense
of public service, expertise in the appropriate professions,
scholarship, and abilities likely to contribute to the
fulfillment of the duties of the Commission.
(3) Prohibition on federal government employment.--A member
of the Commission shall not be an employee or former employee
of the Federal Government.
(4) International Participation.--The President shall
invite the Governments of France and Spain to appoint, not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 1
individual to serve as a nonvoting member of the Commission.
(5) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Commission described in paragraph (1) shall be made not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Term; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
(2) Vacancy.--A vacancy on the Commission--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
(e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Co-Chairpersons described under subsection (h).
(g) Quorum.--A quorum of the Commission for decision-making
purposes shall be 13 members, except that a lesser number of
members, as determined by the Commission, may conduct
meetings.
(h) Co-Chairpersons and Vice Co-Chairpersons.--
(1) Co-Chairpersons.--The President shall designate 2 of
the members, 1 of which shall be a Republican and 1 of which
shall be a Democrat, to be Co-Chairpersons of the Commission.
(2) Co-Vice-Chairpersons.--The Commission shall select 2
Co-Vice-Chairpersons, 1 of which shall be a Republican and 1
of which shall be a Democrat, from among the members of the
Commission.
SEC. 5. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) plan and develop activities appropriate to commemorate
the Bicentennial including a limited number of proposed
projects to be undertaken by the appropriate Federal
departments and agencies that commemorate the Bicentennial by
seeking to harmonize and balance the important goals of
ceremony and celebration with the equally important goals of
scholarship and education;
(2) consult with and encourage Indian tribes, appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, State and local
governments, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and
universities, foreign governments, and private organizations
to organize and participate in Bicentennial activities
commemorating or examining--
(A) the history of the Louisiana Territory;
(B) the negotiations of the Louisiana Purchase;
(C) voyages of discovery;
(D) frontier movements; and
(E) the westward expansion of the United States; and
(3) coordinate activities throughout the United States and
internationally that relate to the history and influence of
the Louisiana Purchase.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
President and Congress a comprehensive report that includes
specific recommendations for--
(A) the allocation of financial and administrative
responsibility among participating entities and persons with
respect to commemoration of the Bicentennial; and
(B) the commemoration of the Bicentennial and related
events through programs and activities, such as--
(i) the production, publication, and distribution of books,
pamphlets, films, electronic publications, and other
educational materials focusing on the history and impact of
the Louisiana Purchase on the United States and the world;
(ii) bibliographical and documentary projects,
publications, and electronic resources;
(iii) conferences, convocations, lectures, seminars, and
other programs;
(iv) the development of programs by and for libraries,
museums, parks and historic sites, including international
and national traveling exhibitions;
(v) ceremonies and celebrations commemorating specific
events;
(vi) the production, distribution, and performance of
artistic works, and of programs
[[Page S1500]]
and activities, focusing on the international and national
significance of the Louisiana Purchase and the westward
movement opening the frontier for present and future
generations; and
(vii) the issuance of commemorative coins, medals,
certificates of recognition, and stamps.
(2) Annual report.--The Commission shall submit an annual
report that describes the activities, programs, expenditures,
and donations of or received by the Commission to--
(A) the President;
(B) the Senate; and
(C) the House of Representatives.
(3) Final Report.--Not later than March 31, 2005, the
Commission shall submit a final report that describes the
activities, programs, expenditures, and donations of or
received by the Commission to--
(A) the President;
(B) the Senate; and
(C) the House of Representatives.
(c) Assistance.--In carrying out this Act, the Commission
shall consult, cooperate with, and seek advice and assistance
from appropriate Federal departments and agencies.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission may provide for--
(1) the preparation, distribution, dissemination,
exhibition, and sale of historical, commemorative, and
informational materials and objects that will contribute to
public awareness of, and interest in, the Bicentennial,
except that any commemorative coin, medal, or postage stamp
recommended to be issued by the United States shall be sold
only by a Federal department or agency;
(2) competitions and awards for historical, scholarly,
artistic, literary, musical, and other works, programs, and
projects relating to the Bicentennial;
(3) a Bicentennial calendar or register of programs and
projects, and in other ways provide a central clearinghouse
for information and coordination regarding dates, events,
places, documents, artifacts, and personalities of
Bicentennial historical and commemorative significance; and
(4) the design and designation of logos, symbols, or marks
for use in connection with the commemoration of the
Bicentennial shall establish procedures regarding their use.
(b) Advisory Committee.--The Commission may appoint such
advisory committees as the Commission determines necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Location of Office.--
(1) Principal office.--The principal office of the
Commission shall be in New Orleans, Louisiana.
(2) Satellite office.--The Commission may establish a
satellite office in Washington, D.C.
(b) Staff.--
(1) Appointment of director and deputy director.--
(A) In general.--The Co-Chairpersons, with the advice of
the Commission, may appoint and terminate a director and
deputy director without regard to the civil service laws
(including regulations).
(B) Delegation to director.--The Commission may delegate
such powers and duties to the director as may be necessary
for the efficient operation and management of the Commission.
(2) Staff paid from federal funds.--The Commission may use
any available Federal funds to appoint and fix the
compensation of not more than 10 additional personnel staff
members, as the Commission determines necessary.
(3) Staff paid from non-federal funds.--The Commission may
use any available non-Federal funds to appoint and fix the
compensation of additional personnel.
(4) Compensation.--
(A) Members.--
(i) In general.--A member of the Commission shall serve
without compensation.
(ii) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission 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
Commission.
(B) Staff.--
(i) In general.--The Co-Chairpersons of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the director, deputy director, and
other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to classification of positions and General
Schedule pay rates.
(ii) Maximum rate of pay.--
(I) Director.--The rate of pay for the director shall not
exceed the rate payable for level IV of the Executive
Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(II) Deputy director.--The rate of pay for the deputy
director shall not exceed the rate payable for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(III) Staff members.--The rate of pay for staff members
appointed under paragraph (2) shall not exceed the rate
payable for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under section
5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
(1) In general.--On request of the Commission, the head of
any Federal agency or department may detail any of the
personnel of the agency or department to the Commission to
assist the Commission in carrying out this Act.
(2) Reimbursement.--A detail of personnel under this
subsection shall be without reimbursement by the Commission
to the agency from which the employee was detailed.
(3) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(d) Other Revenues and Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may procure supplies,
services, and property, enter into contracts, and expend
funds appropriated, donated, or received to carry out
contracts.
(2) Donations.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may solicit, accept, use,
and dispose of donations of money, property, or personal
services.
(B) Limitations.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
Commission shall not accept donations--
(i) the value of which exceeds $50,000 annually, in the
case of donations from an individual; or
(ii) the value of which exceeds $250,000 annually, in the
case of donations from a person other than an individual.
(C) Nonprofit organization.--The limitations in
subparagraph (B) shall not apply in the case of an
organization that is--
(i) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986; and
(ii) exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Acquired items.--Any book, manuscript, miscellaneous
printed matter, memorabilia, relic, and other material or
property relating to the time period of the Louisiana
Purchase acquired by the Commission may be deposited for
preservation in national, State, or local libraries, museums,
archives, or other agencies with the consent of the
depositary institution.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mail to carry out this Act in the same manner and
under the same conditions as other agencies of the Federal
Government.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), there
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes
of this Act--
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2005.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated under this
section for any fiscal year shall remain available until
March 31, 2005.
(c) Limitation.--The total amount of funds made available
under this section shall not exceed $4,000,000.
SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority provided by this Act terminates effective
March 31, 2005.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Frist):
S. 358. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a
Medicare Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit Program and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again stand before the
Senate and speak on the critical issue of Medicare reform and
prescription drugs. Over the past 3 years, I have worked extensively on
this issue with my friend Senator Breaux, and we have introduced two
pieces of bipartisan legislation comprehensively reforming and
strengthening the Medicare program. Therefore, I am thrilled today to
reintroduce these bills along with Senator Breaux as we take the next
step in this process towards improving Medicare.
No one disputes that Medicare needs changes. Every year, Congress
considers numerous proposals to update the Medicare program--some more
far-reaching than others. We have a strong consensus on the importance
of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. What remains
for us, then, is to strengthen the Medicare program in a way that will
bring it into the 21st century--by allowing seniors to have a
prescription drug benefit, bringing the overall benefits package into
line with what most other Americans receive, and giving the program the
flexibility to change and grow over the years.
We all know Medicare's shortcomings. It is projected to be bankrupt
by 2025. It only covers 53 percent of beneficiaries' health care costs,
making seniors spend an average of $2,000 per year out-of-pocket on
health care. It does not cover prescription drugs, long-term care,
eyeglasses or dental care. As the fourth-largest item in the budget,
its spending, left unchecked will consume an ever-increasing share of
the Federal budget. A generational time-bomb awaits it as 77 million
baby boomers begin to enter the program in 2010. It is an example of
Congressional
[[Page S1501]]
micromanagement at its worst, and its regulatory system encompasses
more than 130,000 pages of HCFA regulations.
Designed in 1965, the Medicare program remains mired in the past.
When Medicare was first enacted in 1965, it had the goal of providing
seniors necessary acute health care that would otherwise have been
unaffordable. However today's health care delivery systems are far more
advanced than the program's creators ever imagined. It has simply not
kept pace with the changing nature of health care. We must fix the
program--not just continue to tinker around the edges.
I believe that the overwhelming public support for a prescription
drug benefit gives us a real opportunity to improve Medicare in a
bipartisan, comprehensive manner. Seniors absolutely need prescription
drug benefits, but a free-standing drug benefit that fails to address
the underlying program only exacerbates Medicare's financial and
administrative troubles while removing the political will to tackle the
pressing need for system-wide reform.
Therefore, any reform legislation, while including prescription drug
coverage, must also address these other issues facing the program. The
first bill we introduce today, ``Breaux-Frist I,'' was the first
bipartisan attempt to comprehensively reform Medicare in the program's
35-year history. Breaux-Frist I draws heavily on the recommendations of
the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and is
modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, (FEHBP), a
plan through which we and millions of other Federal employees receive
health care. This is a plan with a forty year track record of success
in providing quality comprehensive health coverage.
Breaux-Frist I does three main things. First, it replaces the current
system for competing health plans in Medicare, which is not working
very well, with a new system based on the FEHBP. A new Medicare Board,
not HCFA, would oversee the competition. It also requires that all
Medicare plans, including the HCFA-sponsored plans, have a high option
with prescription drug coverage and a limit on seniors' out-of-pocket
costs. The Government would make the least cost high option plan
available to low-income seniors for free and would share a part of the
cost with all beneficiaries choosing a high option plan. Finally, it
gives HCFA the opportunity to manage the government-run plans more like
a business, with less regulation and less need for Congressional
micromanagement.
Building on Breaux-Frist I and the findings of the Medicare
Commission, our second piece of legislation, ``Breaux-Frist II,'' takes
the first steps towards long-term Medicare reform while adding a much
needed outpatient prescription drug benefit to the program. The bill
will provide seniors the option to choose the kind of health care
coverage that best suits their individual needs, including enhanced
benefits, outpatient prescription drug coverage, and protections
against high out-of-pocket drug costs.
Breaux-Frist II establishes the Competitive Medicare Agency, CMA, an
independent, executive-branch agency to spearhead an advanced level of
Medicare management and oversight--leaving behind the intransigent
bureaucracy and outdated mindset infecting the program and instead
guaranteeing seniors choice, health care security, and improved
benefits and delivery of care.
Vital to this bill is the Prescription Drug and Supplemental Benefit
Program that provides beneficiaries outpatient prescription drugs and
other additional benefits through new Medicare Prescription Plus plans
offered by private entities or through Medicare+Choice plans. Seniors
are guaranteed a minimum benefit but also have the choice of other drug
benefit packages. I recognize more than anyone that a one-size-fits-all
approach to health care does not work. It is important to pass along
the same choices we, as members of Congress, have. Seniors deserve no
less.
The bill also provides drug coverage premium subsidies for low-income
beneficiaries and addresses the high costs of drugs by ensuring that no
beneficiary will ever pay retail prices for prescription drugs again.
Both of these bills will prove successful in placing Medicare on the
right road to financial stability and quality health care. They will
ensure more competition, provide a universal prescription drug benefit,
protect low-income and rural Americans and create new measures of
Medicare's financial solvency.
Medicare must be modernized to provide seniors integrated health care
choices, including outpatient prescription drug coverage. By moving
forward on this legislation, we can truly provide choice and security
for our Medicare beneficiaries to ensure their individual health care
needs are met, today and well into the future. I look forward to
working with Senator Breaux, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
and the White House towards this critical goal.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 359. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide
eligibility for members enlisting in a regular component of the Armed
Forces to enroll for advanced training in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Program; to increase the maximum age authorized for
participation in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps financial
assistance program; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Eligibility Reform Act of 2001. I believe this
bill will shore up the military's ability to recruit and retain
qualified junior officers. This legislation will reform our college
level Reserve Officer Training Corps Units by expanding eligibility for
those programs.
This bill contains two primary provisions which will alter the way in
which ROTC determines eligibility. First, it will allow active duty
enlisted personnel, who have been selected for an officer commissioning
program, to participate in ROTC training. These enlisted personnel are
already on college campuses and are attached administratively to an
ROTC unit. Their tuition is paid by their respective service and they
earn their regular active duty pay while earning their degree. However,
these enlisted personnel do not normally begin their formal officer
training until after earning their degree when they attend their
respective service's officer candidate school. On average, our
military's officer candidate schools are three months long. This
legislation would permit these personnel to complete their officer
training at the ROTC unit which serves the college or university they
are attending. This would be a more equitable use of an officer
candidate's time and would decrease the time and cost associated with
training. Additionally, it will free up positions at officer training
schools and significantly increase their ability to cope with
fluctuations in the number of officer recruits.
Second, this legislation increases the maximum age for participation
in ROTC scholarship programs from 27 to 35. In other words, if a cadet
or midshipman can complete their degree and earn their commission, by
the maximum legal commissioning age of 35, they should be able to earn
a scholarship which will pay for that education. This provision will
allow the services to use scholarship money to cover the entire
commissioning envelope. Our military recruiters will be able to provide
financial incentives to an older yet valuable age group. I have been
told that officer trainees in the 27 to 35 age group are more mature
and focused and are less likely to try to back out of their service
commitment.
This legislation is one small initiative in our effort to rebuild the
morale and readiness of our armed forces. Whether they be infantry
commanders, pilots, submariners, intelligence analysts or information
technology specialists, our junior officer ranks are depleted across
the spectrum. In conjunction with the service academies and officer
candidate schools, the ROTC scholarship program has been the backbone
of our military's ability to train and commission high quality junior
officers. My proposal today would merely expand this established
program to include regular active duty personnel and an older and more
seasoned citizenry. Overall, I believe that this bill will help the
military to commission more junior officers, especially those with
valuable prior enlisted service. I urge my colleagues to support it.
[[Page S1502]]
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 361. A bill to establish age limitations for airmen; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Inhofe and Enzi in introducing legislation that attempts to diminish
the scope of a problem that is facing our air transport industry,
namely a critical shortage of pilots. The pilot shortage is starting to
have effects in many rural states.
In response to this problem, I am today introducing a bill that would
repeal the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule which now
requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at ago 60. Under my
legislation, pilots in excellent health would be allowed to continue to
pilot commercial airliners until their 65th birthday.
The Age 60 rule was instituted 40 years ago when commercial jets were
first entering service. The rule was established without the benefit of
medical or scientific studies or public comment. The most recent study,
the results of which were released in 1993, examined the correlation
between age and accident rate as pilots approach 60. That study found
no increase in accidents.
The FAA contends that although science does not dictate retirement at
the age of 60, it is the age range when sharp increases in disease
mortality and morbidity occur. In FAA's view it is too risky to allow
older pilots to fly the largest aircraft, carrying the greatest number
of passengers over the longest non-stop distances, in the highest
density traffic.
However, 44 countries worldwide have relaxed the age 60 rule within
the last ten years primarily because the pilot shortage is a worldwide
phenomenon. Many of these air carriers currently fly into U.S.
airspace.
One of the ways carriers are attempting to adapt to the shortage is
to lower their flight time requirements. In my view, this is a risk
factor the FAA should be concerned about.
How did this shortage occur? The reason is simple: There has been an
explosive growth of the major airlines worldwide, and there's a
shortage of military pilots who used to feed the system. In addition,
there is an aging pilot pool that must retire at age 60.
Add to this domino effect the decline in the number of people
learning to fly, due primarily to the cost, and the pool of available
pilots has shrunk.
The shortage acutely affects my home state of Alaska because we
depend on air transport far more than any other state. Rural residents
in Alaska have no way out other than by air service. There are no rural
routes, state or interstate highways serving most rural residents in
Alaska and the airplane for many of them is their lifeline to the
outside world.
The pilot shortage has left Alaskan carriers scrambling for pilots.
Alaska's carriers must hire from the available pilot pool in the lower
48. Many of these pilots view flying in Alaska as a stepping stone that
allows them to build up flight time. Although they get great flying
experience in my home state, in nearly all instances when a pilot gets
a higher-pay job offer with a larger carrier in the lower 48, he leaves
Alaska.
According to the Alaska Air Carriers Association, raising the
retirement age to 65 will help alleviate the shortage and keep
experienced pilots flying and serving rural Alaskans.
I would note that what is happening across the country is that the
major carriers are luring pilots from commuter airlines, who in turn
recruit from the air charter and corporate industry, who in turn hire
flight instructors, agriculture pilots, etc. Which leaves rural
carriers strapped. The big fish are feeding off the little ones.
Small carriers simply cannot compete with the salaries, benefits and
training costs of the major carriers. They simply do not have the
financial resources.
According to figures provided by the Federal Aviation Administration,
there were 694,000 pilots in 1988 and 616,342 in 1997. Within that
number, private pilot certificates fell from approximately 300,000 in
1988 to 247,604 in 1997. Commercial certificates, like air taxi and
small commuter pilots, fell from 143,000 in 1988 to 125,300 in 1997.
The number of total pilots in Alaska fell from more than 10,000 in 1988
to approximately 8,700 in 1997.
However, light is beginning to show at the end of the tunnel.
Organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) have been
monitoring this shortage for some time and have stepped up to the plate
to get people interested in flying. AOPA has started a pilot mentoring
program in 1994 and approximately 30,000 have entered the program.
GAMA's ``Be a Pilot'' program is starting to bring more potential
pilots into flight training.
Even the Air Force is starting to institute new programs to keep
pilots.
In Alaska, as a result of a precedent-setting program involving Yute
Air, the Association of Village Council Presidents, the University of
Alaska, Anchorage, Aero Tech Flight Service, Inc., and the FAA, a
program was developed to train rural Alaska Natives to fly. Seven are
on their way to pilot careers.
Also, the number of students working on pilot licenses at the
University's Flight Technology program has almost doubled in two years.
It is my hope that the shortage has hit rock bottom. But even so, it
will take years before a cadre of qualified pilots is ready to take to
the friendly skies.
The time has come for Congress to wrestle with this problem. As long
as a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be
allowed to fly. Air service is critical to keep commerce alive,
especially in rural states.
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. 361
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.
(a) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any
person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under
part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that
person is 65 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged
in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, if that person is 65 years of age or older.
(b) Certificate Holder.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate
to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Daschle, and Mrs.
Lincoln):
S. 362. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland which is similar to the
exclusion from gain on the sale of a principal residence; to the
Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Daschle, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 363. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for 100 percent of the health insurance costs of self-
employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. 364. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the applicability of section 179 which permits the expensing of certain
depreciable assets; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm reintroducing several bills that
are needed to fix glaring problems in our Internal Revenue Code.
Clearly, the issue of tax cuts will be the subject of extensive
debate in the coming months. I think a responsible new tax relief plan
could be crafted to ease the tax burden on working families and others
who need it. I also believe that if the expected surpluses materialize,
a significant part should be used to pay down the federal debt.
But, as we move forward with this debate about new tax breaks, I
think Congress needs to remember that there are a number of tax
fairness matters pending from previous years that we must address
without any further delay.
[[Page S1503]]
First, when Congress enacted a new $500,000 capital gains exclusion
for home sales in 1997, it offered a good deal to those families who
live in urban areas affected by rising home and land prices.
Unfortunately, this provision offers little or no benefits for family
farmers because their farm homes are part of the larger farmstead. By
itself, the farmhouse often has little value in relation to the
surrounding farmland and buildings. This means that farmers who are
selling the whole farm because they are retiring or who are being
forced out of business because of the downturn in the farm economy may
face a hefty tax bill at a time they can least afford it.
Legislation that Senator Hagel and I are introducing today recognizes
the economic realities of farming and extends the benefit of the
$500,000 capital gains tax exclusion to farm families. Specifically,
our legislation would expand the $500,000 capital gains exclusion for
home sales to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or
surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively farming prior to the
sales.
We have introduced virtually identical legislation in the past. Our
approach has garnered substantial bipartisan support from most of our
colleagues. If we enact a major tax bill this year, we believe it ought
to include language to correct this capital gains tax problem that many
of our nation's farmers urgently need fixed.
Second, I'm introducing legislation along with Senators Johnson,
Daschle and others to immediately eliminate the disparity between sole
proprietors and their large corporate competitors in the tax treatment
of their health insurance costs. Under current federal tax law, we tell
our biggest corporations that they can deduct 100 percent of their
health insurance costs, while we say to our nation's sole proprietors
that they can deduct only 60 percent of these same costs. Almost
everyone agrees that this circumstance is indefensible and needs to be
remedied. Current law fixes this problem by 2003, but small business
owners should not have to wait. Congress should act now to give them
the full deduction.
This legislation addresses this inequity facing family farmers,
ranchers, and other self-employed individuals by permitting them to
deduct 100-percent of their health insurance costs beginning this year.
The health of a family farmer or small business owner is just as
important as the health of an officer of a large corporation and our
tax laws should reflect that simple fact now.
The third bill I'm introducing today addresses what I believe is a
major flaw in the current federal income tax expensing provision that
hinders many small businesses from making needed building improvements.
Under current law, small businesses generally can deduct immediately up
to $24,000 in qualifying purchases of equipment and machinery. But they
must depreciate over 39 years the costs of any storefront or other
structural building improvements, even if those improvements are
crucial to the business or to the maintenance of a Main Street.
This legislation tells the local drug store, shoe store or barber
shop, which doesn't have much need for equipment purchases but does
need to improve the storefront or interior, that it should be able to
deduct the costs of such improvements, rather than be forced to
depreciate them over nearly four decades. Specifically, my bill expands
the current $24,000 expensing provision to cover investments in
depreciable real property. The bill also increases the expensing amount
to $25,000, which is currently scheduled to occur by the year 2003.
There are Main Streets across this country that were built or
refurbished decades ago and now need investments and improvements. Our
federal tax laws ought to assist small businesses to make such
improvements, and my legislation is a simple way to accomplish that.
The Senate unanimously agreed to an amendment I offered to a larger
tax bill last summer that would have made the changes I have proposed
in the three bills I introduce today. Unfortunately, none of these
provisions was included in the final version of that tax bill or other
legislation before the Congress adjourned last year.
Therefore, I would urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor each of
these bills and work with me to get them added to any tax package
passed by the Congress this year.
______
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 365: A bill to provide recreational snowmobile access to certain
units of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
provide recreational snowmobile access to certain units of the National
Park System, and for other purposes.
Recently many of my constituents in and around Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks witnessed the bureaucracy exercise its powers and
run roughshod over those who disagreed with its findings.
For years, the National Park Service managed and encouraged
recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks
and on the adjacent John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway,
providing thousands of Americans an opportunity to enjoy the winter
wonders of the Yellowstone plateau and the majestic surrounding
countryside.
Instead of continuing this reasonable approach to winter access, or
constructively addressing perceived adverse issues; The Clinton
administration hijacked the National Park Service effort to update
Yellowstone's winter use management plan; corrupted the environmental
impact statement process; cut off meaningful participation by
cooperating states, local communities and citizens; disregarded
critical facts and science, and injected new anti-snowmobile
alternatives into the process at the last moment.
In short, federal land managers cast aside their statutory duties and
obligations and instead accepted interpretations of law twisted to
stage a grand political gesture--the banning of snowmobiles from
National Parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton.
Snowmobiles often come under fire from those who suspect that the
machines degrade air and water quality, despite the fact that
scientists were unable to produce or confirm any resource degradation
in the recent environmental impact study conducted by the National Park
Service. In this regard, I have met personally with the presidents and
CEO's of the four major snowmobile manufacturers. They have informed
me, that as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency issues emission
standards, they can produce and market snowmobiles that meet or exceed
the standards within three years.
Mr. President, the industry only needs to have the emission standards
set so that they can get on with their business. In fact, the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was in the process of creating
standards; however, EPA employees were told to stand down by the
President's appointees until the Yellowstone scenario was played out.
They did not want to be confused by the facts nor did they desire to
constructively address the perceived problems.
Headlines were more important than people as well as the economic
viability of small communities and businesses in Idaho, Montana and
Wyoming. Press reports were more important than providing winter
visitors continued access to their parks.
The bureaucrats did decide that the ``snowcoach only no other
snowmachine'' scenario is the only way people should enjoy, experience
and view the majesty that winter brings to the Yellowstone region.
The ``snowcoach only'' scenario is unfortunately another bureaucratic
snafu. No one considered that today's snowcoach is mechanically
unreliable and it lacks the speed necessary to see much of the park in
a day. While the snowcoach may be the correct and preferred mode of
transportation for some, it is not for many. Telling local businessmen
that more comfortable, more reliable snowcoaches will be developed in
the next few years at taxpayer expense serves absolutely no purpose. I
know of no such budget request or plan and I know of no one willing to
invest in such a risky scheme.
I do know that a viable alternative for winter access is possible.
More importantly, access can be attained in an environmentally sound
manner. It is not an issue that should be ignored. I doubt that the new
rules and regulations will stand the scrutiny of our
[[Page S1504]]
court system. The International Snowmobile Manufacturer's Association
and other parties have already filed suit against the Department of the
Interior and the National Park Service challenging the government's
arbitrary and capricious decision to reverse decades of traditional
activity.
In watching the progress and the mistakes made, along with the
information and facts ignored, I believe there is a real possibility
that the newly issued rules and regulations will be overturned.
It is for this reason that I am introducing this legislation today. I
believe that a proactive, constructive and environmentally sound
approval to winter access to our parks needs to be discussed and
implemented.
This legislation, when enacted, will:
(1) direct the EPA, within two years, to promulgate final national
standards governing emissions by snowmobiles;
(2) the National Park Service, in conjunction with the Society of
Automotive Engineers, shall set noise standards for snowmobile use in
the National Park System, and
(3) not later than five years after the enactment of this act, the
National Park Service will not allow a snowmachine to operate within
the boundaries of a park that does not meet the new emission and noise
standards.
The measure also provides the Secretary with authorities to close
portions of parks if damage to the resource can be shown and the bill
requires comprehensive studies; which, to date, have not been
completed, much less initiated. The studies will assess the impacts of
recreational snowmobile use within the affected units of the System on
park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent communities.
I am not suggesting that snowmachine users have unfettered access
across park lands. Any use will be closely monitored and highly
regulated. Some are unaware of the fact that currently snowmachines in
parks are limited to the same established roadways used by hundreds of
automobiles during the summer months. The users are not allowed to
travel at will in parks as they are allowed on other federal lands.
There will be some who will admit that cleaner, quieter machines are
not that much different than the automobiles that tend to clog our park
roadways from time to time. They would be correct, except that there
are far fewer snowmachines visiting our parks than there are
automobiles. They will point out; however, that snowmachines harass
wildlife.
Some of the folks at Yellowstone coined a phrase--``bison ping pong''
Evidently, there is a VCR tape that has been circulated showing two
individuals on snowmobiles harassing a bison within the boundaries of
Yellowstone National Park. I have not seen the tape and I cannot attest
to its veracity.
Currently, there are laws that make it a federal crime to engage or
participate in such activities. The National Park Service has all of
the powers and authorities it needs to address this management problem
or illegal activity, if indeed, it exists. I would advocate, that
anyone apprehended in a park engaged in this sort of illegal activity,
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and in addition
to fines and jail time, their machines should be confiscated.
The bottom line in the snowmobile debate is that with a little care,
the program can be well managed, without causing damage to the park
resources, including the wildlife therein.
Finally, I am committed to work with my colleagues toward the passage
of this legislation. I am willing to compromise where necessary and I
am willing to listen to all sides of this issue. I firmly believe that
we can reach resolution.
The concept and management style which advocates the theory that
there may be a problem with a particular activity, but we don't really
know what the problem is--therefore the activity should be eliminated
no matter who or what is inconvenienced, forced out of business, or
denied access to our natural treasures--should not be allowed to
continue unchecked.
I am an avid supporter and protector of our National Park System. I
firmly believe this winter use can be accommodated through good
management, good science and a little common sense.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a synopsis of
snowmobile regulations, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 365
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This act may be cited as the ``National Park Service Winter
Access Act''.
SEC. 2. SNOWMOBILES.
(a) Findings.--
(1) Recreational snowmobile use within units of the
National Park system is an established, traditional, and
legitimate means of visitor use and enjoyment of these public
lands when conducted in a manner that does not adversely
affect or impair park resources and values.
(2) The snowmobile manufacturers and the Environmental
Protection Agency will be working to establish emissions
standards for a new generation of snowmobiles. This new
generation of machines will be cleaner and quieter and should
be available to the public within five years.
(3) Cleaner, quieter snowmobiles may provide the public
with a greater opportunity to enjoy the National Park System
in a manner that is consistent with park resources and
values.
(b) Interim Park Operations.--
(1) As is consistent with the Act entitled, ``An Act to
establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes,''
approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), in the
following units of the National Park System where snowmobile
use occurred or was authorized as of January 1, 2000, such
use shall continue restricted to levels of no less than the
average wintertime use and activity over the last three
winters. This use can be subject to other reasonable
regulations governing such use existing as of January 1,
2000, including emergency closure authority:
Acadia National Park, Maine
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Colorado
Crater Lake National Park, Oregon
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming
Mount Rainier National Park, Washington
North Cascades National Park, Washington
Olympic National Park, Washington
Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
Sequoia National Park, California
Kings Canyon National Park, California
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota
Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota
Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
Zion National Park, Utah
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Multi-States
Saint Croix National Scenic River, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pictured Rocks National Seashore, Michigan
Cedar Breaks National Monument, Utah
Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado, Utah
Grand Portage National Monument, Minnesota
Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina, Virginia
John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Parkway, Wyoming
Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, Iowa
Perry's Victory National Historic Site, Ohio
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Montana, Wyoming
Curecanti National Recreation Area, Colorado
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, new Jersey,
Pennsylvania
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Washington
Ross Lake National Recreation Area, Washington
(2)(i) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1), and consistent
with other applicable laws, the Secretary has the authority,
if necessary, to address or avert significant environmental
impacts in a particular unit or portion of a unit, to
restrict snowmobile use and activity down to a level that is
no less than 50% below the three year average level
established under subsection (b)(1). The restrictions shall
apply to the smallest practical portion of the unit adequate
to address the impacts.
(ii) Before restricting use and activity in this manner,
the Secretary shall make a finding of significant
environmental impact based on on-the-ground study in the
affected unit or portion of the unit and sound, peer-reviewed
scientific information applicable to that unit or portion of
the unit. Within at least 90 days before finalizing such
restrictions, the Secretary shall notify the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on
Resources of its intent and provide the public with at least
30 days to comment on the proposal.
(3) Consistent with other applicable law, the National Park
Service may prohibit recreational snowmobile use within all
units of the system not listed in subsection (b)(1).
(c) Long-Term Program and Operations.--
(1) Within two years after the enactment of this Act, the
Environmental Protection
[[Page S1505]]
Agency shall promulgate final national standards governing
emissions by snowmobiles.
(2) The Environmental Protection Agency may engage in
negotiated rulemaking with the snowmobile manufacturers
regarding this standard.
(3) Taking into account noise reductions achieved in
conjunction with the emissions standard described in
subsection (c)(1), not later than five years following the
date of enactment of this Act, the National Park Service, in
conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers,
shall set noise standards for snowmobile use in the
National Park System.
(d) Management Plans and Studies.--
(1) The National Park Service is directed to prepare
management plans to assure education and enforcement of
regulations governing recreational snowmobile use within the
system.
(2) The National Park Service shall conduct new
comprehensive studies to assess the impacts of recreational
snowmobile use within the affected units of the system on
park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent
communities. Among other things, these studies must include
consideration of the EPA snowmobile emission standards,
snowmobiles that are produced in response to those standards,
and technological and other advances occurring or anticipated
at that time. The conclusions derived from such studies shall
be the basis for any proposed revised regulations and
management plans to govern use of recreational snowmobiles
within the units listed in subsection (g)(1) of this section.
(3) Not later than four years following the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Park Service shall
prepare a Report to Congress concerning the proper use of
snowmobiles for recreation in National Park System units.
Among other things, this Report shall consider the impact of
the snowmobiles complaint with the emission standards set in
subsection (c)(1) on wildlife, the environment, and other
relevant factors.
(4) Not later than five years after the date of enactment
of this Act, and based upon the findings of the report to
Congress described in subsection (d)(3) and other relevant
information, the National Park Service shall propose revised
regulations and management plans to govern use of
recreational snowmobiles within the units listed in
subsection (b)(1) of this Act.
(i) No management plan or regulation developed in
accordance with subsection (d)(4) shall permit the entry of
snowmobiles that do not meet the emission and noise standards
described in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(3), respectively,
into the units of the National Park System described in
section (b)(1) of this Act.
(e) Savings Clause.--
Nothing herein is intended to affect the provisions of
Public Law 96-487, including but not limited to, Section
1110(a).
____
Synopsis
Yellowstone National Park
The regulation delineates a timeline that eliminates all
recreational snowmobile access by the end of the 2003-04
season. This prohibition will be implemented incrementally
over several years. Upon the effective date, February 21,
2001, the regulation designates established routes for
snowmobiles and snowcoaches, public safety and air pollution
restrictions for snowmobiles and snowcoaches, designated
periods of operation for snowcoaches, permit and license
requirements for snowmobile operators, and a prohibition on
snowplanes.
Effective through the end of the 2001-2002 winter season,
the use of snowmobiles is limited to the unplowed roadway.
There are further restrictions on the routes available to
snowmobiles during the 2002-2003 winter season and there are
restrictions placed on what hours during the day that
snowmobiles may be operated. Additional restrictions during
this period include a daily limit on the number of
snowmobiles allowed to use the park each day, a requirement
for snowmobiles to be accompanied by a guide in groups of no
more than 11. By the end of the 2003-2005 winter season, the
use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone is prohibited.
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway
As in Yellowstone there are restrictions and requirements
that go into effect immediately, such as registration,
licensing, rules of the road, and restriction to keep
snowmobiles on designated routes. Effective until the end of
2001-2002 winter season use, snowmobiles are required to stay
on designated routes. Snowplanes are prohibited.
During the 2002-2003 season there are specific routes
designated for snowmobile travel, limits on the numbers of
snowmobiles each day are imposed, and the hours of operation
are prescribed.
The prohibition on all snowmobile use occurs one year
earlier than in Yellowstone, at the end of the 2002-2003
season.
Grand Teton National Park
The regulations restricting snowmobile and snowplane use at
Grand Teton NP vary from those found at Yellowstone and the
John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway primarily to allow for
access across parklands and access to private lands within
the park. Recreational snowmobile use is eliminated entirely
from Grand Teton NP, except for snowmobile use over certain
designated routes and for specific purposes. Snowplane use is
allowed to continue under permit until the end of the 2001-
2002 season.
Upon the regulations effective date several public safety,
licensing, and registration requirements are imposed, there
is an exception on licensing for individuals accessing
private and adjacent public lands.
The regulation specifies designated snowmobile routes that
are effective to the end of the 2001-2002 winter season most
of which follow unplowed roads. During the 2002-2003 winter
season only the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail is
designated for snowmobile use. Effective winter use season of
2003-2004, the only snowmobile use is for reasonable and
direct access to adjacent public and private lands via
designated routes.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 designates the Act's short title as the
``National Park Service Winter Access Act.''
Section 2(a) finds that snowmobile use in the National Park
System is an established, traditional, and legitimate means
of visitor use and enjoyment.
Paragraph 2 finds that snowmobile manufacturers and the
Environmental Protection Agency will work together to
establish emission standards for a new generation of
snowmobiles which should be available in five years.
Paragraph 3 states that cleaner and quieter snowmobiles may
provide the public the opportunity to enjoy the parks in a
manner consistent with park values.
Subsection 2(b)(1) directs that until new emission
standards and the new generation snowmobiles are available,
the National Park Service will allow snowmobiles use to
continue at levels no less than the average wintertime use
and activity over the last three years. This subsection
designates 29 National Park Service areas where such use will
continue.
Paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) allows the Secretary to restrict
snowmobile use and activity down to a level no less than 50%
below the three year average level to address or avert
significant environmental impacts. Such restrictions apply to
the smallest practical area to address the impact.
Paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) requires that before restricting
snowmobile activity, the Secretary must make a finding of
significant environmental impact and present these findings
to House and Senate Committees as well as give adequate
public notice.
Paragraph 2(b)(3) allows the National Park Service to
prohibit snowmobile use in all areas not listed in paragraph
2(b)(1).
Subsection 2(c) requires the EPA to promulgate national
standards on snowmobile emission.
Paragraph 2 allows the Environmental Protection Agency to
engage in negotiated rulemaking with snowmobile manufacturers
on emissions standards.
Paragraph 3 requires the National Park Service to set noise
standards for snowmobile use within five years of this act's
enactment, in conjunction with the Society of Automotive
Engineers.
Subsection 2(d) directs the National Park Service to
complete management plans addressing education and
enforcement of regulations regarding recreational snowmobile
use in the National Park System.
Paragraph 2 directs the National Park Service to conduct
new studies on the impacts of recreational snowmobile use in
the park system. The studies will consider the new EPA
standards and anticipated changes in technology.
Paragraph 3 directs the National Park Service to prepare a
Report to Congress addressing the use of snowmobiles in
National Park Service units within four years of the act's
enactment.
Paragraph 4 requires the National Park Service to propose
revised regulations governing the use of snowmobiles in units
affected by this act within five years of the enactment of
the act. These regulations should include a prohibition on
snowmobiles that do not meet established noise and emission
standards
Subsection 2(e) states that nothing in this act will affect
the access provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Act (PL 96-487).
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Smith of
Oregon, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 366, A bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to
increase the amount of funds available for certain Agricultural Trade
programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Craig,
Cleland, Gordon Smith, Cantwell, Wyden and Boxer to reintroduce the
Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001.
Trade is the lifeblood of Washington state's economy. From aerospace
to software to agriculture, one out of every three jobs in my state is
trade-related. Without access to markets around the world, Washington
state's economy cannot function.
The legislation I am introducing today would open and expand markets
for U.S. agricultural exports. It would
[[Page S1506]]
help rural economies. It would create jobs in regions that need them
the most.
In the 106th Congress, we focused our attention on opening markets to
American goods and services. I strongly supported efforts to pass
permanent normal trade relations for China, to reform our ineffective
unilateral sanctions policies, and to create new trade relationships
with Africa and the Caribbean Basin.
Our nation's producers generally supported these efforts, but their
enthusiasm for new trade agreements is waning.
It's difficult for our farmers and ranchers to endorse new trade
agreements when our trade partners heavily subsidize their producers.
It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to get excited about
potential new markets when federal agencies give a green light to
imports from nations that won't let our products in.
It's difficult for farmers and ranchers to support free trade when
our competitors have the advantage of cheaper labor, cheaper land,
cheaper water and fewer environmental regulations.
When these trade challenges are combined with low prices, a strong
dollar, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and higher energy and
fertilizer prices, I understand why many of our farmers and ranchers
are losing patience with our trade agreements.
I believe agricultural producers and rural communities should
continue to support free trade. U.S. producers are so productive that
we can't afford not to push for more open markets.
But I also believe we should give our agricultural producers a
fighting chance to succeed. We need to pursue trade agreements that are
fair. We need to enforce the good agreements we make. And we need to
invest in market promotion and development.
The legislation I am introducing today will help give producers a
fighting chance. It invests in market share, not potential markets. It
builds on success, not rhetoric.
Current law authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Export Enhancement Program. But the program
isn't being used. Current law does not allow the Secretary of
Agriculture to transfer those authorized funds to programs that are
being used, like the Market Access Program and the the Foreign Market
Development ``Cooperator'' Program.
My bill would change that.
The Agricultural Market Access and Development Act does three things.
First, it raises the existing cap on the Market Access Program from
$90 million to $200 million.
Second, it creates a $35 million floor for the Foreign Market
Development ``Cooperator'' Program.
The Market Access Program and the Cooperator Program have helped to
expand markets for apples, potatoes, wheat, wine and other products
from Washington state and around the nation. Under these programs, the
federal government reimburses a non-profit industry association or a
private business for a portion of trade promotion activities.
Third, the bill establishes a mechanism to pay for these changes. It
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer a percentage of
unspent funds under the Export Enhancement Program to market access and
development programs.
The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to S.
1983, which I introduced in 1999. In the 106th Congress, more than
eighty agriculture and food organizations wrote to Members of Congress
supporting S. 1983. I believe we will have equal--if not greater--
support as we start working on the next farm bill.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Agricultural Market
Access and Development Act.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that I am
cosponsoring the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of
2001, which was introduced by Senator Murray today. This bill will
authorize increases in the funding levels for agricultural market
access and development programs in 2001 and 2002. These programs
provide matching funds to assure aggressive marketing of our
agricultural products in the international markets.
U.S. exports of high-value and consumer-oriented agricultural
products have increased steadily in recent years but are facing stiff
competition from foreign sources. In 1998 foreign competitors outspent
the U.S. by nearly 4 to 1 on export promotion activities. The Market
Access Program is a cost-sharing approach to help U.S. farmers and
growers close this funding gap. Program funds are used to generically
support important Washington agricultural products.
Washington State depends on agriculture to provide jobs, particularly
in Eastern Washington which has been left out of the prosperity of the
Puget Sound region. Apple growers in the Yakima valley must have new
markets if their businesses are to survive and prosper. Eastern
Washington needs these jobs and we need this program.
Export markets provide some of the best economic support to the
agricultural community. Agricultural products are an important part of
the dynamic market mix that makes Washington a thriving, productive
economic area. The matching funding of the Market Access Program helps
to provide support and encouragement for the farmers and growers so
important to Washington State and the Northwest.
I thank Senator Murray for the leadership she has shown in promoting
and protecting our agricultural interests. I look forward to continuing
close cooperation with Senator Murray, other members of the Washington
State delegation, as well as State and local leaders to support our
valued agricultural interests.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Chafee,
Mr. Reid, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Specter):
S. 367. A bill to prohibit the application of certain restrictive
eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with
respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, within 48 hours of assuming the
Presidency, President Bush issued a policy that will hurt the women of
the world. A policy that takes us back to the 1980s, rather than ahead
to the new century.
His policy, the Mexico City gag rule, cuts U.S. funding to any
organization that uses its own funds to provide abortion services. It
even cuts U.S. funds if the organization uses its own funds to simply
counsel women on all their options which include abortions.
As a result, many organizations will be forced to either limit their
services or simply close their doors to women across the world. And,
this will cause women and families increased misery and death.
The current facts are chilling.
Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a
result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions
in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in
developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent.
Make no mistake, the Mexican city gag rule will restrict family
planning, not abortions.
The media has mistakenly portrayed the Mexico City policy. I think we
need to be clear of what this policy does and does not do:
It does not change the fact that no United States funds can be used
for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. It
does restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be
unconstitutional here at home.
It is puzzling for me to understand how anyone could fail to realize
that family planning is crucial to preventing abortions.
According to Population Action International, research shows that
higher levels of contraception use are associated with lower reliance
on abortion.
For example, the recent increased availability of modern family
planning methods has already resulted in a 33 percent drop in the
abortion rate in Russia and a 60 percent reduction in Hungary.
Additionally, we know that young girls between the ages of 15 and 19
are
[[Page S1507]]
twice as likely to die in childbirth as older mothers. Talk about a
policy that is cruel to girls and young women--this is it.
Family planning can significantly improve the health of these girls
and young women by teaching them to postpone childbearing until the
healthiest times in their life, which would in turn prevent abortions.
However, as a result of the harsh penalties imposed by the Mexico
City gag rule, family planning groups will not be able to adequately
counsel these desperate women.
Picture a woman who has already walked sometimes half a day to get to
the nearest clinic. How can we expect these clinics to then tell this
woman who is seeking services on her own volition, that they cannot
counsel her on the full array of her legal options when there is no
other clinic within a hundred miles of them?
Additionally, the Mexico City policy goes against a fundamental tenet
of American society . . . freedom of speech.
That is why today in the Senate today, I am introducing the
bipartisan ``Global Democracy Promotion Act.''
The Boxer-Snowe bill aims to overturn the draconian restrictions
place upon international family planning programs put in place by
President Bush on January 22. Our bill will allow these organizations
to continue to provide legal family planning services without
needlessly restricting their funds.
Family planning organizations should not be prevented from using
their own privately raised funds to provide legal abortion services,
including counseling and referral services.
These groups should not be forced to relinquish their right to free
speech in order to receive United States funding. This type of
restriction is un-American and undermines our key foreign policy goal
of supporting democracy worldwide.
The true bipartisan consensus is that family planning organizations
should be supported, not punished, for helping women in need. We hope
President Bush will change his mind and reverse his order. If not, we
will work hard to overturn it.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 367
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 ``Global Democracy Promotion
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is a fundamental principle of American medical
ethics and practice that health care providers should, at all
times, deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to
subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient
relationship would be intolerable in the United States and is
an unjustifiable intrusion into the practices of health care
providers when attempted in other countries.
(2) Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. The
ability to exercise the right to free speech, which includes
the ``right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances'' is
essential to a thriving democracy and is protected under the
United States Constitution.
(3) The promotion of democracy is a principal goal of
United States foreign policy and critical to achieving
sustainable development. It is enhanced through the
encouragement of democratic institutions and the promotion of
an independent and politically active civil society in
developing countries.
(4) Limiting eligibility for United States development and
humanitarian assistance upon the willingness of a foreign
nongovernmental organization to forgo its right to use its
own funds to address, within the democratic process, a
particular issue affecting the citizens of its own country
directly undermines a key goal of United States foreign
policy and would violate the United States Constitution if
applied to United States-based organizations.
(5) Similarly, limiting the eligibility for United States
assistance on a foreign nongovernmental organization's
willingness to forgo its right to provide, with its own
funds, medical services that are legal in its own country and
would be legal if provided in the United States constitutes
unjustifiable interference with the ability of independent
organizations to serve the critical health needs of their
fellow citizens and demonstrates a disregard and disrespect
for the laws of sovereign nations as well as for the laws of
the United States.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
UNDER PART I OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF
1961.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or
policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized
under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
(1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on
the basis of health or medical services including counseling
and referral services, provided by such organizations with
non-United States Government funds if such services do not
violate the laws of the country in which they are being
provided and would not violate United States Federal law if
provided in the United States; and
(2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the
use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and
lobbying activities other than those that apply to United
States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance
under part I of such Act.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong
support for the ``Global Democracy Act of 2001'', introduced by my
friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
Last month, President Bush announced that he was reinstating the
``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to
international family planning organizations. I was extremely
disappointed and amazed that the President opted to start his
Administration with such a divisive action.
If women are to be able to better their own lives and the lives of
their families, they must have access to the educational and medical
resources needed to control their reproductive destinies and their
health. International family planning programs reduce poverty, improve
health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the
ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing
of their children.
The ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001'' will allow foreign Non
Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance
to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including
counseling and referrals and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and
advocacy.
The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international
family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew
its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our
help and assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
____
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 368. A bill to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure
accuracy and validation of the voting process, to direct the Director
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to study voter
participation and emerging voting technology, to provide grants to
States to improve voting methods, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the nearly 280 million
Americans in this country, today I am introducing the American Voting
Standards and Technology Act. After one of the closest and most
contested elections in our Nation's history, Americans want to have
complete confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that
goal by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions, and by
ensuring that every vote is counted and recorded accurately.
The key to achieving meaningful reform and to restoring Americans'
faith in government, is finding both a short-term and a long-term
solution to the widespread abuses of the past election. I have devised
a two-pronged strategy toward realizing these necessary changes in our
electoral system. First, on January 22, Senator Feingold and I
introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This measure
bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending
on electioneering ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger
election laws. I look forward to bringing campaign finance reform back
to the floor next month.
The bill that I am introducing today represents the second part of my
electoral reform strategy. One of the most flagrant violations of our
democratic electoral process was highlighted this past November by the
overwhelming number of precincts who reported voting machine flaws.
This is an embarrassment to our democracy. The American Voting
Standards and Technology
[[Page S1508]]
Act was written to directly address the root of these voting
controversies--the actual machines. In the 2000 election, pre-scored
punch-card ballots were used by one in three voters. These archaic
``votomatic'' machines, engineered in the 1960's, continue to be
employed throughout the country, yet their ability to accurately record
voters is questionable. In 1988, The National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NIST, recommended the elimination of prescored ballot
cards, but this recommendation was unfortunately never heeded.
To compound the problems with pre-scored punch cards, numerous
studies reveal that throughout the country, ballots cast by African
Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of
Caucasians. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses old punch-card
voting machines, one of every 16 ballots for president was invalidated,
while two largely white neighboring counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, using
more modern equipment had a rate of 1 in 200. Similar patterns were
found in Florida and Illinois. We cannot encourage and expect every
American to vote if we ignore the inequalities that are inherent in our
entire voting system.
The National Association of Secretaries of States recently issued
fifteen recommendations aimed at avoiding the problems of last year's
presidential election. The resolution recommends that States: Ensure
equal access to the election system for the elderly, disabled, and
minority communities; modernize voting machines and equipment; and
conduct aggressive voter education and outreach programs. The
resolution also advocates that Congress authorize an update of the
voluntary federal voting standards and fund the development of
voluntary management standards for each voting system. Senator Hollings
and I have written the American Voting Standards and Technology Act in
response to these recommendations.
This legislation that we are introducing today has three targets:
First, it directs NIST to develop voluntary consensus standards to
ensure the accuracy and validation of the voting process. Second, it
authorizes matching grants to State agencies to purchase new or
rehabilitated voting equipment to improve the ability of the public to
cast a timely and accurate vote for the candidate of their choice.
Finally, it authorizes grants throughout the Department of Commerce to
State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. Both Senator
Hollings and I have been working closely with NIST to begin this
process now so that the next election will not bring the same confusion
and frustration at the polls.
How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe their
vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and
improve our voting process without barraging the States and local
governments with excessive rules and regulations. The American Voting
Standards and Technology Act accomplishes these goals.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been said that there's no system
worse than democracy--except for all of the other ones. What this
aphorism reveals is that though democracy, in its republican form of
elections, is the best form of government that we know of at this
point, it nevertheless has its shortcomings, be they human or
mechanical. A close election certainly tends to highlight these human
and mechanical flaws in our voting systems. This was never more proven
than by last year's Presidential election. Last November and December
stories of overvotes, undervotes, and hanging chads flooded the media.
Many voters complained that confusing butterfly ballots led them to
make unintended choices, while others claimed they were denied the
opportunity to vote by being left off of the registration rolls or
through intimidation.
Unfortunately, these problems are not new. We've had difficulties
using punch cards and other machine-readable ballots for more than 30
years. Federal officials were made aware of these issues as early as
1978, by a National Bureau of Standards, now NIST, study, Science &
Technology: Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying.
That study--and another in 1988--found difficulties in vote-tallying
stemming from management failures, technology failures, and human
operational failures. The 1978 report cited major difficulties in 7
cities. One of the key recommendations was the elimination of the pre-
scored punch card, similar to the kind used in Palm Beach County's
Votomatic machines.
We know that there is a problem, the question is what are we going to
do about it? Senator McCain and I have one answer--the American Voting
Standards and Technology Act, which we are introducing today. In short,
the Act would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology
to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure the accuracy and
validation of the voting process from voter registration through any
recount. Quite simply, NIST knows standards--it has been in the
standards game for over 100 years. Its experts know how to work with
stakeholders like state and local governments and private sector
technology leaders to build valid, usable, reliable standards that
people trust. The agency updates its standards regularly.
NIST's voluntary voting standards could set a threshold for accuracy,
maintenance, and usability of voting systems that would feed into the
second leg of our program--matching grants to State and local
government agencies to purchase new or rehabilitated voting equipment.
We want to give priority in this program to the places least able to
afford state of the art voting equipment--the precincts with high
unemployment and low income levels.
However, because we don't want to buy new equipment if no one knows
how to use it, our bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to
give grants to State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns.
We want voters to understand how to use the technology that is in their
polling place and how to determine if their vote will be correctly
counted.
The right to vote is the most fundamental right bestowed upon
Americans by the U.S. Constitution. There are millions of Americans who
lost faith in the guarantee and exercise of this fundamental right due
to the circumstances of the last election. Senator McCain and I do not
claim to know how to restore the American people's faith in our voting
systems. However, we do have an idea that setting basic performance
standards, helping election officials acquire systems which meet those
standards, and helping voters use those systems is part of the
solution. When we return from the President's Day recess, we plan to
schedule hearings to work through the details of our legislation and
improve it. We realize that our American Voting Standards and
Technology Act is only one piece of the pie, and we also look forward
to working with other Senators who are examining other aspects of the
electoral system.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 369. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
written agreement relating to the exclusion of certain farm rental
income from net earnings from self-employment; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 369
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WRITTEN AGREEMENT RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN
FARM RENTAL INCOME FROM NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-
EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net earnings from
self-employment) is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
____
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 370. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt
agricultural bonds from State volume caps; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S1509]]
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 370
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BONDS FROM STATE VOLUME
CAP.
(a) In General.--Section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to exception for certain bonds) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting
``, and'', and by inserting after paragraph (4) the following
new paragraph:
``(5) any qualified small issue bond described in section
144(a)(12)(B)(ii).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2001.
______
By Mr. REED:
S. 371. A bill to establish and expand child opportunity zone family
centers in public elementary schools and secondary schools, and for
their purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
seeks to remove barriers to learning by encouraging communities to
coordinate community services through school-based or school-linked
family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of
information, support, services, and activities to improve the
education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of
children and their families.
As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our
students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of
children cannot be met by our schools and teachers alone. Children
bring many social, health, and family problems to school, which leaves
them in no shape to learn.
Some facts to illustrate this point:
Today, 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health
services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that
fewer than one in five receive the help they need.
11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working
families--have no health insurance.
It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend
time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI
data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during
the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all
violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25
percent of all crimes.
Programs and services exist to deal with these and other needs facing
children--SCHIP, WIC, and after school programs, to name a few.
However, too many children can't access such programs and services,
and, consequently, too many children don't get the help they need. This
is because these services are often too disjointed and fragmented,
making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. This
problem is especially acute in low-income urban and rural areas.
To address these and other serious issues facing our children and
families, a few states and localities have established centers and
developed programs designed to provide families with access and
linkages to needed social services, like health and mental health care,
nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, in a
location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school.
The aim of my legislation is to support and expand such efforts.
Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a
cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families.
According to a report by the Department of Education's Northeast and
Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can
also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce
overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need,
make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for
the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage
their own lives successfully.'' Moreover, according to a 1999 American
Association of School Administrators Nationwide Survey, 82 percent of
parents would like family centers in their schools to help improve
their schools.
My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, builds
on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode
Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative, as well
as Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth Service Centers, and
Minnesota's Family Service program.
The Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, which is supported by
more than 30 health, education, and children's organizations, would
provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a
high poverty public school; school district; other public agency, such
as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community
organizations. Partnerships would be required to complete a needs
assessment, and then use this information to provide children and
families with linkages to existing community prevention and
intervention services in core areas such as education, child care, non-
school hours care and enrichment programs, health services, mental
health services, nutrition, family support, literacy services,
parenting skills, and dropout prevention. In addition, partnerships
would provide violence prevention education to children and families,
as well as training to enable families to help their children meet
challenging standards and succeed in school.
The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help
children and families get the assistance they need so children are
ready to learn in the classroom. This principle is reflected in my
legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that
partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, family
participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care,
child care, as well as family support services, and work to reduce
violence among youth, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order
to continue to receive funding.
As we again begin to consider the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do
all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for
children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the
support they need, we can truly help children come to school ready to
learn and in turn help children succeed in school and life. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its
inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record along with a letter of support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 371
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHILD OPPORTUNITY ZONE FAMILY CENTERS.
Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Part L--Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers
``SEC. 10995A. SHORT TITLE.
``This part may be cited as the `Child Opportunity Zone
Family Center Act of 2001'.
``SEC. 10995B. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this part is to encourage eligible
partnerships to establish or expand child opportunity zone
family centers in public elementary schools and secondary
schools in order to provide comprehensive support services
for children and their families, and to improve the
children's educational, health, mental health, and social
outcomes.
``SEC. 10995C. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Child opportunity zone family center.--The term
`child opportunity zone family center' means a school-based
or school-linked community service center that provides and
links children and their families with comprehensive
information, support, services, and activities to improve the
education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-
being of the children and their families.
``(2) Eligible partnership.--The term `eligible
partnership' means a partnership--
``(A) that contains--
``(i) at least 1 public elementary school or secondary
school that--
[[Page S1510]]
``(I) receives assistance under title I and for which a
measure of poverty determination is made under section
1113(a)(5) with respect to a minimum of 40 percent of the
children in the school; and
``(II) demonstrates parent involvement and parent support
for the partnership's activities;
``(ii) a local educational agency;
``(iii) a public agency, other than a local educational
agency, such as a local or State department of health, mental
health, or social services; and
``(iv) a nonprofit community-based organization, providing
health, mental health, or social services;
``(v) a local child care resource and referral agency; and
``(vi) a local organization representing parents; and
``(B) that may contain--
``(i) an institution of higher education; and
``(ii) other public or private nonprofit entities with
experience in providing services to disadvantaged families.
``SEC. 10995D. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award, on a
competitive basis, grants to eligible partnerships to pay for
the Federal share of the cost of establishing and expanding
child opportunity zone family centers.
``(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this section for periods of 5 years.
``SEC. 10995E. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.
``Each eligible partnership receiving a grant under this
part shall use the grant funds--
``(1) in accordance with the needs assessment described in
section 10995F(b)(1), to provide or link children and their
families with information, support, activities, or services
in core areas such as education, child care, before- and
after-school care and enrichment programs, health services,
mental health services, family support, nutrition, literacy
services, parenting skills, and drop-out prevention;
``(2) to provide intensive, high-quality, research-based
programs that--
``(A) provide violence prevention education for families
and developmentally appropriate instructional services to
children (including children below the age of compulsory
school attendance); and
``(B) provide effective strategies for nurturing and
supporting the emotional, social, and cognitive growth of
children; and
``(3) to provide training, information, and support to
families to enable the families to participate effectively in
their children's education, and to help their children meet
challenging standards, including assisting families to--
``(A) understand the applicable accountability systems,
including State and local content standards, performance
standards, and assessments, their children's educational
performance in comparison to the standards, and the steps the
school is taking to address the children's needs and to help
the children meet the standards; and
``(B) communicate effectively with personnel responsible
for providing educational services to the families' children,
and to participate in the development and implementation of
school-parent compacts, parent involvement policies, and
school plans.
``SEC. 10995F. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Each eligible partnership desiring a
grant under this part shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(b) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) include a needs assessment, including a description
of how the partnership will ensure that the activities to be
assisted under this part will be tailored to meet the
specific needs of the children and families to be served;
``(2) describe arrangements that have been formalized
between the participating public elementary school or
secondary school, and other partnership members;
``(3) describe how the partnership will effectively
coordinate with the centers under section 1118 and utilize
Federal, State, and local sources of funding that provide
assistance to families and their children;
``(4) describe the partnership's plan to--
``(A) develop and carry out the activities assisted under
this part with extensive participation of parents,
administrators, teachers, pupil services personnel, social
and human service agencies, and community organizations and
leaders; and
``(B) coordinate the activities assisted under this part
with the education reform efforts of the participating public
elementary school or secondary school, and the participating
local educational agency;
``(5) describe how the partnership will ensure that
underserved populations such as families of students with
limited English proficiency, or families of students with
disabilities, are effectively involved, informed, and
assisted;
``(6) describe how the partnership will collect and analyze
data, and will utilize specific performance measures and
indicators to--
``(A) determine the impact of activities assisted under
this part as described in section 10995I(a); and
``(B) improve the activities assisted under this part; and
``(7) describe how the partnership will protect the privacy
of families and their children participating in the
activities assisted under this part.
``SEC. 10995G. FEDERAL SHARE.
``The Federal share of the cost of establishing and
expanding child opportunity zone family centers--
``(1) for the first year for which an eligible partnership
receives assistance under this part shall not exceed 90
percent;
``(2) for the second such year, shall not exceed 80
percent;
``(3) for the third such year, shall not exceed 70 percent;
``(4) for the fourth such year, shall not exceed 60
percent; and
``(5) for the fifth such year, shall not exceed 50 percent.
``SEC. 10995H. FUNDING.
``(a) Continuation of Funding.--Each eligible partnership
that receives a grant under this part shall, after the third
year for which the partnership receives funds through the
grant, be eligible to continue to receive the funds if the
Secretary determines that the partnership has made
significant progress in meeting the performance measures used
for the partnership's local evaluation under section
10995I(a).
``(b) Limitation on Use of Funds to Offset Other
Programs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds received under a grant under this part may be
used to pay for expenses related to any other Federal
program, including treating such funds as an offset against
such a Federal program.
``SEC. 10995I. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.
``(a) Local Evaluations.--Each partnership receiving funds
under this part shall conduct annual evaluations and submit
to the Secretary reports containing the results of the
evaluations. The reports shall include the results of the
partnership's performance assessment effectiveness in
reaching and meeting the needs of families and children
served under this part, including performance measures
demonstrating--
``(1) improvements in areas such as student achievement,
family participation in schools, and access to health care,
mental health care, child care, and family support services,
resulting from activities assisted under this part; and
``(2) reductions in such areas as violence among youth,
truancy, suspension, and dropout rates, resulting from
activities assisted under this part.
``(b) National Evaluations.--The Secretary shall reserve
not more than 3 percent of the amount appropriated under this
part to carry out a national evaluation of the effectiveness
of the activities assisted under this part. Such evaluation
shall be completed not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act of
2001, and every year thereafter and shall be submitted to
Congress.
``(c) Exemplary Activities.--The Secretary shall broadly
disseminate information on exemplary activities developed
under this part.
``SEC. 10995J. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through
2005.''.
____
American Association
of University Women,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.
Dear Senator Reed: The undersigned organizations,
representing parents, educators, early childhood
professionals, health professionals, pupil services
personnel, and education advocates thank you for introducing
the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act (COZ). The Reed
COZ bill would ensure the coordination of services in order
to remove barriers to learning. According to a report of the
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory,
school-linked services ``help to increase student
achievement, save money, and reduce overlapping services,
reach those children and families most in need, make schools
more welcoming to families, increase community support for
the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to
manage their own lives successfully.''
Unfortunately, too many children today are struggling with
a variety of problems that make their ability to meet
challenging academic standards much more difficult.
Inadequate access to health care, lack of family and child
mental health services, poor nutrition, abuse, and other
social ills undercut these children's ability to succeed in
the classroom and in their daily lives. The coordination of
schools with the range of supportive services that children
and families need is particularly important in low-income
urban and rural areas. Families that need and would otherwise
be eligible to receive services simply cannot access them
without coordination at or through the schools.
The Reed COZ bill draws on successful efforts already
underway in some areas. Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth
Service Centers, Minnesota's Family Service program, and
Rhode Island's Child Opportunity Zone Family Center
Initiative need to be replicated more widely. The current
barriers to these important services are pervasive in every
state. We believe that these proposed grants are critical to
helping schools and school districts partner with communities
and parents to make possible the school-
[[Page S1511]]
linked or school-based coordination of the necessary services
for strengthening our nation's children.
Once again, we thank you for introducing the Reed Child
Opportunity Zone Family Center Act. We look forward to
working with you on this and many other important issues in
the future.
Sincerely,
American Association of University Women.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
American Association of School Administrators.
American Counseling Association.
American Federation of Teachers.
American Psychological Association.
American School Counselor Association.
Association of Educational Service Agencies.
Council for Exceptional Children.
General Federation of Women's Clubs.
National Alliance of Black School Educators.
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity.
National Association for Bilingual Education.
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Association of Pupil Services Administrators.
National Association of school Psychologists.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.
National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education.
National Council of Administrative Women in Education.
National Council of La Raza.
National Education Association.
National Education Knowledge Industry Association.
National PTA.
National Rural Education Association.
National School Boards Association.
School Social Work Association of America.
Wider Opportunities for Women.
Women & Philanthropy.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 372. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to strengthen the involvement of parents in the education of their
children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent Act,
which seeks to increase parental involvement in the educational lives
of their children.
Research, experience, and reason tell us that providing parents with
opportunities to play active roles in their children's schools empowers
them to help their children excel. When parents are actively involved
in their child's education, not only does their own child go further,
but their child's school also improves to the benefit of all students.
Indeed, as I have witnessed in Rhode Island, and I am sure my
colleagues can attest to this in their states, our best schools are not
simply those with the finest teachers and principals, but those which
strive to engage parents in the education of their children.
Research shows that regardless of economic, ethnic, or cultural
background, parental involvement is a major factor in determining a
child's academic success. Parental involvement contributes to better
grades and test scores, higher homework completion rates, better
attendance, and greater discipline. Further, when parental involvement
is a school priority, schools have fewer failing students, achieve
better reputations in the community, and show improvements in staff
morale.
In 1999, the American Association of School Administrators conducted
a nationwide survey and found that 96 percent of parents believe that
parental involvement is critical for a student to succeed in school and
that 84 percent believe in parent involvement so strongly that they are
willing to require such involvement. Further, a recent National PTA
survey revealed that 91 percent of parents recognize that it is
extremely important for parents to be involved in their children's
school. Unfortunately, even as we extol the virtue of parental
involvement, we must recognize that reality falls far short of that
goal. The National PTA survey also found that roughly half the parents
surveyed felt they were inadequately informed about ways in which they
could participate in schools, or even gain access to basic information
about their children's studies and their children's teachers. There are
also other obstacles to greater parental involvement, such as working
parents who find it difficult to get to schools and be involved or
parents who have had negative schooling experiences and are wary of
entering schools to participate in their children's education.
With more than 90 percent of parents believing that parental
involvement is critical to a child's academic achievement and less than
50 percent of parents believing that their schools adequately involve
them in their children's education, the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA provides an opportunity to
help bring schools and parents together, and to ensure parents have the
tools to become meaningfully and effectively involved in their
children's education. While the ESEA currently contains parental
involvement provisions, they mainly apply to Title I schools and
students, and have not been fully implemented.
That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Wellstone and
Murray and Representative Lynn Woolsey in the other body in introducing
the Parent Act. This legislation would amend the ESEA to bolster
existing, and add new, parental involvement provisions.
The Parent Act requires that all schools implement effective,
research-based parental involvement best practices, and it provides
technical assistance to schools that are having problems implementing
parental involvement programs. My bill also seeks to improve parental
access to information about their children's education and a school's
parental involvement policies; ensure that professional development
activities provide training to teachers and administrators on how to
foster relationships with parents and encourage parental involvement;
utilize technology to expand efforts to connect schools and teachers
with parents; and promote parental involvement in drug and violence
prevention programs. Further, the bill requires each local district to
make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a
school is performing with respect to student achievement, teacher
qualification, class size, school safety, drop-out rates, the actions
the school is taking to involve parents in school activities and
decision making, and other school performance indicators.
The Parent Act also offers $500 million for school districts, with
strict accountability measures, to supplement and support recognized
and proven initiatives that improve student achievement through
parental involvement. Currently, section 1118 of Title I requires
districts to develop written parental involvement policies and requires
schools to develop school-parent compacts, hold annual meetings for
parents at schools, and involve parents in school review and
improvement policies and plans. Local districts are required to spend 1
percent of their Title I allotment for this purpose, unless that 1
percent amounts to less than $5,000. In Rhode Island, however, in only
9 of the 34 districts that receive Title I funds is this amount above
$5,000, and this situation is similar across the nation. In fact, the
Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I found that a quarter
of Title I schools do not have required school-parent compacts, more
than four years after they were required. As Secretary Paige stated at
his confirmation hearing, ``increased assistance will be needed'' to
enhance parental involvement.
Last Congress, during the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee debate on ESEA, many provisions of the Parent Act were added
to S. 2, the ESEA reauthorization bill. But S. 2 did not go far enough
to ensure the parental involvement provisions of ESEA are actually
implemented. The accountability provisions of the Parent Act and its
grant resources are essential to making sure all of the elements for
effective parental involvement are in place.
To succeed in the endeavor of increasing parental involvement, we
must depend on parents, teachers, and school administrators throughout
the country to work collaboratively to implement effective programs.
However, federal leadership is needed to provide schools, teachers, and
parents with the tools required for this task.
The bottom line of federal support for education is to increase
student
[[Page S1512]]
achievement. Parental involvement is essential to ensuring that our
students succeed. This legislation is strongly supported by the
National PTA, and I urge my colleagues to join Senators Wellstone and
Murray, Representative Woolsey, and me in supporting the Parent Act,
and working for its inclusion in the ESEA reauthorization.
Mr. President, I ask 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. 372
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 ``Parent Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Parents are the first and most influential educators of
their children.
(2) The Federal Government must provide leadership,
technical assistance, and financial support to States and
local educational agencies, as partners, in helping the
agencies implement successful and effective parental
involvement policies and programs that lead to improved
student achievement.
(3) State and local education officials, as well as
teachers, principals, and other staff at the school level,
must work as partners with the parents of the children they
serve.
(4) Research has documented that, regardless of the
economic, ethnic, or cultural background of the family,
parental involvement in a child's education is a major factor
in determining success in school.
(5) Parental involvement in a child's education contributes
to positive outcomes such as improved grades and test scores,
higher expectations for student achievement, better school
attendance, improved homework completion rates, decreased
violence and substance abuse, and higher rates of graduation
and enrollment in postsecondary education.
(6) Numerous education laws now require meaningful parental
involvement, including title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), and
elements of these laws should be extended to other Federal
education programs.
SEC. 4. BASIC PROGRAMS.
(a) State Plan.--Section 1111 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``and technical
assistance under section 1117'' and inserting ``, technical
assistance under section 1117, and parental involvement under
section 1118'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as
subsections (e) through (h), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Parental Involvement.--Each State plan shall
demonstrate that the State has identified or developed
effective research-based best practices designed to foster
meaningful parental involvement. Such best practices shall--
``(1) be disseminated to all schools and local educational
agencies in the State;
``(2) be implemented in all schools in the State; and
``(3) address the full range of parental involvement
activities required under section 1118.''.
(b) Local Educational Agency Plans.--Section 1112 (20
U.S.C. 6312) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10)
respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) a description of the strategy the local educational
agency will use to implement effective parental involvement
in accordance with section 1118;'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as
subparagraphs (E) through (I); and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) work in consultation with schools as the schools
develop and implement their plans or activities under
sections 1118 and 1119;''; and
(3) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting before the period
the following: ``and if such agency's parental involvement
activities are in accordance with section 1118''.
(c) Schoolwide Programs.--Section 1114 (20 U.S.C. 6314) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(E), by inserting after
``involvement'' the following: ``in accordance with section
1118''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv), by inserting after
``results'' the following: ``in a language the family can
understand''.
(d) Targeted Assistance.--Section 1115(c)(1)(H) (20 U.S.C.
6315(c)(1)(H)) is amended by inserting after ``involvement''
the following: ``in accordance with section 1118''.
(e) Assessments.--Section 1116 (20 U.S.C. 6317) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) review the effectiveness of the actions and
activities the schools are carrying out under this part with
respect to the parental involvement programs described in
section 1118, the professional development activities
described in section 1119, and other activities assisted
under this Act;'';
(2) in subsection (c)(4), by inserting after ``elements of
student performance problems'' the following: ``, that
addresses school problems, if any, in implementing the
parental involvement requirements in section 1118 and the
professional development requirements in section 1119,'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) annually review the effectiveness of the action or
activities carried out under this part by each local
educational agency receiving funds under this part with
respect to parental involvement, professional development,
and other activities assisted under this Act; and''; and
(4) in subsection (d)(5)(i)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) address problems, if any, in implementing the
parental involvement requirements described in section 1118
and the professional development provisions described in
section 1119; and''.
(f) State Assistance.--Section 1117 (20 U.S.C. 6318) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``parental
involvement,'' after ``including''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(i) by inserting ``parents,'' after ``including''; and
(ii) by inserting ``parental involvement programs,'' after
``successful''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Parental involvement.--Each State shall collect and
disseminate effective parental involvement practices to local
educational agencies and schools. Such practices shall--
``(A) be based on the most current research on effective
parental involvement that fosters achievement to high
standards for all children; and
``(B) be geared toward lowering barriers to greater
participation in school planning, review, and improvement
experienced by parents.''.
(g) Parental Involvement.--Section 1118 (20 U.S.C. 6319) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``activities that will lead to
improved student achievement for all students'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B)(i) The Secretary is authorized to award grants to
local educational agencies to enable the local educational
agencies to supplement the implementation of the provisions
of this section and to allow for the expansion of other
recognized and proven initiatives and policies to improve
student achievement through the involvement of parents.
``(ii)(I) Each local educational agency desiring a grant
under this subparagraph shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(II) Each application submitted under subclause (I) shall
describe the activities to be undertaken using funds received
under this subparagraph and shall set forth the process by
which the local educational agency will annually evaluate the
effectiveness of the agency's activities in improving student
achievement and increasing parental involvement.
``(iii) Each grant under this subparagraph shall be awarded
for a 5-year period.
``(iv) The Secretary shall conduct a review of the
activities carried out by each local educational agency using
funds received under this subparagraph, to determine whether
the local educational agency demonstrates improvement in
student achievement and an increase in parental involvement.
``(v) The Secretary shall terminate grants to a local
educational agency under this subparagraph after the fourth
year if the Secretary determines that the evaluations
conducted by such agency and the reviews conducted by the
Secretary show no improvement in the local educational
agency's student achievement and no increase in such agency's
parental involvement.
``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this subparagraph $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such
sums
[[Page S1513]]
as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years, of which the Secretary may reserve not more than .20
percent to carry out the reviews described in clause (iv).'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``and granted under subparagraph (B)'' after ``subparagraph
(A)'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting before the last
sentence the following: ``Parents shall be notified of the
policy in the language most familiar to the parents.'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``participating parents''
and inserting ``all parents of children served by the school
or agency, as appropriate,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) materials or training using technology to foster
parental involvement;'';
(5) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``Such local educational agencies and schools may use
information, technical assistance, and other support from the
parental information and resource centers to create parent
resource centers in schools.''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) State Review.--The State educational agency shall
review the local educational agency's parental involvement
policies and practices to determine if such policies and
practices meet the requirements of section 1118 and are
meaningful and targeted to improve home and school
communication, student achievement, and parental involvement
in school planning, review, and improvement.''.
SEC. 5. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Purposes.--Section 2002(2) (20 U.S.C. 6602(2)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) incorporates training in effective practices in order
to encourage and offer opportunities to get parents involved
in their child's education in ways that will foster student
achievement and well-being; and
``(H) includes special training for teachers and
administrators to develop the skills necessary to work most
effectively with parents.''.
(b) Authorized Activities.--Section 2102(c) (20 U.S.C.
6622(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) the development and dissemination of model programs
that teach teachers and administrators how best to work with
parents and how to encourage the parent's involvement in the
full range of parental involvement activities described in
section 1118.''.
(c) State Applications.--Section 2205(b)(2) (20 U.S.C.
6645(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (O) as subparagraph (P);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following:
``(O) describe how the State will train teachers to foster
relationships with parents and encourage parents to become
collaborators with schools in their children's education;
and''.
(d) State-Level Activities.--Section 2207 (20 U.S.C. 6647)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (12) and (13) as paragraphs
(13) and (14), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) providing professional development programs that
enable teachers, administrators, and pupil services personnel
to effectively communicate with and involve parents in the
education process to support school planning, review,
improvement, and classroom instruction, and to work
effectively with parent volunteers;''.
(e) Local Plan and Application for Improving Teaching and
Learning.--Section 2208 (20 U.S.C. 6648) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``parents,'' after
``administrators,''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (I) and (J) as
subparagraphs (J) and (K), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
``(I) describe the specific professional development
strategies that will be implemented to improve parental
involvement in education and how such agency will be held
accountable for implementing such strategies.''.
(f) Local Allocation.--Section 2210(b)(3) (20 U.S.C.
6650(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (P) and (Q) as
subparagraphs (Q) and (R), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (O) the following:
``(P) professional development activities designed to
enable teachers, administrators, and pupil services personnel
to communicate with parents regarding student achievement on
assessments;''.
SEC. 6. TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATION.
(a) Findings.--Section 3111 (20 U.S.C. 6811) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``and by facilitating
mentor relationships,'' after ``by means of
telecommunications,'';
(2) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(3) in paragraph (15), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(16) access to education technology and teachers trained
in how to incorporate the technology into their instruction
leads to improved student achievement, motivation, and school
attendance;
``(17) the use of technology in education can enhance the
educational opportunities schools can offer students with
special needs; and
``(18) the introduction of education technology increases
parental involvement, which has been shown to improve student
achievement.''.
(b) Statement of Purpose.--Section 3112 (20 U.S.C. 6812) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding after paragraph (12), the following:
``(13) development and support for technology and
technology programming that will enhance and facilitate
meaningful parental involvement.''.
(c) National Long-Range Technology Plan.--Section
3121(c)(4) (20 U.S.C. 6831(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) increased parental involvement in schools through the
use of technology;''.
(d) Federal Leadership.--Section 3122(c) (20 U.S.C.
6832(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (17); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
``(16) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of
model technology programs designed to improve parental
involvement; and''.
(e) Local Uses of Funds.--Section 3134 (20 U.S.C. 6844) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to
connect schools and teachers with parents to promote
meaningful parental involvement and foster increased
communication about curriculum, assignments, and assessments;
and
``(8) providing support to help parents understand the
technology being applied in their child's education so that
parents are able to reinforce their child's learning.''.
(f) Local Applications.--Section 3135 (20 U.S.C. 6845) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(D)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a description of how parents will be informed of
the use of technologies so that the parents are able to
reinforce at home the instruction their child receives at
school;'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) improve parental involvement in schools;'';
(3) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) describe how the local educational agency will
effectively use technology to promote parental involvement
and increase communication with parents.''.
(g) National Challenge Grants.--Section 3136(c) (20 U.S.C.
6846(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) the project will enhance parental involvement by
providing parents the information needed to more fully
participate in their child's learning.''.
SEC. 7. DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES.
(a) State Applications.--Section 4112 (20 U.S.C. 7112) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, including how the
agency will receive input from parents regarding the use of
such funds'' after ``4113(b)''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``, and how such review
will include input from parents'' after ``4115''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) a specific description of how input from parents will
be sought regarding the use of funds under section
4114(a).''.
(b) Evaluation and Reporting.--Section 4117 (20 U.S.C.
7117) is amended--
[[Page S1514]]
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) on the State's efforts to inform parents of, and
include parents in, violence and drug prevention efforts.'';
and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by striking
the period and inserting ``and a description of how parents
were informed of, and participated in, violence and drug
prevention efforts.''.
SEC. 8. INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES.
(a) Definition.--Section 6003 (20 U.S.C. 7303) is amended--
(1) by striking ``children, and (3)'' and inserting
``children, (3) adopting meaningful parental involvement
policies and practices, and (4)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) A climate that promotes meaningful parental
involvement in the classroom and in site-based activities.''.
(b) State Applications.--Section 6202(a) (20 U.S.C.
7332(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) provides information on the parental involvement
policies and practices promoted by the State.''.
(c) Targeted Uses of Funds.--Section 6301(b) (20 U.S.C.
7351(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) programs to promote the meaningful involvement of
parents.''.
(d) Local Applications.--Section 6303(a)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C.
7353(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, including parental
involvement,'' before ``designed''.
SEC. 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Definition.--Section 14101 (20 U.S.C. 8801) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (24) through (30) as
paragraphs (25) through (31), respectfully; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following:
``(24) Parental involvement.--The term `parental
involvement', when used with respect to a school, means--
``(A) the school engages parents in regular, two-way, and
meaningful communication;
``(B) parenting skills are promoted and supported at the
school;
``(C) parents play an integral role in assisting student
learning;
``(D) parents are welcome in the school;
``(E) parents are included in decision-making and advisory
committees at the school; and
``(F) parents are included in other activities described in
section 1118.''.
(b) Parental Involvement.--Title XIV (20 U.S.C. 8801 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART H--PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
``SEC. 14901. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.
``(a) State Parental Involvement Plan.--In order to receive
Federal funding for any program authorized under this Act, a
State educational agency shall (as part of a consolidated
application, or other State plan or application submitted
under this Act) submit to the Secretary--
``(1) a description of the agency's parental involvement
policies, consistent with section 1118, including specific
details about--
``(A) how Federal funds will be used to implement such
policies; and
``(B) successful research-based practices in schools
throughout the State; and
``(2) a description of how such policies will be evaluated
with respect to increased parental involvement in the schools
throughout the State.
``(b) Parental Review of State Parental Involvement Plan.--
Prior to making the submission described in subsection (a), a
State educational agency shall involve parents in the
development of the policies described in such subsection by--
``(1) providing public notice of the policies in a manner
and language understandable to parents;
``(2) providing the opportunity for parents and other
interested individuals to comment on the policies; and
``(3) including the comments received with the submission.
``(c) Language Applicability.--Each State educational
agency and local educational agency that is required to
establish a parental involvement plan or policy under a
program assisted under this Act shall make available, to the
parents of children eligible to participate in the program,
the plan or policy in the language most familiar to the
parents and in an easily understandable manner.
``(d) Report Cards.--
``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency that
receives assistance under this Act shall prepare and make
available to parents an annual report card that puts into
context various factors that affect student performance, such
as the socioeconomic status of families in the school
attendance area, the level of student mobility, and the
availability of other student support services, and includes,
at a minimum--
``(A) student achievement information as demonstrated by
how students within schools served by the local educational
agency perform on tests;
``(B) other measurements of student achievement;
``(C) teacher qualifications;
``(D) class size;
``(E) school safety;
``(F) dropout rates;
``(G) actions being taken by schools served by the local
educational agency to involve parents in school activities
and decision making; and
``(H) information concerning whether schools served by the
local educational agency have been identified for school
improvement, and if so, what technical assistance, supports,
and resources have been provided to help the schools improve
student achievement.
``(2) Student data.--Student data in each report card under
paragraph (1) shall contain disaggregated results for the
following categories:
``(A) Gender.
``(B) Racial and ethnic group.
``(C) Migrant status.
``(D) Students with disabilities, as compared with students
who are not disabled.
``(E) Economically disadvantaged students, as compared with
students who are not economically disadvantaged.
``(F) Students with limited English proficiency, as
compared with students who are proficient in English.
``(3) Format.--School report cards under this subsection
shall--
``(A) be in a format that--
``(i) is informative to the parents and the public;
``(ii) is easily understandable; and
``(iii) is in the language most familiar to the parents;
and
``(B) provide a clear description of statistical data.
``(4) Other information.--A local educational agency may
include in the agency's report card under this subsection any
other appropriate information.
``(5) Public dissemination.--Beginning in the 2002-2003
school year, the local educational agency shall publicly
report the information described in paragraph (1) through
such means as posting on the Internet, distribution to the
media, and through public agencies.
``(6) Privacy.--Information collected under this section
shall be collected and disseminated in a manner that protects
the privacy of individuals.''.
______
By Mr. REED:
S. 373. A bill to provide for the professional development of
elementary and secondary school educators; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional
Development Reform Act to strengthen and improve professional
development opportunities for teachers and administrators.
I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's
classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared
teachers and principals are central to improving the academic
performance and achievement of students. In the 105th Congress, I
introduced the TEACH Act to reform the way our prospective teachers are
trained, and I was pleased that this legislation was included in the
Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998.
As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus shifts to increasing support
for both new and veteran classroom teachers, as well as school
principals.
Research shows that professional development programs, however, too
often consist of fragmented, one-shot workshops, at which teachers
passively listen to experts, and lack significant opportunity for
teacher interaction. The Department of Education recently evaluated the
Eisenhower Professional Development program and found that the vast
majority of professional development opportunities are not of
sufficient duration or intensity to generate significant improvements
in teaching. Other studies support that finding and show that such
professional development fails to improve or even impact teaching
practice.
We do not expect students to learn their ``ABCs'' after one day of
lessons, and we should not expect a one-day professional development
workshop to yield the desired results. Indeed, the Department of
Education found that teaching would improve if teachers experienced
consistent, high-quality professional development.
Moreover, a recent survey of teachers found that professional
development is too short-term and lacks intensity. In fact, recent
studies indicated that the majority of teachers participated in
[[Page S1515]]
professional development activities from one to eight hours, or for no
more than one day a year.
As a consequence, only about 1 in 5 teachers felt very well prepared
for addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency,
those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities,
or integrating educational technology into the curriculum.
There is also widespread agreement that a good principal is the
keystone of a good school. However, there is great concern that the
supply of quality principals may not meet the increasing demand for
quality school leadership. Unfortunately, the depth and quality of
support and development programs for both new and veteran principals
varies widely, which creates another gap in our education system.
I am introducing legislation today which would reform professional
development for teachers and principals.
There is broad consensus among experts about the elements that truly
constitute an effective professional development program. Research
shows that effective professional development approaches are sustained,
intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers knowledge of
content; allow teachers to work collaboratively; provide opportunities
for teachers to practice and reflect upon their teaching; are aligned
with standards and embedded in the daily work of the school; and
involve parents and other community members.
Such high-quality professional development improves student
achievement. Indeed, a 1998 study in California found that the more
teachers were engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered professional
development, the higher their students scored on mathematics
achievement on the state's assessment. Further, Community School
District 2 in New York City has seen its investment in sustained,
intensive professional development pay off with significant increases
in student achievement. Professional development in District 2 is
delivered in schools and classrooms and focused on system-wide
instructional improvement, with intensive activities such as
observation of exemplary teachers and classrooms both inside and
outside the district, supervised practice, peer networks, and offsite
training opportunities. I have visited District 2 and have seen this
outstanding professional development first hand.
My legislation builds on these successful models and the research on
effective professional development to create a new formula program for
high-quality professional development that is sustained, collaborative,
content-centered, embedded in the daily work of the school, and aligned
with standards and school reform efforts.
To achieve this enhanced professional development, my legislation
funds the following activities: mentoring; peer observation and
coaching; curriculum-based content training; dedicated time for
collaborative lesson planning; opportunities for teachers to visit
other classrooms to model effective teaching practice; training on
integrating technology into the curriculum, addressing the specific
needs of diverse students, and involving parents; professional
development networks to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of
information among teachers and administrators; as well as release time
and compensation for mentors and substitute teachers to make these
activities possible.
The Professional Development Reform Act also requires partnerships
between elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher
education for providing training opportunities, including advanced
content area courses and training to address teacher shortages. In
fact, Department of Education data show that the Eisenhower
Professional Development program activities are most effective when
they are sponsored by institutions of higher education.
My legislation will also provide funding for leadership training to
encourage highly qualified individuals to become principals, and to
develop and enhance leadership, management, parental involvement, and
mentoring skills for principals and superintendents. Indeed, ensuring
that our principals have the training and support to serve as
instructional leaders is critical. Further, my legislation will provide
funding for programs to encourage highly qualified and effective
teachers to become mentoring teachers.
We know that our schools with the highest percentage of poverty have
the greatest need for professional development improvement and
resources, and that is why my bill targets funding to these schools.
Importantly, the Professional Development Reform Act offers resources
but it demands results. The bill's strong accountability provisions
require that school districts and schools which receive funding
actually improve student performance and increase participation in
sustained professional development in three years in order to secure
additional funding.
In sum, my legislation seeks to ensure that new teachers and
principals have the support they need to be successful educators, that
all teachers have access to high quality professional development
regardless of the content areas they teach, and that professional
development does not isolate teachers, but rather brings teachers
together as part of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy aligned
with standards.
The time for action is now because schools must hire an estimated 2.2
million new teachers over the next decade due to increasing
enrollments, the retirement of approximately half of our current
teaching force, and high attrition rates. Ensuring that teachers and
principals have the training, assistance, and support to increase
student achievement and sustain them throughout their careers is a
great challenge. But we must meet and overcome this challenge if we are
to reform education and prepare our children for the 21st Century. The
Professional Development Reform Act, by increasing our professional
development investment and focusing it on the kind of activities and
opportunities for teachers and administrators that research shows is
effective, is critical to this effort.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the
reauthorization of the ESEA.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 373
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Professional Development Reform Act''.
(b) Amendments.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part E as part F; and
(2) by inserting after part D the following:
``PART E--PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
``SEC. 2351. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this part are as follows:
``(1) To improve the academic achievement of students by
providing every student with a well-prepared teacher and
every school with an effective principal.
``(2) To provide every beginning teacher with structured
support, including a qualified and trained mentor teacher, to
facilitate the transition into successful teaching.
``(3) To ensure that every teacher is given the assistance,
tools, and professional development opportunities, throughout
the teacher's career, to help the teacher teach to the
highest academic standards and help students succeed.
``(4) To provide training to prepare and support principals
to serve as instructional leaders and to work with teachers
to create a school climate that fosters excellence in
teaching and learning.
``(5) To transform, strengthen, and improve professional
development from a fragmented, one-shot approach to
sustained, high quality, and intensive activities that--
``(A) are collaborative, content-centered, standards-based,
results-driven, and embedded in the daily work of the school;
``(B) allow teachers regular opportunities to practice and
reflect upon their teaching and learning; and
``(C) are responsive to teacher needs.
``SEC. 2352. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Professional development.--The term `professional
development' means effective professional development that--
``(A) is sustained, high quality, intensive, and
comprehensive;
``(B) is content-centered, collaborative, school-embedded,
tied to practice, focused on student work, supported by
research, and aligned with and designed to help elementary
school or secondary school students
[[Page S1516]]
meet challenging State content standards and challenging
State student performance standards;
``(C) includes sustained in-service activities to improve
elementary school or secondary school teaching in the core
academic subjects;
``(D) includes sustained activities to encourage and
provide instruction on how to work with and involve parents
to foster student achievement, to address the specific needs
of diverse students, including limited English proficient
students, individuals with disabilities, and economically
disadvantaged individuals, to integrate technology into the
curriculum, to improve understanding and the use of student
assessments, and to improve classroom management skills; and
``(E) includes sustained onsite training opportunities that
provide active learning and observational opportunities for
elementary school or secondary school teachers to model
effective practice.
``(2) Administrator.--The term `administrator' means a
school principal or superintendent.
``(3) Beginning teacher.--The term `beginning teacher'
means an elementary school or secondary school teacher who
has taught for 3 years or less.
``(4) Mentoring.--The term `mentoring' means structured
guidance and induction activities that provide ongoing and
regular support to beginning teachers.
``SEC. 2353. STATE ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.
``From the amount appropriated under section 2361 that is
not reserved under section 2360 for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall make an allotment to each State educational
agency having an application approved under section 2354 in
an amount that bears the same relation to the amount
appropriated under section 2361 that is not reserved under
section 2360 for the fiscal year as the amount the State
educational agency received under part A of title I for the
fiscal year bears to the amount received under such part by
all States having applications so approved for the fiscal
year.
``SEC. 2354. STATE APPLICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS.
``Each State educational agency desiring an allotment under
section 2353 for a fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary
an application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied
by such information as the Secretary may require. The
application shall include--
``(1) a description of the strategy to be used to implement
State activities described in section 2355;
``(2) a description of how the State educational agency
will assist local educational agencies in transforming,
strengthening, and improving professional development;
``(3) a description of how the activities described in
section 2355 and the assistance described in paragraph (2)
will assist the State in achieving the State's goals for
comprehensive education reform, will help all students meet
challenging State content standards and challenging State
student performance standards, and will help all teachers
meet State standards for teaching excellence;
``(4) a description of the manner in which the State
educational agency will ensure, consistent with the State's
comprehensive education reform plan policies, or statutes,
that funds provided under this part will be effectively
coordinated with all Federal and State professional
development funds and activities, including funds and
activities under this title, titles I, III, VI, and VII of
this Act, title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 1999, and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act; and
``(5) a description of--
``(A) how the State educational agency will collect and
utilize data for evaluation of the activities carried out by
local educational agencies under this part, including
collecting baseline data in order to measure changes in the
professional development opportunities provided to teachers
and measure improvements in teaching practice and student
performance; and
``(B) the specific performance measures the State
educational agency will use to determine the need for
technical assistance described in section 2355(3) and to make
a continuation of funding determination under section 2358.
``SEC. 2355. STATE ACTIVITIES.
``From the amount allotted to a State educational agency
under section 2353 for a fiscal year, the State educational
agency--
``(1) shall reserve not more than 5 percent to support,
through grants made on a competitive basis to local
educational agencies or consortia of local educational
agencies, or through contracts with entities that are
educational nonprofit organizations, professional
associations of administrators, institutions of higher
education, or other groups or institutions that are
responsive to the needs of administrators, or partnerships of
those entities, programs that provide effective leadership
training--
``(A) to encourage highly qualified individuals to become
administrators; and
``(B) to develop and enhance instructional leadership,
school management, parent involvement, mentoring, and staff
evaluation skills of administrators;
``(2) shall reserve 3 percent to support, through grants
made on a competitive basis to local educational agencies or
consortia of local educational agencies, or through contracts
with entities that are educational nonprofit organizations,
institutions of higher education, or other groups or
institutions that are responsive to the needs of teachers, or
partnerships of those entities, programs that provide
effective leadership and mentor training--
``(A) to encourage highly qualified and effective teachers
to become mentor teachers; and
``(B) to develop and enhance the mentoring and peer
coaching skills of such qualified and effective teachers;
``(3) may reserve not more than 2.5 percent for providing
technical assistance and dissemination of information to
schools and local educational agencies to help the schools
and local educational agencies implement effective
professional development activities that are aligned with
challenging State content standards, challenging State
student performance standards, and State standards for
teaching excellence; and
``(4) may reserve not more than 2.5 percent for evaluating
the effectiveness of the professional development provided by
schools and local educational agencies under this part in
improving teaching practice, increasing the academic
achievement of students, and helping students meet
challenging State content standards and challenging State
student performance standards, and for administrative costs.
``SEC. 2356. LOCAL PROVISIONS.
``(a) Allocations to Local Educational Agencies.--Each
State educational agency receiving an allotment under section
2353 for a fiscal year shall make an allocation from the
allotted funds that are not reserved under section 2355 for
the fiscal year to each local educational agency in the State
that is eligible to receive assistance under part A of title
I for the fiscal year in an amount that bears the same
relation to the allotted funds that are not reserved under
section 2355 as the amount such local educational agency
received under such part for the fiscal year bears to the
amount all such local educational agencies in the State
received under such part for the fiscal year.
``(b) Application and Accountability Provisions.--Each
local educational agency desiring a grant under this part
shall submit an application to the State educational agency
at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the State educational agency may require. The
application shall include--
``(1) a description of how the local educational agency
plans--
``(A) to work with schools served by the local educational
agency that are described in section 2357 to carry out the
local activities described in section 2357; and
``(B) to meet the purposes described in section 2351;
``(2) a description of the manner in which the local
educational agency will ensure that--
``(A) the grant funds will be used--
``(i) to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills
necessary, including subject matter and teaching methods, to
teach students to meet the proficient or advanced level of
performance on challenging State content standards and
challenging State student performance standards, and to carry
out any local education reform plans or policies; and
``(ii) to help teachers meet standards for teaching
excellence; and
``(B) funds provided under this part will be effectively
coordinated with all Federal, State, and local professional
development funds and activities;
``(3) a description of how the professional development and
mentoring activities to be carried out through the grant will
address the ongoing professional development and mentoring of
teachers and administrators;
``(4) a description of the local educational agency's
strategy for--
``(A) selecting and training highly qualified mentor
teachers (utilizing teachers certified by the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards and teachers granted
advanced certification as a master or mentor teacher by the
State, where possible), for matching such mentor teachers
(from the beginning teachers' teaching disciplines) with the
beginning teachers; and
``(B) providing release time for the teachers (utilizing
highly qualified substitute teachers and high quality retired
teachers, where possible);
``(5) a description of how the local educational agency
will provide training to enable the teachers to address the
needs of students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, and other students with special needs;
``(6) a description of how the professional development and
mentoring activities will have a substantial, measurable, and
positive impact on student achievement and how the activities
will be used as part of a broader strategy to eliminate the
achievement gap that separates low-income and minority
students from other students;
``(7) a description of how the local educational agency
will provide training to teachers to enable the teachers to
work with parents, involve parents in their child's
education, and encourage parents to become collaborators with
schools in promoting their child's education;
``(8) a description of how the local educational agency
will collect and analyze data on the quality and impact of
activities carried out in schools under this part, and the
specific performance measures the local educational agency
will use in the local educational agency's evaluation
process;
[[Page S1517]]
``(9) a description of the local educational agency's plan
to develop and carry out the activities described in section
2357 with the extensive participation of administrators,
teachers, parents, and the partnering institution described
in section 2357(4); and
``(10) a description of the local educational agency's
strategy to ensure that there is schoolwide participation in
the schools to be served.
``SEC. 2357. LOCAL ACTIVITIES.
``Each local educational agency receiving an allocation
under this part shall use the allocation to carry out
professional development activities in schools served by the
local educational agency that have the highest percentages of
students living in poverty, as measured in accordance with
section 1113(a)(5), including--
``(1) mentoring, team teaching, and peer observation and
coaching;
``(2) dedicated time for collaborative lesson planning and
curriculum development meetings;
``(3) consultation with exemplary teachers and short-term
and long-term visits to other classrooms and schools;
``(4) partnering with institutions of higher education and,
where appropriate, educational nonprofit organizations, for
joint efforts in designing the sustained professional
development opportunities, for providing advanced content
area courses and other assistance to improve the content
knowledge and pedagogical practices of teachers, and
providing training to address areas of teacher and
administrator shortages, as appropriate;
``(5) providing release time (including compensation for
mentor teachers and substitute teachers as necessary) for
activities described in this section; and
``(6) developing professional development networks, through
Internet links, where available, that--
``(A) provide a forum for interaction among teachers and
administrators; and
``(B) allow the exchange of information regarding advances
in content and pedagogy.
``SEC. 2358. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING.
``Each local educational agency or school that receives
funding under this part shall be eligible to continue to
receive the funding after the third year the local
educational agency or school receives the funding if the
local educational agency or school demonstrates that the
local educational agency or school has--
``(1) improved student performance;
``(2) increased participation in sustained professional
development and mentoring programs;
``(3) reduced the number of out-of-field placements and the
number of teachers who are not certified or licensed;
``(4) reduced the beginning teacher attrition rate for the
local educational agency or school; and
``(5) increased partnerships and linkages with institutions
of higher education.
``SEC. 2359. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.
``Funds made available under this part shall be used to
supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local
funds expended to carry out activities relating to teacher
programs or professional development.
``SEC. 2360. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve not more
than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 2361
for each fiscal year for the national evaluation described in
subsection (b) and the dissemination activities described in
subsection (c).
``(b) National Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an
annual, independent, national evaluation of the activities
assisted under this part not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of the Professional Development Reform Act.
The evaluation shall include information on the impact of the
activities assisted under this part on student performance.
``(2) State reports.--Each State receiving an allotment
under this part shall submit to the Secretary the results of
the evaluation described under section 2355(4).
``(3) Report to congress.--The Secretary annually shall
submit to Congress a report that describes the information in
the national evaluation and the State reports.
``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall collect and
broadly disseminate information (including creating and
maintaining a national database or clearinghouse) to help
States, local educational agencies, schools, teachers, and
institutions of higher education learn about effective
professional development policies, practices, and programs,
data projections of teacher and administrator supply and
demand, and available teaching and administrator
opportunities.
``SEC. 2361. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through
2006.''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 374. A bill to authorize the operation by the National Guard of
counterdrug schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to draw my colleagues' attention
to the critical role our National Guard plays in efforts to rid our
country of illegal drugs--a role that I believe should be expanded. The
Guard operates several regional support schools around the nation, that
facilitate valuable training for state and local law enforcement
agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related
skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community based
organizations. These counterdrug schools provide training to thousands
of people each year that would otherwise not be able to receive it for
a lack of resources.
Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code,
Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, state, and
federal law enforcement agencies and community based antidrug
coalitions. As a part of this effort, the National Guard currently
operates four schools that provide unique and invaluable assistance to
those individuals at the forefront of our country's drug interdiction
and demand reduction effort. These schools, located in Pennsylvania,
Florida, Mississippi, and California, have proved their effectiveness
in developing training and educational opportunities for local law
enforcement officials--opportunities that would not otherwise exist.
I note, however, that the vagaries in funding and geographical
distribution of the existing schools have limited the effectiveness of
these training programs. Our national drug problem is not a coastal
problem, but affects all communities throughout the United States. I
believe we need a more centrally located school to provide more
accessible training in the Midwest and Northwest United States.
In addition to the need for a fifth school in the upper-Midwest, we
should also consider the current budgeting process for these schools. I
believe a critical element in achieving quality training for law
enforcement and being cost-effective at the same time must include a
unified National Guard Counterdrug schools budget which fully funds the
schools. Rather than being pieced together from the National Guard
State budgets, Defense Department support, and Congressional line
items, there should be a discrete item for these National Guard schools
so Congress can have a clearer idea of the mission, the funding, and
the accomplishments of these schools.
Today, joining with my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Cochran,
I am introducing legislation that will accomplish these objectives.
This legislation clarifies the authorities of the National Guard Bureau
to operate the four existing counterdrug schools. In addition, it would
establish one additional school in Iowa to serve law enforcement
agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. It will establish
a separate line of funding for these counterdrug schools with an
authorized funding level of $25 million for FY 2002.
I want to take a moment to say something additional about the fifth
school (Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, MCTC, to be established at
Camp Dodge, located in Johnston, Iowa. Designed to fulfill a need for
training in the Midwest and Northwest United States, it would be
primarily supported by the Iowa National Guard, and serve as a training
center for State and local law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and
Northwest United States. Camp Dodge has much of the physical
infrastructure necessary for the school, including housing and being
the hub for a state-wide fiber optic network that allows for live, two
way video and audio communication between Camp Dodge and every National
Guard Armory and school district in the State of Iowa.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this
legislation, which I now send to the desk and ask that it be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 374
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL GUARD COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS.
(a) Authority To Operate.--Under such regulations as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau may establish and operate not more than five
schools (to be known generally as ``National Guard
counterdrug schools'') for
[[Page S1518]]
the provision by the National Guard of training in drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, and drug demand
reduction activities, to the personnel of the following:
(1) Federal agencies.
(2) State and local law enforcement agencies.
(3) Community-based organizations engaged in such
activities.
(4) Other non-Federal governmental and private entities and
organizations engaged in such activities.
(b) Counterdrug Schools Specified.--The National Guard
counterdrug schools operated under the authority in
subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) The National Interagency Civil-Military Institute
(NICI), San Luis Obispo, California.
(2) The Multi-Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force
Training (MCTFT), St. Petersburg, Florida.
(3) The Midwest Counterdrug Training Center (MCTC), to be
established in Johnston, Iowa.
(4) The Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (RCTA),
Meridian, Mississippi.
(5) The Northeast Regional Counterdrug Training Center
(NCTC), Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.
(c) Use of National Guard Personnel.--(1) To the extent
provided for in the State drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities plan of a State in which a National Guard
counterdrug school is located, personnel of the National
Guard of that State who are ordered to perform full-time
National Guard duty authorized under section 112(b) of that
title 32, United States Code, may provide training referred
to in subsection (a) at that school.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``State drug interdiction
and counter-drug activities plan'', in the case of a State,
means the current plan submitted by the Governor of the State
to the Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32,
United States Code.
(d) Annual Reports on Activities.--(1) Not later than
February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the activities
of the National Guard counterdrug schools.
(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall set forth the
following:
(A) The amount made available for each National Guard
counterdrug school during the fiscal year ending in the year
preceding the year in which such report is submitted.
(B) A description of the activities of each National Guard
counterdrug school during the year preceding the year in
which such report is submitted.
(3) The report under paragraph (1) in 2002 shall set forth,
in addition to the matters described in paragraph (2), a
description of the activities relating to the establishment
of the Midwest Counterdrug Training Center in Johnston, Iowa.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense
for the National Guard for fiscal year 2002, $25,000,000 for
purposes of the National Guard counterdrug schools in that
fiscal year.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by paragraph
(1) is in addition to any other amount authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of Defense for the National
Guard for fiscal year 2002.
(f) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated by subsection (e)(1)--
(A) $4,000,000 shall be available for the National
Interagency Civil-Military Institute, San Luis Obispo,
California;
(B) $8,000,000 shall be available for the Multi-
Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training, St.
Petersburg, Florida;
(C) $3,000,000 shall be available for the Midwest
Counterdrug Training Center, Johnston, Iowa;
(D) $5,000,000 shall be available for the Regional
Counterdrug Training Academy, Meridian, Mississippi; and
(E) $5,000,000 shall be available for the Northeast
Regional Counterdrug Training Center, Fort Indiantown Gap,
Pennsylvania.
(2) Amounts available under paragraph (1) shall remain
available until expended.
(g) Funding for Fiscal Years After Fiscal Year 2002.--(1)
The budget of the President that is submitted to Congress
under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2002 shall set forth as a
separate budget item the amount requested for such fiscal
year for the National Guard counterdrug schools.
(2) It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) the amount authorized to appropriated for the National
Guard counterdrug schools for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 2002 should not be less than the amount authorized to be
appropriated for those schools for fiscal year 2002 by
subsection (e)(1), in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars; and
(B) the amount made available to each National Guard
counterdrug school for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2002
should not be less than the amount made available for such
school for fiscal year 2002 by subsection (f)(1), in constant
fiscal year 2002 dollars, except that the amount made
available for the Midwest Counterdrug Training School should
not be less than $5,000,000, in constant fiscal year 2002
dollars.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that I
believe will help address a critical need for Iowa state and local law
enforcement.
These bills, which would provide needed training assistance in
narcotics as well as overall law enforcement, are based on my
conversations with Iowa law enforcement officials last summer.
The National Guard Counter Drug Schools Act, which I am cosponsoring
with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, would create a new
counterdrug training school at Camp Dodge in Johnston, Iowa that law
enforcement can use for the specialized training on drug
investigations, including those cases that involve methamphetamine.
The National Guard has four of these centers in Florida,
Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi. But, Senator Grassley and I
recognized the need for one in the Midwest--to help state and local law
enforcement in their efforts to reduce the supply and demand of
methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs.
The second one, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hutchinson from
Arkansas, would focus on rural law enforcement--and would provide new
training and assistance resources for small town sheriff and police
departments.
Right now, rural law enforcement officers in Iowa and across the
country have limited resources where they can get continued training
for general investigations, the latest in forensics technology and
technical assistance.
One place where many of them go is the National Center for Rural Law
Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas. But, these small departments need
something that's closer to home.
The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would bring the Center
closer to these officers by expanding the center into branches in eight
regions across the country.
I believe these two bills will help ensure that rural law enforcement
agencies receive the training and assistance they need to make their
communities safer.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 375. A bill to provide assistance to East Timor to facilitate the
transition of East Timor to an independent nation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Chafee, Leahy,
Harkin, Feingold, Reed, Jeffords, and Kerry, I am introducing
legislation to help facilitate East Timor's transition to independence.
Congressman Lantos, Congressman Chris Smith, and others have introduced
identical legislation in the House of Representatives.
In August 1999, after almost three decades of unrest under Indonesian
rule, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly in favor of
independence.
They did so at great personal risk. Anti-independence militia groups
killed hundreds, hoping to intimidate and retaliate against those
supporting independence. The militias also destroyed or severely
damaged seventy percent of East Timor's infrastructure. Government
services and public security were severely undermined.
An international effort, led by Australia and including the United
States, brought much-needed stability to East Timor.
Now, under the United Nation's Transitional Authority, stability is
taking hold again in East Timor, and normal life is slowly returning.
In coming months, looking to America and other democratic nations as
an example, East Timor's leaders will hold a constitutional convention
to decide which form of democratic government to adopt. It is a process
that reminds us of our own Constitutional Convention and would make our
Founding Fathers proud.
Late next year, after choosing a form of democratic government and
electing leaders, East Timor is expected to declare its independence as
the UN draws down. A new, democratic nation will take its rightful
place in the world.
This is a success story. It is a great success story. But it is far
from over.
East Timor remains one of the poorest places in Asia. Only 20 percent
of its population is literate. The annual per capita gross national
produce is $340.
The people of East Timor need and deserve our help. The extraordinary
physical and moral courage they demonstrated over the years is
impressive.
[[Page S1519]]
The great faith in the democratic process they showed by voting for
independence under the barrel of a gun must not go unrewarded.
This bill is our chance to help them, and help now. Its purpose is to
put U.S. governmental programs and resources in place now and to enable
U.S. government agencies to focus on the imminent reality of an
independent East Timor. If we wait until East Timor declares its
independence before we do the preliminary work, we will lose crucial
time and do a disservice to both the United States and to East Timor.
Specifically, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing a firm
bilateral and multilateral assistance structure.
It authorizes $25 million in bilateral assistance, $2 million for a
Peace Corps presence and $1 million for a scholarship fund for East
Timorese students to study in the United States.
It encourages the President, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and other agencies to put
in place now the tools and programs to create an equitable trade and
investment relationship.
It requires the State Department to establish an accredited mission
to East Timor co-incident with independence.
And it authorizes the provision of excess defense articles and
international military education and training, after the President
certifies that these articles and training are in the interests of the
United States and will help promote human rights in East Timor and the
professionalization of East Timor's armed services.
The people of East Timor have chosen democracy. The United States has
a golden opportunity to help them create their new democratic nation.
But we must prepare for that day now. We must not miss this rare
opportunity to help.
I ask that a copy of the bill appear in the Record, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 375
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 ``East Timor Transition to
Independence Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On August 30, 1999, the East Timorese people voted
overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Indonesia. Anti-
independence militias, with the support of the Indonesian
military, attempted to prevent then retaliated against this
vote by launching a campaign of terror and violence,
displacing 500,000 people and murdering at least 1,000
people.
(2) The violent campaign devastated East Timor's
infrastructure, destroyed or severely damaged 60 to 80
percent of public and private property, and resulted in the
collapse of virtually all vestiges of government, public
services and public security.
(3) The Australian-led International Force for East Timor
(INTERFET) entered East Timor in September 1999 and
successfully restored order. On October 25, 1999, the United
Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET)
began to provide overall administration of East Timor, guide
the people of East Timor in the establishment of a new
democratic government, and maintain security and order.
(4) UNTAET and the East Timorese leadership currently
anticipate that East Timor will become an independent nation
as early as late 2001.
(5) East Timor is one of the poorest places in Asia. A
large percentage of the population live below the poverty
line, only 20 percent of East Timor's population is literate,
most of East Timor's people remain unemployed, the annual per
capita Gross National Product is $340, and life expectancy is
only 56 years.
(6) The World Bank and the United Nations have estimated
that it will require $300,000,000 in development assistance
over the next three years to meet East Timor's basic
development needs.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO SUPPORT FOR EAST TIMOR.
It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--
(1) facilitate East Timor's transition to independence,
support formation of broad-based democracy in East Timor,
help lay the groundwork for East Timor's economic recovery,
and strengthen East Timor's security;
(2) help ensure that the nature and pace of the economic
transition in East Timor is consistent with the needs and
priorities of the East Timorese people, that East Timor
develops a strong and independent economic infrastructure,
and that the incomes of the East Timorese people rise
accordingly;
(3) begin to lay the groundwork, prior to East Timor's
independence, for an equitable bilateral trade and investment
relationship;
(4)(A) officially open a diplomatic mission to East Timor
as soon as possible;
(B) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic
relations with East Timor, upon its independence; and
(C) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed,
adequately resourced, and securely maintained United States
diplomatic mission is accredited to East Timor upon its
independence;
(5) support efforts by the United Nations and East Timor to
ensure justice and accountability related to past atrocities
in East Timor through--
(A) United Nations investigations;
(B) development of East Timor's judicial system, including
appropriate technical assistance to East Timor from the
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(C) the possible establishment of an international tribunal
for East Timor; and
(D) sharing with the United Nations Transitional
Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) and East Timorese
investigators any unclassified information relevant to past
atrocities in East Timor gathered by the United States
Government; and
(6)(A) as an interim step, support observer status for an
official delegation from East Timor to observe and
participate, as appropriate, in all deliberations of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other
international institutions; and
(B) after East Timor achieves independence, support full
membership for East Timor in these and other international
institutions, as appropriate.
SEC. 4. BILATERAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Authority.--The President, acting through the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, is authorized to--
(1) support the development of civil society, including
nongovernmental organizations in East Timor;
(2) promote the development of an independent news media;
(3) support job creation, including support for small
business and microenterprise programs, environmental
protection, sustainable development, development of East
Timor's health care infrastructure, educational programs, and
programs strengthening the role of women in society;
(4) promote reconciliation, conflict resolution, and
prevention of further conflict with respect to East Timor,
including establishing accountability for past gross human
rights violations;
(5) support the voluntary and safe repatriation and
reintegration of refugees into East Timor; and
(6) support political party development, voter education,
voter registration, and other activities in support of free
and fair elections in East Timor.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the President to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 5. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States executive director at each international financial
institution to which the United States is a member to use the
voice, vote, and influence of the United States to support
economic and democratic development in East Timor.
SEC. 6. PEACE CORPS ASSISTANCE.
(a) Authority.--The Director of the Peace Corps is
authorized to--
(1) provide English language and other technical training
for individuals in East Timor as well as other activities
which promote education, economic development, and economic
self-sufficiency; and
(2) quickly address immediate assistance needs in East
Timor using the Peace Corps Crisis Corps, to the extent
practicable.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Peace Corps to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 7. TRADE AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) OPIC.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the President should initiate negotiations with the
United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor
(UNTAET), the National Council of East Timor, and the
government of East Timor (after independence for East
Timor)--
(1) to apply to East Timor the existing agreement between
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Indonesia; or
(2) to enter into a new agreement authorizing the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation to carry out programs with
respect to East Timor,
in order to expand United States investment in East Timor,
emphasizing partnerships with local East Timorese
enterprises.
(b) Trade and Development Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Trade and Development
Agency is authorized to
[[Page S1520]]
carry out projects in East Timor under section 661 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421).
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Trade and Development Agency to carry out this subsection
$1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2004.
(B) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (A) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
(c) Export-Import Bank.--The Export-Import Bank of the
United States shall expand its activities in connection with
exports to East Timor.
SEC. 8. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should encourage the United Nations
Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET), in close
consultation with the National Council of East Timor, to seek
to become eligible for duty-free treatment under title V of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.; relating to
generalized system of preferences).
(b) Technical Assistance.--The United States Trade
Representative and the Commissioner of the United States
Customs Service are authorized to provide technical
assistance to UNTAET, the National Council of East Timor, and
the government of East Timor (after independence for East
Timor) in order to assist East Timor to become eligible for
duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
SEC. 9. BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY.
It is the sense of Congress that the President should seek
to enter into a bilateral investment treaty with the United
Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET),
in close consultation with the National Council of East
Timor, in order to establish a more stable legal framework
for United States investment in East Timor.
SEC. 10. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR EAST TIMORESE STUDENTS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of State--
(1) is authorized to carry out an East Timorese scholarship
program under the authorities of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Reorganization
Plan Number 2 of 1977, and the National Endowment for
Democracy Act; and
(2) shall make every effort to identify and provide
scholarships and other support to East Timorese students
interested in pursuing undergraduate and graduate studies at
institutions of higher education in the United States.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of State, $1,000,000 for
the fiscal year 2002 and $1,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003
to carry out subsection (a).
SEC. 11. PLAN FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES IN
EAST TIMOR.
(a) Development of Detailed Plan.--The Secretary of State
shall develop a detailed plan for the official establishment
of a United States diplomatic mission to East Timor, with a
view to--
(1) officially open a fully functioning, fully staffed,
adequately resourced, and securely maintained diplomatic
mission in East Timor as soon as possible;
(2) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic
relations with East Timor, upon its independence; and
(3) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed,
adequately resourced, and securely maintained diplomatic
mission is accredited to East Timor upon its independence.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than three months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State
shall submit to the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate a report that contains the detailed
plan described in subsection (a), including a timetable for
the official opening of a facility in Dili, East Timor, the
personnel requirements for the mission, the estimated costs
for establishing the facility, and its security requirements.
(2) Subsequent reports.--Beginning six months after the
submission of the initial report under paragraph (1), and
every six months thereafter until January 1, 2004, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the committees specified
in that paragraph a report on the status of the
implementation of the detailed plan described in subsection
(a), including any revisions to the plan (including its
timetable, costs, or requirements) that have been made during
the period covered by the report.
(3) Form of report.--Each report submitted under this
subsection shall be in unclassified form, with a classified
annex as necessary.
SEC. 12. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR EAST TIMOR.
(a) Authorization.--Beginning on the date on which the
President transmits to the Congress a certification described
in subsection (b), the President is authorized--
(1) to transfer excess defense articles under section 516
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) to
East Timor in accordance with such section; and
(2) to provide military education and training under
chapter 5 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) for
the armed forces of East Timor in accordance with such
chapter.
(b) Certification.--A certification described in this
subsection is a certification that--
(1) East Timor has established an independent armed forces;
and
(2) the assistance proposed to be provided pursuant to
subsection (a)--
(A) is in the national security interests of the United
States; and
(B) will promote both human rights in East Timor and the
professionalization of the armed forces of East Timor.
(c) Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The President shall conduct a study to
determine--
(A) the extent to which East Timor's security needs can be
met by the transfer of excess defense articles under section
516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(B) the extent to which international military education
and training (IMET) assistance will enhance professionalism
of the armed forces of East Timor, provide training in human
rights, and promote respect for human rights and humanitarian
law; and
(C) the terms and conditions under which such defense
articles or training, as appropriate, should be provided.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 month after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to
the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives setting forth the findings of
the study conducted under paragraph (1).
SEC. 13. AUTHORITY FOR RADIO BROADCASTING.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall further the
communication of information and ideas through the increased
use of audio broadcasting to East Timor to ensure that radio
broadcasting to that country serves as a consistently
reliable and authoritative source of accurate, objective, and
comprehensive news.
SEC. 14. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than three months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter
until January 1, 2004, the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, the Director of the Trade and Development
Agency, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of the
Peace Corps, shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
that contains the information described in subsection (b).
(b) Information.--The report required by subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) developments in East Timor's political and economic
situation in the period covered by the report, including an
evaluation of any elections occurring in East Timor and the
refugee reintegration process in East Timor;
(2)(A) in the initial report, a 3-year plan for United
States foreign assistance to East Timor in accordance with
section 4, prepared by the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, which outlines the
goals for United States foreign assistance to East Timor
during the 3-year period; and
(B) in each subsequent report, a description in detail of
the expenditure of United States bilateral foreign assistance
during the period covered by each such report;
(3) a description of the activities undertaken in East
Timor by the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the Asian Development Bank, and other
international financial institutions, and an evaluation of
the effectiveness of these activities;
(4) an assessment of--
(A) the status of United States trade and investment
relations with East Timor, including a detailed analysis of
any trade and investment-related activity supported by the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, and the Trade and Development
Agency during the period of time since the previous report;
and
(B) the status of any negotiations with the United Nations
Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) or East
Timor to facilitate the operation of the United States trade
agencies in East Timor;
(5) the nature and extent of United States-East Timor
cultural, education, scientific, and academic exchanges, both
official and unofficial, and any Peace Corps activities;
(6) a comprehensive study and report on local agriculture
in East Timor, emerging opportunities for producing,
processing, and exporting indigenous agricultural products,
and recommendations for appropriate technical assistance from
the United States; and
(7) statistical data drawn from other sources on economic
growth, health, education, and distribution of resources in
East Timor.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 376. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to modify
for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 the procedures relating to
assistance for countries not cooperating in United States
[[Page S1521]]
counterdrug efforts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a bill for
myself and Mr. DeWine to reform the current certification requirement
for international drug control. As many members know, I have been a
strong supporter of the drug certification process. I remain one. Of
late, however, we have seen a lot of criticism of the process. Some of
this has been by foreign countries and some here at home. Rather than
answer all of these criticisms, I want to take a few moments to address
what I believe have been misconceptions about the process.
The first point I want to make is to remind my colleagues why
Congress required certification in the first place. It arose because we
believed that doing something here and overseas about the drug problem
was in the national interests. The public agreed. I might add the
public has not changed its mind. I don't believe that we ought to do so
either.
Most of the drugs available in the United States today come from
overseas. They are produced overseas and smuggled to this country. That
production is illegal. It is illegal in international law. It is
illegal in the domestic laws of all the countries where these drugs are
produced. It is illegal to smuggle the drugs. Here and abroad. The
consequences of that smuggling--illegal drugs on our streets--are felt
in homes and neighborhoods and schools all across this country.
I continue to believe that it is in our interest to stop that
production and flow. I own that we have an obligation to expect
countries to abide by international law, bilateral agreements, and
their own legal codes on drug production and trafficking. I believe
that it is not just a quirk of U.S. interest to expect that we and
others commit ourselves to stopping this illegal production and trade.
In fact, I believe that we have a moral obligation to stop these
activities. In order to do that, we need a clear, knowable process that
holds ourselves and other countries to account for what we do to help
stop this production and trade.
Drug dealers do more harm to this country every year than all the
terrorists put together have done in the past 10 years. Let me ask my
colleagues, would you seriously offer to ignore or suspend the
requirements that we have put in place that hold others to an
international standard of conduct on stopping terrorism? Human rights?
I think not. But that is one of the things being proposed for how to
deal with international drug certification. I do not propose that we be
any less committed to stopping illegal drugs internationally than we
are when other important concerns are involved, and I ask my colleagues
to support this view.
I also would point out that this is no time to carve out special
exemptions for any one country or region. We remain collectively
responsible to act responsibly on this issue. That means every one of
us.
My second point on why we have the certification process is to note
congressional intent. We passed the law 15 years ago to make stopping
illegal drug production and transit a national priority. I do not
believe that most members of Congress nor the majority of the U.S.
public believe that it is time to change that. Drug trafficking and
threats from major criminal organizations have grown worse not better.
Our third largest foreign assistance program is to help Colombia deal
with problems arising from trafficking and the thugs that promote it.
Is it really time to say we no longer regard international drug
trafficking as a national priority? I happen to believe that it is not.
I would also note that we have had repeated demonstrations in the
past several years of the effectiveness of certification in securing
improved international cooperation. Administration officials have
testified repeatedly as to its effectiveness and utility. It has also
given us needed leverage in specific cases to make important progress.
I for one am unwilling to undo a process that has paid such dividends.
On the other hand, I am aware that the certification process has
raised a number of concerns here and abroad in the past few years.
While I do not think that the solution in response to these concerns is
to suspend the process, I do have a suggestion that I believe will
help. Hence the bill Senator DeWine and I send to the desk.
Briefly what this proposal does is to simplify the current
methodology. At present, we have a three-step certification process:
the President can certify a country as fully cooperating, decertify a
country as failing to cooperate, or decertify with a national interest
waiver. This aspect of the process has been the main source of
contention. It has led some to believe that it forces the
Administration to be less than candid about some countries that might
be on the list. It has also complicated our relations with important
allies.
What this proposal does is to go to a decertification only standard.
This is similar to what we do with terrorism and human rights. In other
words, the default position is that all countries are doing the right
thing on meeting international drug control standards. The only
countries singled out for consideration are those whose actions are
clearly outside a reasonable assessment of accountability as defined in
current law.
Our bill simplifies a complex process and focuses attention on the
bad guys. It gives the President more flexibility. In doing so, we keep
accountability. We keep a useful process in place. We avoid unnecessary
complications with friends and allies doing the responsible thing. We
maintain necessary reporting on international efforts. We keep our eye
on a critical issue.
The provision also sunsets in three years unless Congress acts to
keep it. That means we have a chance to drive it around the block, kick
the tires, and see if it's a lemon or not.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 376
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. THREE-YEAR MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURES RELATING TO
ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES NOT COOPERATING WITH
UNITED STATES COUNTERDRUG EFFORTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 8 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 490A. LIMITATIONS DURING FISCAL YEARS 2002, 2003, AND
2004 ON ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES NOT
COOPERATING WITH UNITED STATES COUNTERDRUG
EFFORTS.
``(a) Annual Identification of Countries Not Cooperating.--
Not later than November 1 of 2001, 2002, and 2003, the
President shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report identifying each country, if any, that the
President proposes to be subject to the provisions of
subsection (f) in the fiscal year in which the country is so
identified by reason that such country--
``(1) is not cooperating fully with the United States in
achieving full compliance with the goals and objectives of
the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances;
``(2) is not taking adequate steps on its own to achieve
full compliance with the goals and objectives of the
Convention; or
``(3) is not taking adequate steps to achieve full
compliance with the goals and objectives of a bilateral
agreement with the United States on illicit drug control.
``(b) Countries Subject to Withholding of Bilateral
Assistance and Opposition to Multilateral Assistance.--
``(1) Identification.--Not later than March 1 of 2002,
2003, and 2004, the President shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report identifying each country, if
any, that shall be subject to the provisions of subsection
(f) during the fiscal year in which the country is so
identified under this subsection by reason of its
identification in the most recent report under subsection
(a).
``(2) Limitation on countries identified.--A country may be
identified in a report under paragraph (1) only if the
country is also identified in the most recent report under
subsection (a).
``(c) Considerations Regarding Cooperation.--In determining
whether or not a country is to be identified in a report
under subsection (a) or (b), the President shall consider the
extent to which the country--
``(1) has met the goals and objectives of the United
Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances, including action on such matters
as illicit cultivation, production, distribution, sale,
transport, financing, money laundering, asset seizure,
extradition, mutual legal assistance, law enforcement and
transit cooperation, precursor chemical control, and demand
reduction;
[[Page S1522]]
``(2) has accomplished the goals described in the
applicable bilateral narcotics control agreement with the
United States or a multilateral agreement;
``(3) has taken legal and law enforcement measures to
prevent and punish public corruption, especially by senior
government officials, that facilitates the production,
processing, or shipment of narcotic and psychotropic drugs
and other controlled substances, or that discourages the
investigation or prosecution of such acts; and
``(4) in the case of a country that is a producer of licit
opium--
``(A) maintains licit production and stockpiles of opium at
levels no higher than those consistent with licit market
demand; and
``(B) has taken adequate steps to prevent significant
diversion of its licit cultivation and production of opium
into illicit markets and to prevent illicit cultivation and
production of opium.
``(d) Omission for National Security Reasons.--
``(1) In general.--The President may omit from
identification in a report under subsection (b) a country
identified in the most recent report under subsection (a) if
the President determines that the vital national security
interests of the United States require that the country be so
omitted.
``(2) Notice to congress.--If the President omits a country
under paragraph (1) from a report under subsection (b), the
President shall include in the report under that subsection--
``(A) a full and complete description of the vital national
security interests of the United States placed at risk if the
country is not so omitted; and
``(B) a statement weighing the risk described in
subparagraph (A) against the risk posed to the vital national
security interests of the United States by reason of the
failure of the country to cooperate fully with the United
States in combatting narcotics or to take adequate steps to
combat narcotics on its own.
``(e) Congressional Action.--
``(1) In general.--The provisions of subsection (f) shall
apply to a country in a fiscal year if Congress enacts a
joint resolution, not later than March 30 of the fiscal year,
providing that such provisions shall apply to the country in
the fiscal year.
``(2) Covered countries.--A joint resolution referred to in
paragraph (1) may apply to a country for a fiscal year only
if the country was not identified in the report in the fiscal
year under subsection (b).
``(3) Senate procedures.--Any joint resolution under this
subsection shall be considered in the Senate in accordance
with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International
Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976
(Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765), except that for purposes
of that section the certification referred to in section
601(a)(2)(B) of that Act shall be the applicable report of
the President under subsection (b) of this section.
``(f) Withholding of Bilateral Assistance and Opposition to
Multilateral Assistance.--
``(1) Bilateral assistance.--Commencing on March 1 of a
fiscal year in which a country is identified in a report
under subsection (b), or March 31 in the case of a country
covered by a joint resolution enacted in accordance with
subsection (e), fifty percent of the United States assistance
allocated to the country for the fiscal year in the report
required by section 653 shall be withheld from obligation and
expenditure.
``(2) Multilateral assistance.--Commencing on March 1 of a
year in which a country is identified in a report under
subsection (b), or March 31 in the case of a country covered
by a joint resolution enacted in accordance with subsection
(e), the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States Executive Director of each multilateral development
bank to vote, on and after that date, against any loan or
other utilization of the funds of such institution for the
country.
``(3) Multilateral development bank defined.--In this
subsection, the term `multilateral development bank' means
the following:
``(A) The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
``(B) The International Development Association.
``(C) The Inter-American Development Bank.
``(D) The Asian Development Bank.
``(E) The African Development Bank.
``(F) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
``(g) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means
the following:
``(1) The Committees on Foreign Relations and
Appropriations of the Senate.
``(2) The Committees on International Relations and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.
(b) Relationship to Current Certification Process.--Section
490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation on Applicability.--This section shall not
apply during fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. For
limitations on assistance during those fiscal years for
countries not cooperating with United States counterdrug
efforts see section 490A.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 489(a)(3)(A) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291h(a)(3)(A)) is
amended by inserting after ``under section 490(h)'' the
following ``or, in 2002, 2003, and 2004, as otherwise
determined by the President for purposes of this section''.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS IN
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL STRATEGY
REPORT.
Section 489 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2291h), as amended by this Act, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding after the flush matter at
the end of paragraph (7) the following new paragraph (8):
``(8) The identity of each organization determined by the
President to be a major drug trafficking organization,
including a description of the activities of such
organization during the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal
year of the report.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Major drug trafficking organization.--The term `major
drug trafficking organization' means any organization engaged
in substantial amounts of illicit activity to cultivate,
produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, finance, or transport
narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or listed chemicals,
engages in money laundering or proceeds from such activities,
or otherwise endeavor or attempt to do so, or to assist,
abet, conspire, or collude with others to do so.
``(2) Narcotic drug; controlled substance; listed
chemical.--The terms `narcotic drug', `controlled substance',
and `listed chemical' have the meanings given those terms in
section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802).''.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 378. A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 3348
South Kedzie Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Paul Simon Chicago
Job Corps Center''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today Senator Fitzgerald and I are
introducing legislation naming the Job Corps Center in Chicago,
Illinois, for our former colleague, Senator Paul Simon.
During his 12 years in the Senate, Paul Simon was a stalwart champion
of the Job Corps program and the work it does in connecting
disadvantaged young people to the job market. He led the fight for the
job corps as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee of jurisdiction
and also through requests to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
During most of this time, Chicago was the last remaining large city
without a Job Corps center, despite the community's strong interest in
the program. Securing a charter for a Job Corps center in Chicago was
one of Paul Simon's top priorities in the latter half of his service in
the Senate.
Working within the established process for establishing new centers,
Paul Simon pressed ahead with Illinois allies like former U.S.
Representative John Porter, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and the Job
Corps community to ensure that Chicago's application met all program
specifications and that the funds for expansion would be there when
Chicago's charter was approved. These years of effort succeeded in
meeting that goal. Eventually funds were appropriated for expansion of
the Job Corps program, and Chicago's Job Corps center now is open and
serving the Chicago community and, most importantly, its young people.
Naming the Chicago Job Corps Center for Paul Simon would be
especially fitting for three reasons: Job training and employment
policy are central elements of the legacy of his service in Congress;
he has long been recognized as a diligent and effective champion of the
Job Corps' mission; and he spent years to fulfill the goal of opening a
Job Corps center in Chicago. Other centers in the Job Corps network
have been named for individuals, and this designation would be
particularly fitting for the Chicago center, a facility Paul Simon
worked tirelessly to create.
Paul Simon was clearly one of the Senate's most respected voices.
This legislation would honor his service and his commitment to youth
and job training. It is a small but very appropriate way to recognize
his leadership. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Fitzgerald and
me in honoring Senator Paul Simon through this legislation.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kohl, Ms.
Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Clinton):
[[Page S1523]]
S. 379. A bill to establish the National Commission on the
Modernization of Federal Elections conduct a study of Federal voting
procedures and election administration, to establish the Federal
Election Modernization Grant Program to provide grants to States and
localities for the modernization of voting procedures and election
administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators
Schumer and Brownback as an original cosponsor on the Federal Election
Modernization Act of 2001. It has been approximately three months since
Americans cast their vote for President, and for many, there remains a
degree of uneasiness about the whole process. Many Americans who voted
or tried to vote feel disenfranchised. They believe their votes didn't
count and their voices weren't heard.
We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy
tests, and other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from
the polls. But if there is even an inadvertent flaw in the design or
administration of our voting systems that prevents Americans from
having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility to ensure
that we remedy the situation.
There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy nation
in the world to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it
is disturbing, to say the least, that much of the oldest and least
reliable equipment is found in the poorest counties across the country.
Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those
counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having to
explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn't
get counted, while their white suburban neighbors, using better
equipment, could rest assured that there were no voting irregularities
in their precincts that would have caused their votes to be discarded.
If we can't promise all of our citizens that their votes will count
equally, then all of the past work this nation has done to guarantee
the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been
squandered.
That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues on this bill. The bill
creates a blue ribbon commission that will study the way we administer
Federal elections and recommend ways to modernize the process. The bill
also establishes a five-year, $2.5 billion grant program to help
upgrade state and local election systems.
Both of these elements are critical if we are going to have real
reform of our election processes. The commission, which will include
among its advisory members a representative from the US Commission on
Civil Rights, will study methods of voting and counting votes, methods
of ensuring accessibility to the polls and to voting equipment, and
methods of identifying registered voters. Its mission will be to
provide Congress with recommendations to better ensure that all of our
citizens can exercise their fundamental right to vote and have that
vote count.
The second piece of this legislation provides states with a portion
of the estimated $3-9 billion they will need to upgrade their voting
systems. This bill provides $2.5 billion over five years in Federal
matching grants to States and localities to buy new voting equipment,
overhaul election administration technology, train poll workers, or
implement any other recommendation of the Commission. States and
localities will maintain their independence in administering their
elections, as states are not required to carry out the Commission's
recommendations. But more and more states are sure to apply for grants
to finance the reforms they wish to adopt.
The Federal government must provide states with at least a portion of
the resources they will need to overhaul their voting systems. State
officials, from governors to county supervisors, face competing demands
for funds every day, as they decide how to pay their teachers, pave
their roads, and remove their garbage. When it comes to paying for
Federal elections, buying the newest, most reliable technology may be
far down on their list of priorities. That is why the Federal matching
grant program is so important. It gives the incentive, as well as the
resources, to make improvements that are necessary to assure the
integrity of our elections.
If there is a silver lining to the chaos that followed the election
in November, it is that Congress is now fully aware that we must repair
our election system nationwide. This bill is critical to that effort.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 381. A bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
voting Act, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief act of 1940, and
title 10, United States Code, to maximize the access of uniformed
services voters and recently separated uniformed services voters to the
polls, to ensure that each vote cast by such a voter is duly counted,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. ALLARD. Mrs. President, the bad taste left in everyone's mouth
after the Florida election debacle is certainly strongest in those who
had their franchise questioned while, incredibly, they were away
serving our country. Military men and women are forced to give up some
opportunities during their military service that the rest of us can
still enjoy. They surrender some of the freedom of speech, privacy and
personnel liberty that we take for granted. But losing their right to
vote is never something they agreed to face, and never something we
should allow them to face.
The bill I am introducing today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
the Military Voter Support Act, enhances the voting ability of absentee
military voters in six key ways. This bill will help us ensure that we
will not see the repeat of campaign lawyers scrutinizing military
ballots in a partisan attempt to silence their voice.
I know that I was not the only one who felt outrage over this. My
office received a flood of calls and letters from Colorado citizens
equally upset. I hope this bill proves to our uniformed voters that we
not only value their service, we value their voice, and we value their
right to vote.
The language applies to service members, their spouses, and voting
age dependents who are necessarily absentee with them.
The bill prohibits a state from disqualifying a ballot based upon
lack of postmark or witness signature alone--this was the basis for
most absentee ballot challenges in Florida. Technical faults beyond the
control of the voter should not endanger their ballot.
The bill secures the voting residence of a military voter as they
travel on orders. It prevents a repeat of the 1997 Texas lawsuit
challenging future intent of residency.
It will allow polling places to be operated on military installations
to serve military voters and others at the discretion of the
appropriate service Secretary. The law against this was revived and
enforced by the Clinton Administration for the 2000 elections.
There is a Catch-22 for military voters who are discharged and move
before an election but after the residency deadline. They cannot vote
through the military absentee ballot system. Yet sometimes they are not
able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. This bill
allows them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and
vote in person at their new polling site.
Given the technologies available to us, it should be possible for the
military to devise and run an efficient and reliable electronic voting
program. The bill calls for a demonstration program during the 2002
elections of a possible electronic voting system for the 2004
elections.
After each election the Pentagon Federal Voting Assistance Program
makes recommendations to each state on ways to improve the voting
ability of absentee voters by state statute changes. This bill brings
more attention to bear on these improvements--and hopefully generates
more state legislature interest--by requiring the states to report on
their implementation of these suggestions to the Secretary of Defense.
I believe this mild requirement upon a state will raise the profile of
these fixes, and facilitate in-depth discussion and study by the
states. And that will, in turn, only serve to improve military absentee
voting.
[[Page S1524]]
I sincerely hope that military members understand that we in the
Congress are as outraged as they are about the problems they
experienced in voting. This bill is a way to attack those problems.
With it, I hope the 2002 election and every one following is a far
better demonstration of our democracy and the value we place on the
right to vote.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins,
Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 382. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic
information with respect to health insurance; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. I am delighted
to be joined by Senators Frist, Jeffords, Collins, DeWine, and Enzi as
original cosponsors of this bill, which provides strong protection to
all Americans against the unfair and improper use of genetic
information for insurance purposes.
Similar language passed the Senate in the last Congress as part of
the Patients' Bill of Rights, and as an amendment to the FY2001 Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill by a vote of 58 to 40. The only
substantive difference between this year's legislation and last year's
is the inclusion of a safe harbor provision to prevent conflict with
the new HHS medical confidentiality regulations.
This bill ensures that people cannot be denied insurance coverage on
the basis of genetic information, cannot be dropped from coverage on
the basis of genetic information, cannot be charged exorbitant premiums
based on genetic information, and cannot be discriminated against for
requesting or receiving genetic services.
The bill also ensures that insurance companies cannot release a
person's genetic information without their prior consent, and cannot
carve out covered services because of an inherited genetic disorder.
Finally, we included safe harbor language to prevent conflict with the
new privacy regulations published in December by the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Scientists are finding genetic links to a whole host of diseases such
as breast cancer and Huntington's disease--in fact, there are now tests
for over 450 disorders including Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis,
Parkinson's, glaucoma, and kidney and colon cancer. Last June America
learned that scientists have completed their mapping of the human gene.
This was a remarkable and historic event that opens the door to new
scientific breakthroughs that may well help lead us one day to the
cause and cure for many of these diseases.
Unfortunately, this remarkable news has the potential to become a
dangerous tool. As the old adage goes, ``knowledge is power'' and an
insurance company could use genetic information to deny insurance to an
individual because they know that the person is predisposed to a
particular disease or health problem.
Today in America, we know that an estimated 15 million people are
affected by over 4,000 currently known genetic disorders. And while we
cannot yet prevent the diseases that genetic testing can help us find,
we can give carriers of these mutated genes the information they need
to take extra precautions to protect their health and that of their
loved ones.
It is important to remember that while genetic testing is helpful as
an informational tool, it still remains an inexact science. Prediction
does not mean certainty--in the case of the Alzheimer's gene, for
example, there is less than a 35 percent chance that a patient who
tests positive for the mutated gene will actually develop the disease.
And yet, that person should not have to worry about their health
insurance coverage?
For instance, when it comes to breast cancer, we know that early
detection can often mean the difference between life and death. We also
know that women who inherit mutated forms of either of two genes
related to breast cancer--BRCA1 or BRCA2 have an 85 percent risk of
developing the disease. So, should a woman test positive, she is more
likely to take measures such as regular mammograms and self-
examinations that can detect cancer early--thereby giving herself a
fighting chance.
But at the end of the day, all of this means nothing if people are
afraid to take advantage of genetic testing. And people are afraid that
the trade-off for gaining an edge in the battle against disease could
be losing health insurance--or higher premiums. That's just plain
wrong. We need every advantage we can get when it comes to breast
cancer and other diseases, and that's why we need this bill.
The bill we are offering will address these concerns and will allow
our health care system to catch up to the tremendous health care
advances of the past few years. It makes no sense to be on the cutting
edge of medicine but remain in the dark ages when it comes to genetic
discrimination.
Anyone who has heard me speak on this issue before has heard me tell
of the story of Bonnie Lee Tucker, a constituent whose situation is so
compelling that it bears repeating. Indeed, Bonnie Lee puts a face and
a name to the very problem I am trying to address here with this bill.
Nine women in Bonnie Lee's immediate family have been diagnosed with
breast cancer. And Bonnie Lee herself is a breast cancer survivor. So
you can imagine that Bonnie Lee is very worried about her daughter, and
would like more than anything to have the BRCA test for breast cancer.
But she hasn't because she is frightened that having this test could
ruin her daughter's chances of ever obtaining insurance in the future.
Bonnie Lee Tucker is not alone. Across this country there are mothers
and fathers who are caught in a grip of fear for their children--fear
that they may have passed along a disease that, without early detection
and treatment could kill their child and fear that if a genetic test
detects a mutated gene they will have ruined their children's chance of
obtaining insurance further down the line.
This bill will put an end to discriminatory insurance practices based
on genetic testing and allow patients the freedom to access vital
information about their health--and I hope my colleagues will join us
in supporting it.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the critical issue
of genetic discrimination and to once again proudly join my colleagues,
Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, and DeWine, in introducing the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 2001.
This progressive, forward-looking legislation, which we have developed
and pushed over the past several years, will provide patients with real
protections against the threat of genetic discrimination in health
insurance.
This week, researchers will, for the first time, publish the complete
human genome map and sequence. As a physician and researcher, I applaud
the completion of this work, and recognize that, although much has been
done, much more remains before we may have a complete understanding of
the human gene and its role in many diseases.
Over the past several years, I have closely followed the progress of
the research into the human gene, aware of the prospect that it has to
radically alter the practice of medicine, but also concerned by its
potential for harm. The past generation has witnessed dramatic progress
in this area--and I am aware of the great differences in medicine
between the time when my father was visiting patients' homes with his
black doctor's bag and my own experiences in heart and lung
transplantation. But our increasing knowledge of the human genome
represents an opportunity for revolutionary advances in medical
diagnoses and treatment. Having access to these secrets of the human
gene may open doors to an entirely new way of practicing medicine over
the coming decades, by producing drugs designed for specific genes and
genetically engineered organs for use in organ transplants, as well as
enhancing the ability of preventive care based in large part on genetic
testing.
We have already identified genes that are associated with an
increased risk of diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer and
Alzheimer's dementia. In the past several weeks, in fact, researchers
announced the discovery of a gene linked with type 1, or juvenile,
diabetes, noting that, although the gene
[[Page S1525]]
may not be the sole cause of the disease, targeting the gene, may help
prevent its onset. As science moves forward, researchers will continue
to learn more about links between genes and the risk of future disease.
And, as more is learned in these fields, physicians will be able to
better treat their patients against the risk of future diseases by
prescribing preventive measures based on an individual's genetic tests.
However, as important as these advances are, there exists a threat to
our ability to realize their full potential. If, as has been found to
be the case, patients fear retribution for carrying ``bad'' genes and
refuse to be tested, then much of the fruits of these labors will have
been in vain. As more individuals fear discrimination in health
insurance through denial of coverage or costly premiums, they will be
more likely to refuse genetic testing. For example, as I noted when we
first introduced this legislation two years ago, almost one-third of
women offered a test for breast cancer risk at the National Institutes
of Health declined, citing concerns about health insurance
discrimination.
Often here in the United States Senate, we are asked to pass
legislation in response to past or ongoing problems. But the
legislation we are introducing today gives us a great opportunity to
avoid this, to pass forward-thinking legislation that will prevent a
problem, rather than be forced to revisit this issue in a few years to
attempt to remedy a problem.
Particularly in the fields of biomedical research, where scientific
progress moves at a rate much quicker than public policy debate and
legislation, we are often forced to confront issues after the fact. But
although we know that the fear of health insurance discrimination based
upon one's genetic test results is already present in society, we have
an opportunity through this legislation to calm that fear and to
prevent such discrimination from ever taking place. But let no one
misunderstand me. While this legislation is a chance to prevent what
might happen, our window of opportunity is rapidly shortening. The
every-escalating speed of genetic discovery demands that Congress move
to prohibit discrimination against healthy individuals who may have a
genetic predisposition to disease.
The bill that I introduce today with Senators Snowe and Jeffords does
just that. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health
Insurance Act of 2001 prohibits group health plans or health insurance
issuers from adjusting premiums based on predictive genetic information
regarding an individual. It prohibits issuers in the individual
insurance market from using predictive genetic information to deny
coverage or set premium rates. It prohibits insurers from even asking
an individual for predictive genetic information or requiring that
person to undergo genetic testing. And it makes certain that insurers
establish and maintain appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality
of predictive genetic information as well as provide patients a
description of those procedures in place to safeguard their predictive
genetic information.
Over the past several years, Congress has invested great amounts in
biomedical research, through the push to double the budget of the
National Institutes of Health and other initiatives. The underlying
goal in these endeavors has been to see patients benefit from our
investments and fully utilize these medical advancements to improve
their health. The deciphering of the human genome presents an
unparalleled opportunity to more towards this goal of improving
patients' health, but this will not be possible unless individuals are
willing to be tested. Patients must feel safe from repercussions based
on their genetic profile. The prohibition of genetic discrimination in
insurance will remove the greatest barrier to testing and thus further
accelerate our scientific progress.
Patients must not forgo genetic testing because they fear they may be
discriminated against in insurance. We have the opportunity--we have
the duty--to dispel the threat of discrimination based on an
individual's genetic heritage, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to enact this legislation this year.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 383. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 384. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the
dependent care credit refundable; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long-term care is an issue that continues
to tug at Congress and this country. In 1997 close to $117 billion was
spent on long-term care--almost 12 percent of total U.S. health care
expenditures. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care
will double by 2025, up from the 9 million using these vital services
today.
The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is
made by that individual and their loved ones. For many people,
remaining at home is their choice. It allows them to remain with their
loved ones in familiar surroundings. But we all know the truth is that
in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the family.
We need to do more to assist these people and their families so that
they really do have a choice.
Toward that end I am introducing a bill that provides a tax credit
for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's
disease. When I first came to Congress over 20 years ago, not a single
piece of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been
introduced. We have come a long way since then, as today
``Alzheimer's'' is a household word. It is also the most expensive
uninsured illness in America.
Alzheimer's treatment is estimated to cost $100 billion each year.
And according to the Alzheimer's Association it costs businesses in
this country more than $33 billion a year due to caregiver absenteeism.
Sadly, the number of those affected by this disease is rising and will
continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million
by the middle of the century. As staggering as these numbers are, they
pale in comparison to the emotional costs this disease places on the
family.
The first bill I am introducing today would allow families to deduct
the cost of home care and adult day and respite care provided to a
dependent suffering from Alzheimer's disease. This bill is important
because we need to, as a country, help lessen the financial and
emotional cost of Alzheimer's by providing some relief to Alzheimer's
patients and their families.
The second bill I am introducing today will strengthen the dependent
care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to provide the
greatest benefit of the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill
expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable respite care
expenses, and makes it refundable.
In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and
moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related
dependent care. We have changed the DCTC since it was created 25 years
ago and in fact, in the 1985 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the basic
provision of the tax code that determine tax liability except for DCTC.
We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect today's
world.
As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of
our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large
burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can
range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is more
than of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many
families, but it is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income
brackets.
My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to inflation and
making it refundable so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds
will still receive assistance. It also raises the DCTC sliding scale
from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for
families earing $15,000 or less. The scale would then be reduced by 1
percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of income, down to a
credit of 20 percent for person earning $45,000 or more.
[[Page S1526]]
In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill
also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care,
thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care
credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent
care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that
will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care
to their loved ones at home.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 385. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove a
limitation on the expansion of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
improve our existing laws regarding the Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps programs, more commonly known as JROTC. Established by
Congress in 1916, Junior ROTC has demonstrated over the decades that it
works. Junior ROTC is an elective high school course taught by retired
military personnel at selected private and public high schools in the
United States and its territories. It is also taught abroad through the
Department of Defense Dependents School System. The main goal of JROTC
is to motivate and develop young people. In order to accomplish this
goal, the program combines classroom instruction and extracurricular
activities oriented on attaining an awareness of the rights,
responsibilities, and privileges of citizenship; developing the
student's sense of personal responsibility; building life skills; and
providing leadership opportunities.
As we are all aware, President Bush recently placed our Nation's
youth at the top of his agenda. In his forward to the ``No Child Left
Behind'' Education Reform Plan, the President stated that ``[the]
mission is to build the mind and character of every child, from every
background.'' There is no existing education program that accomplishes
exactly this goal better than JROTC. What students study in Junior ROTC
is not primarily found in textbooks. What is learned by students
enrolled in JROTC is not at the disposal of students and schools
without the JROTC programs. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps,
General Charles Krulak, summarized in a March 19, 1999 letter to me,
``as we seek to identify and develop young men and women of character,
this program does it all.''
Widely recognized studies have praised JROTC as having a dramatic
positive impact in high school education. In fact, one report noted
that JROTC cadets boast a better class attendance rate, a lower number
of disciplinary infractions, and a higher number of graduates. The
report also stated that ``Cadets performed better than the overall
school population in every area that is routinely measured by
educators, including: academic performance, grade point average, the
Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the American College Test.'' It comes as
no surprise that schools districts throughout the United States are
clamoring to establish JROTC units at hundreds of high schools.
While the primary purpose of JROTC is to develop good citizens, there
are, in fact, tangible benefits to our Nation's Armed Services.
Statistics demonstrate that over 40 percent of students who graduate
from the JROTC program choose some form of military service. Without a
doubt, this fact proves conclusively that good citizens choose to serve
their country.
The JROTC program's contribution to our Nation's schools, communities
and Armed Forces is no less than remarkable in conveying a sense of
service, patriotism, leadership communication skills, team work, and
self-esteem. After JROTC and advancing into their futures, young men
and women carry such virtues into America's society while serving as a
bridge between the military and civil society at a time when the two
have tended to diverge. The dividends of this cannot be overstated.
Soon we will be unable to expand the proven and praised Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. By law, the JROTC program is
limited to having 3,500 units for schools throughout the United States.
Each of our military services have limits to the number of units they
may establish, and the Marine Corps has already reached its
limitations. Without changing existing law, thousands of high schools
will never have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the JROTC
program. Furthermore, some Services have encountered difficulty
recruiting retired Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers to fill
instructor positions at certain high schools, especially in inner-city
and rural schools. These staffing difficulties compromise the ability
to establish these especially critical new units.
The legislation that I am introducing today is straightforward and
simple. It seeks to repeal limitations on the number of Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps units and opens the door to the many retired
Guard and Reserve Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers who have
expressed an interest in serving as JROTC instructors, but because of
the existing law are unable to do so.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Every Member in
Congress has a stake in assuring its unfettered enactment.
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. 385
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF JUNIOR RESERVE
OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS UNITS.
Section 2031(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking the second sentence.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE EMPLOYMENT OF
RETIRED NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL AS
JROTC ADMINISTRATORS AND INSTRUCTORS.
Section 2031(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``regular or reserve component'' after ``as
administrators and instructors in the program, retired'' in
the matter preceding paragraph (1).
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 386. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic
District in the city of Paterson, in Passaic County, New Jersey, as a
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to recognize the historical significance of the Great Falls area in
Paterson, New Jersey. I am joined by my colleagues from New Jersey,
Senator Corzine, and pleased to announce that companion legislation has
already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman
Bill Pascrell.
Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander
Hamilton founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public
partnership, using the powerful falls to power industry. He built a
laboratory, and established the Society for the Establishment of Useful
Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles industry. Textiles
were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once
known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile
industry for many years.
New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed to
the growth of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis
Island, settled in Paterson, and provided the workforce necessary for
this newly industrialized city to thrive.
Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with
natural beauty. The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of
urban development. The Great Falls is the second largest waterfall on
the East Coast, and attracts visitors from within and outside of New
Jersey.
Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey's
children. Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to
witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution,
and the pioneers who helped build our Nation.
This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I
feel it is
[[Page S1527]]
only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by
establishing the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the National Park
Service, NPS.
The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of
Great Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark.
Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence Great
Falls, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a
better, more educational interpretation of the site.
This designation is warranted. Our Nation's urban history is
currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story
of the growth of our Nation and its economy from that of agrarian to
industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts, a one-time industry
powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national park, I am
not aware of another NPS site which represents our Nation's rich urban
history.
My legislation would take the first step towards this important
designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of
establishing a national park at the Paterson Great Falls area. I ask
that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that a
critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to future
generations.
____________________