Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 26 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 26 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1748-S1789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Baucus, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Bunning, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 421. A bill to give gifted and talented students the opportunity
to develop their capabilities; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, with nine of
our colleagues, the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. It is
vital

[[Page S1749]]

that we recognize the nearly three million students in the United
States who are talented and gifted and provide them with a challenging
education.
Our nation depends on students who will become the next generation of
leaders in business, economics, the sciences, medicine, and education.
Our lives will be enriched by the next generation of performing and
fine artists. However, many of our gifted and talented students are not
being challenged to their fullest ability at school and, as a result,
are not performing at world-class levels. Worse, many of our top
students lose interest in school and abandon their education
altogether. If these gifted students are not adequately challenged,
they will direct their energy and gifts toward destructive and wasteful
activities and become a burden to society, instead of the most
productive contributors.
The Gifted and Talented Students Education Act will help to ensure
that gifted and talented students have the opportunity to achieve their
highest potential by providing block grants, based on a state's student
population, to state education agencies. These grants will be used to
identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented
students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including
students with limited English proficiency and students with
disabilities. The bill outlines four broad spending areas but leaves
decisions on how best to serve these students to states and local
school districts. The legislation ensures that the federal money
benefits students by requiring the state education agency to distribute
not less than 88 percent of the funds to schools and that the funds
must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent.
Additionally, rather than simply accepting federal funds for a new
program, states must make their own commitment to these students by
matching 20 percent of the federal funds. The matching requirements
will help ensure that programs and services for gifted education
develop a strong foothold in the state.
Currently, the only support talented and gifted students receive from
the federal government is through the successful research based Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. One well-known effort
is Project CUE, a collaborative effort that included the College of New
Rochelle and School District 9 in the South Bronx, which serves
approximately 32,000 mostly poor and minority students. The program was
designed to institute high-level challenging content for elementary
school students, and to identify and nurture those students whose
interests and talents could be developed in mathematics and science.
Evaluation of the project indicated a significant improvement in the
overall academic achievement of those students identified as
potentially gifted, as well as increases in school attendance rates.
Furthermore, the project resulted in a twenty percent improvement
school-wide in science and math achievement, as measured in both local
and statewide standardized tests. Just imagine how ALL talented and
gifted students could benefit from consistent funding and support to
implement programs like the one in the South Bronx.
Mr. President, our nation's gifted and talented students are among
our great untapped resources. We must help states and local school
districts provide a challenging education for these students so their
particular gifts can flourish and be fully realized. It is my sincere
hope that you and the rest of our colleagues will make this commitment
to talented and gifted students this year.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Levin, and Ms.
Stabenow):
S. 422. A bill to provide that, for purposes of certain trade
remedies, imported semifinished steel slab shall be treated as like or
directly competitive with taconite pellets; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. This is a
bill Senator Dayton and I are introducing today, and we are joined by
Senators Levin and Stabenow.
This legislation is a huge priority for Senator Dayton, and it is a
huge priority for me. This is not abstract legislation. This is all
about people whom we love and in whom we believe. This is about
taconite. This is northeast Minnesota, the Iron Rangers. This is about
our State.
Senator Dayton and I are going to divide our time equally. I will
follow Senator Dayton.
Sometimes when we introduce legislation, it stays on the calendar,
and other times we introduce legislation because we are determined in
every way possible to look for ways to pass it, to work with the
Department of Labor administratively on trade adjustment assistance.
We are going to devote all of our efforts jointly to pass legislation
and get some relief, some assistance for people who are going through
such difficult times. I think our colleagues will support us in this
effort. I yield the floor to Senator Dayton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to join with my
very distinguished colleague and long-time friend, the senior Senator
from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, to introduce with him the Taconite
Workers Relief Act of 2001.
That this legislation is even needed is a great American tragedy
because this hard and dangerous work of iron ore mining and taconite
production has bred a very special type of person. In Minnesota, we
call them Iron Rangers. They are men and women who for generations have
been hard-working, community-building, and patriotic Americans.
The bitter irony in the title of this legislation is that these men
and women do not want relief; they want work. Unfortunately, over the
last 20 years, the trade policies of successive administrations have
thrown thousands of them out of work, and they now threaten to
extinguish the iron ore mining and taconite-producing industries in
Minnesota entirely, as well as the basic steel-making industry
throughout this country.

Twenty years ago, this industry employed over 15,000 Minnesotans.
Today, it is less than 5,000. Over 2,000 workers have been laid off in
the last 2 years, and 1,400 of them come from one company, LTV, which
has announced it is closing permanently.
It is bad enough that U.S. trade policies have allowed, and even
encouraged, this economic and social devastation which has caused
immeasurable and unspeakable human devastation in northeastern
Minnesota--broken lives, broken homes and families, severe depressions,
even suicides. Yet adding the grievous offense to these terrible
tragedies, the U.S. Government has also refused to allow these
displaced workers the benefits, the job training, and other supports
which Congress clearly intended when it passed the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor has consistently ruled that
taconite pellets were not in direct competition with imports of
semifinished steel or slab steel. That view is so ill-informed and
absurd that it would be laughable if it were not for the further damage
it has caused these already seriously harmed men and women. That makes
such rulings inexcusable and trade adjustment assistance denials
inhumane and even immoral.
This legislation would make such denials illegal. It would establish
the obvious: that the imports of semifinished steel, in addition to the
continuous import of foreign steel and iron ore, are directly causing
these job losses.
It establishes that the illegal dumping of these products are within
the province of the International Trade Commission which, I might add,
is proven to be an ineffective protector of Minnesota industries and
American jobs.
This legislation, while needed to provide the assistance these
workers need and deserve, is by no means a solution to the much larger
problem of protecting this basic industry for the sake of our national
economy, for the sake of our national security, and certainly for the
sake of these dedicated men and women in Minnesota and elsewhere in the
country who want to go to work, who want to earn a living, who want to
contribute to the economic strength of this country and who, through
misguided policies, are now being denied the opportunity to do so.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota.

[[Page S1750]]

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some
letters from steelworkers and their families--without using last names,
Barry, David, Lisa, Cliff, Joanne, and Lenore--be printed in the
Record, along with a letter of support from John Swift, who is a
commissioner of IRRRB, Jerry Fallos, USWA, which has just been ravaged
by the LTV shutdown, Vince Lacer, who is mayor of the city of Aurora,
and Richard Rojeski, USWA Local 2705, Chisholm, MN, along with letters
from Louis Jondreau, Cleveland Cliffs Union Coordinator, and other
letters of support from other steelworker local presidents throughout
the range, along with a letter from David Foster, who is director of
Steelworker District 11.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

To: The Honorable Senator Wellstone and Senator Dayton.
From: Barry.

Gentlemen: I am writing this letter to you in support of
receiving Trade Readjustment Allowance for those that have
been displaced because of illegally dumped steel. I would
like to tell you a little about my situation and myself. I am
married with 3 daughters 2 cats and one dog. I am 40 years
old, my wife Kathy is 41, my oldest daughter Jamie is 18,
Allycia is 13, and my youngest daughter is Alexandra. She
likes to be called Alex and is 7 years old. My oldest
daughter Jamie is currently going to college, which has also
stressed our financial situation. We are determined to get
her through college. We live in a little town called Gilbert,
MN. I have helped coach Babe Ruth Baseball and am on the
United Way board of directors. I feel I do whatever I can to
contribute to try to strengthen or support the community. I
guess that is why I feel compelled to write to you about our
situation.
LTV Steel Mining is the company that I used to work for.
The reason that I say used to work for is because LTV Steel
Corporation has announced that they are permanently closing
our plant because they cannot compete with cheap dumped
imported steel. There were approximately 1500 full time
employees working there. Except for just a handful of
employees to shut down the plant, the rest have been laid off
including myself.
I would hope that you could seriously consider promoting
TRA Benefits for those of us that are laid off. When I heard
the announcement last spring, I immediately enrolled and took
courses at a local junior college. Fall semester came and I
went into a 2-year course called Automated Control
Technologies. It was a struggle going to school full time,
working full time, and trying to spend time with my family. I
did it. I guess that I just want to show an example of my
sincerity in trying to educate myself for whatever job the
future may have for me. I really believe that I need an
education now in order to market myself for employment. I am
currently in the first year of a 2-year course. I would need
one more year to get my diploma. The graduation date would be
around June of 2002. I would need a monetary benefit to
support my family while I continue my education. Then I
promise you that once I finish school, I will be back into
the workforce.
I know that everything costs money but I believe that this
would be a good investment. The human element is the most
important factor in this equation. The financial assistance
that we need would strengthen our small rural areas and renew
our will and spirit. The opportunity to get an education
would help us make our transition into another employment
area. I am 40 years old and this could be my last chance to
be retrained. I am ready to take on the challenge but we need
your help. Our fate and future are in your hands. Thank you
for taking the time out to listen to me.
Sincerely,
Barry and Family.
____

United Steelworkers of America,

Local Union 4108, District 11,

Aurora, MN.
Dave and Lisa are both in their mid thirties. They have two
daughters, Haley seven and Nadia four. Two years ago Dave
injured his back at work and now has a partial permanent
disability. Dave was permanently laid off Friday and will
start collecting unemployment in two weeks. Dave is only one
of hundreds of laid off steelworkers who are in desperate
need of retraining. Dave will be out of unemployment and
medical benefits in six months.
Cliff and Joanne have two teenage children. Cliff has
twenty years of service with LTV. Cliff was permanently laid
off last week. In six months Cliff will run out of
unemployment benefits and will not have any health benefits
in one year. Cliff's wife was recently diagnosed with breast
cancer, their main concern is health insurance. With the
proper retraining, Cliff would be able to get a good job that
would help with health insurance.
Lenore is a single parent of a teenage son. She was just
permanently laid off from LTV. Lenore has a high school
education and general labor type skills she acquired from
working at the mine. She realizes that without the
opportunity to get retrained, she will have a difficult time
trying to get a decent paying job.
These are just a couple of examples of some of the 1400
people that will be impacted by the shutdown of LTV.
As of today 797 employee's have applied for retraining
through The Office Of Job Training. There are 189 people that
are currently taking some type of retraining classes. The
USWA/LTV Career Development Center has paid out over
$50,000.00 in tuition assistance and has used up their budget
for the entire year already. At the rate the money is being
spent we are afraid the entire grant of 2.1 million dollars
that the Office Of Job Training received for the LTV workers,
will be used up before everyone has an opportunity to use it.
____

Iron Range Resources &

Rehabilitation Board,

Eveleth, MN, February 27, 2001.
Hon. Paul Wellstone,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Dayton,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Oberstar,
U.S. Representative, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone, Senator Dayton and Congressman
Oberstar: I am writing to endorse the ``Taconite Workers'
Relief Act of 2001.'' Our agency believes it is of vital
importance that the taconite industry and its workers fully
benefit from our trade laws. The ``Taconite Workers' Relief
Act'' will enable Minnesota's working families on the Iron
Range to gain access to benefits and protections they need,
including Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Every ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons of
taconite in basic steel production. With U.S. imports of
semi-finished steel at all time highs and their prices at all
time lows, some domestic steel producers have turned to
dumped imports of steel slab, which has devastated the
taconite industry, and thousands of working families in
Minnesota. The injury caused by these imports is
unquestionable. Last month, production cutbacks ravaged the
U.S. iron ore industry: Northshore Mining Company announced
that it will cut 700,000 tons of production; U.S. Steel's
Minntac plant will cut 450,000 tons; the Hibbing Taconite
Company will cut 1.3 million tons of production; and LTV
Steel Mining Company closed its mining plant, permanently
eliminating 8 million tons of production and 1400 jobs.
By all accounts, the taconite industry and its workers are
in crisis. We must enact the Taconite Workers Relief Act
immediately to protect and strengthen the industry and the
communities of northern Minnesota.
Sincerely,
John Swift,
Commissioner.
____

United Steelworkers of America,

Local Union 4108, District 11,

Aurora, MN, February 23, 2001.
Dear Senators Wellstone, Dayton, and Congressman Oberstar:
I'm writing this letter on behalf of the 1200 employee's I
represent, that formally worked for LTV Steel Mining Company.
I can't begin to tell you how much your bill, the Taconite
Workers Relief Act, will mean to our members. As of today 900
employees were placed on permanent layoff. In six months
these people will be out of unemployment benefits and a lot
of them will be out of Health Benefits.
As every one knows the continued flow of imported steel is
devastating not only the steel industry, but also the
taconite industry. The taconite plants in Minnesota and
across the country are in a crisis they may never recover
from. With the closure of LTV steel Mining Company and the
continued layoffs of miners from the six other mines it is
critical to the survival of the Iron Range that this
important piece of legislation gets passed. The benefits and
protection that would be gained from this, is a critical
piece of legislation to keep the people in Northern
Minnesota. If this legislation is adopted it will enable the
people to get the assistance and retraining they need to get
on with their lives. With the help of you and other
legislators, we can help prevent what happened in the early
80's, when there were massive layoffs across the range, and
people lost their homes, and families were torn apart.
I know you have always said that our young people are our
greatest resource, with this legislation we can keep our
young people in Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Jerry Fallos,
President, Local 4108.
____

City of Aurora,

Aurora, MN, February 26, 2001.
Senator Paul Wellstone,
St. Paul, MN.
Dear Senators Wellstone and Dayton and Congressman
Oberstar: I am writing to endorse the ``Taconite Workers'
Relief Act of 2001''. We believe it is of vital importance
that the taconite industry and its workers fully benefit from
our trade laws. The ``Taconite Workers' Relief Act of 2001''
will enable Minnesota's working families on the Iron Range to
gain access to benefits and protections they need, including
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Every ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons
taconite in basic steel production. With U.S. imports of
semi-finished steel at all time highs and their prices at all
time

[[Page S1751]]

lows, domestic steel producers have turned to dumped imports
of steel slab, which has devastated the taconite industry,
and thousands of working families in Minnesota. The injury
caused by these imports is unquestionable. Last month,
production cutbacks ravaged the U.S. iron ore industry:
Northshore Mining Company announced that it will cut 700,000
tons of production; U.S. Steel's Minntac Plant will cut
450,000 tons; the Hibbing Taconite Company will cut 1.3
million tons of production; and LTV Steel Mining Company
closed its mining plant, permanently eliminating 8 million
tons of production and 1400 jobs.
By all accounts, the taconite industry and its workers are
in crisis. We must enact the ``Taconite Workers Relief Act of
2001'' immediately to protect and strengthen the industry and
the communities of Northern Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Vincent P. Lacer,
Mayor.
____

USWA Local 2705,

Chisholm, MN, February 23, 2001.
Senator Paul Wellstone,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing to you today to thank
you and Senator Dayton for taking time out of your busy
schedules to come to the Iron Range and listen to our
concerns in the mining Industry. I would like to tell you
that I am in full support of the TAA recommendations and hope
that we can get this through the Senate.
The importing of semi finished steel into this country is
detrimental to the economy of the Iron Range. We need to get
taconite pellets equal with semi-finished slabs and with the
bill that you are proposing on TAA recommendations I believe
will help the Taconite Industry and the Iron Range.
Please continue to press our issue of unfairly imported or
dumped steel and semi-finished steel. With your help I know
that we will win this battle.
Richard Rojeski,
President.
____

United Steelworkers of America,

Chisholm, MN, February 23, 2001.
Senator Paul Wellstone,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing you today to thank you
and Senator Dayton for taking time out of your busy schedules
to come to the Iron Range and listen to our concerns about
the mining industry. I would like you to know that I am in
full support of the TAA recommendations and hope that we can
get this bill through the Senate.
The importing of semi finished steel into this country is
detrimental to the Iron Range economy. We need to get
taconite pellets equal to semi-finished slabs and with the
bill that you are proposing on TAA recommendations I believe
will help the taconite industry and the Iron Range.
Please continue to press our issue of unfairly imported or
dumped steel and semi-finished steel. With your help I know
that we will win this battle.
Sincerely,
Louis P. Jondreau,
Cleveland Cliffs Union Coordinator.
____

Local Union No. 6860,

United Steelworkers of America,

Eveleth, MN, February 22, 2001.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing this letter in support
of the new legislation that you, Sen. Dayton and Rep.
Oberstar are introducing into the Senate and House of
Representatives on the illegal dumping of imports of semi-
finished steel into the U.S. market.
As you know, in June of 1999, EVTAC Mining laid off approx.
150 Bargaining Unit employees because of the illegal dumping
of imports of semi-finished steel into the U.S. market. I
attempted, thru your office and Rep. Oberstar's office to get
TAA/TRA benefits and was denied three (3) different times by
the Dept. of Labor because Pellets were considered to be not
alike, the same or not in direct competition with the imports
of semi-finished steel. At least half of these employees are
still in need of these benefits yet today.
This law could change this or at least help other employees
in the future.
I will do everything I can to help you, Sen. Dayton and
Rep. Oberstar get this Bill passed.
Please feel free to call if I can help.
In Solidarity,
Samuel H. Ricker,
President.
____

United Steelworkers of America,

District #11,

Minneapolis, MN, February 27, 2001.
Senator Paul Wellstone,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing to express my strong
support for your introduction of the Taconite Workers' Relief
Act which is designed to correct certain longstanding
inequities in American trade laws as they apply to the unique
situation of Minnesota and Michigan iron ore miners.
As you know, northern Minnesota was settled over 100 years
ago by immigrant miners recruited from over 30 different
countries to mine what were then known as the world's richest
deposits of iron ore. The Mesabi Range fueled the industrial
development of North America throughout the 20th Century,
provided the raw material for the steel that won two world
wars, and contributed to building many of the nation's great
industrial fortunes. It likewise was typical of the ethnic
melting pots that created the archetypal American
communities--governed by strong family values, a sense of
fair play, self-reliance, and a belief that working together
we could shape our own future as we wished.
The steelworkers who go to work every day in Minnesota's
iron ore mines, drilling, blasting, digging, hauling,
crushing, and refining millions of tons of taconite ore still
do so under remarkably harsh conditions. Twenty-four hours a
day, 365 days a year, working on graveyard shifts in wind
chills of 60 degrees below zero in the winter, as their
parents, grandparents and great-grandparents did, our members
are men and women with stamina and grit. We have always felt
capable of standing up for our families and ourselves.
But now we need our government to stand up for our jobs and
our communities. Without the enactment of federal legislation
that prevents the illegal dumping of semi-finished steel
products in the U.S. which destroy the market for the iron
ore we mine, our jobs will be lost and our communities will
die. We need the Taconite Workers' Relief Act to be passed
immediately.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Sincerely,
David Foster,
Director.
____

City of Biwabik,

Biwabik, MN.
Dear Senators Wellstone and Dayton and Congressman
Oberstar: I am writing to endorse the ``Taconite Workers'
Relief Act of 2001.'' We believe it is of vital importance
that the taconite industry and its workers fully benefit from
our trade laws. The ``Taconite Workers' Relief Act'' will
enable Minnesota's working families on the Iron Range to gain
access to benefits and protections they need, including Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
Every ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons of
taconite in basic steel production. With U.S. imports of
semi-finished steel at all time highs and their prices at all
time lows, domestic steel producers have turned to dumped
imports of steel slab, which has devastated the taconite
industry, and thousands of working families in Minnesota. The
injury caused by these imports is unquestionable. Last month,
production cutbacks ravaged the U.S. iron ore industry:
Northshore Mining Company announced that it will cut 700,000
tons of production, U.S. Steel's Minntac plant will cut
450,000 tons; Hibbing Taconite Company will cut 1.3 million
tons of production; and LTV Steel Mining Company closed its
mining plant, permanently eliminating 8 million tons of
production and 1400 jobs.
As you may or may not know, this not only impacts the
direct employees of the taconite industry, but equally as
great the families, vendors, schools and communities that are
affected by these layoffs, production cutbacks and shutdowns.
This is an issue of today, not tomorrow.
By all accounts, the taconite industry and its workers are
in crisis. We must enact the Taconite Workers' Relief Act
immediately to protect and strengthen the industry and the
communities of Northern MN.
Sincerely,
Steve Bradach,
Mayor.
____

United Steelworkers of America,

Local 6115,

Virginia, MN.
To whom it may concern: As a representative of workers at a
northern Minnesota mining operation, I feel you should know
the devastation on the lives of hard working individuals and
their families when our industry is shrinking, because of
unfairly traded steel and slabs. The downsizing of the steel
industry is a result of unfairly traded imports and we (the
mining industry) are doubly hit because of dumped slabs
coming into this country. Why won't an administration or law
help us or protect us with the same types of laws as the
other end of our industry? On behalf of our membership, I
would like to express our urgent support of Senator
Wellstone's ``Taconite Import Injury Adjustment Act of
2001.''
Sincerely,
Marty Henry,
President.
____

Upper Peninsula Building

Trades Council,

Marquette, MI, February 28, 2001.
Re: Taconite Workers Relief Act.

Hon. Paul Wellstone,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I want to go on record thanking you
for introducing the Taconite Workers Relief Act. You well
know the various consequences resulting from the Free Market
Free-for-All occurring in the unprotected Steel Industry. Not
the least of these consequences are the hardships that come
down on the workers and their families who mine iron ore, the
basic ingredient in steel production.
Those of us who provide construction services to the mines
also lose out when the profiteers dump steel, import cheap
iron ore, or otherwise take market steps that destroy our
basic industries in the united States. Our situation in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan is that workers in the
construction industry

[[Page S1752]]

will also suffer along with mining families as our steel and
iron ore industries are decimated by imports of one kind or
another.
There is another related side issue that bothers me, too.
What happens to our national defense capabilities when the
United States no longer has the capacity to produce high
grade steel, has no iron ore industry remaining, and perhaps,
no longer has a friendly relationship with those who produce
steel? Would that scenario not invite belligerence from our
enemies?
Thank you, Senator Wellstone, for your concern for all
workers.
Sincerely,
Jon G. LaSalle,
Field Representative.
____

Stand Up For Iron Ore,

Ishperning, MI, February 28, 2001.
Hon. Paul Wellstone,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I applaud your introduction of the
Taconite Workers Relief Act and offer you the full support
and encouragement of our organization, Stand Up For Iron Ore.
Your legislation will go a long way toward resolving the
problems we have come together to work on. As iron ore miners
and managers, vendors and suppliers, political and community
leaders we all have a stake in ensuring that our industry is
treated equally when trade cases are considered.
The iron ranges in Michigan and Minnesota have long been
integral to that basic foundation of America's industrial
might, the steel industry. For over one hundred and fifty
years vibrant communities have grown up around the mines.
Miners have worked under dangerous, grueling conditions to
support their families. Mining companies and employees have
paid the taxes that support government efforts Keewatin to
Washington.
I find it unconscionable that our industry has been ignored
as the impact of illegally traded steel has reverberated
through the economy. I thank you for attempting to rectify
this situation and I will do all I can to assist in rallying
support for your efforts.
Respectfully,
Mike Prusi,
Coordinator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dayton. This Taconite
Workers Relief Act that we are introducing is also being introduced in
the House of Representatives today by Congressman Oberstar.
This legislation has two central objectives. The first is to make
sure the taconite workers in the Iron Range in Minnesota, and taconite-
producing regions in Michigan, are eligible for trade adjustment
assistance. The second provision says that the taconite industry and
its workers should be fully brought under trade laws that, if enforced,
provide some protection for our working families: section 201 cases,
antidumping cases, and countervailing duty cases. I would like to take
those one at a time.
On trade adjustment assistance, I could not be more in agreement with
my colleague, Senator Dayton, from Minnesota. The argument that has
been made is that our taconite workers are not in competition with slab
steel or semifinished steel and that could not be further from the
truth in this highly integrated steel industry. We want to make sure we
get this trade adjustment assistance to people, and the sooner the
better. This is a matter of lifeline support. This is a matter of
enabling a worker or workers to go to school, to get additional
training, to have some support, to be able to keep their families
going. It is unconscionable--I think Senators, Democrats and
Republicans, will agree--that taconite workers now are not getting this
protection.
We will make the direct appeal to Secretary of Labor Chao, who seems
to me to be a very good person--agree or disagree on policies--because
I still think, Senator Dayton, that the Department of Labor can
administratively provide this support. It has been done before. We hope
it can be done again. We will make the direct appeal. We will work very
hard at this administratively.
But if we cannot do it that way, we will come out on the floor of the
Senate with an amendment, with a separate bill--however we best do it--
to make sure we can get this trade adjustment assistance for taconite
workers in Minnesota and in Michigan as well.
The other part of it deals with the whole question of trade laws and
making sure for taconite workers--and, for that matter, steelworkers in
general, because they are not, Senator Dayton, getting the protection
they deserve right now--that we really apply section 201 and really
look at the whole problem of other countries illegally dumping steel
and semifinished steel on our market way below the cost of production;
and our taking action.
What is Government for, if not to be on the side of hard-working
people. I say to my colleagues, you will not find a stronger work ethic
or a group of citizens who work harder than those on the Iron Range.
You cannot if you go anywhere in the country. The taconite workers fit
everything we say on the floor of the Senate about what we think is
important about America. They are people who work, work under tough
conditions, are absolutely committed to supporting their families, and
through no fault of their own they are out of work.
So I say to Senator Dayton, and I would like to go back and forth
with him in discussion in the time we have, I would say this is a
short-run solution and then we will be trying to get to the bottom of
this. In the short run, we want to make sure the assistance is there
for the taconite workers. This is about survival. This is about
supporting people who desperately need the help.
The other thing we want to do is get it right on trade on the Iron
Range in Minnesota, and I am sure the same is true for Michigan.
Frankly, I think about steelworkers and think about auto workers and I
think about industrial workers all across our country. Our workers are
not asking for any kind of isolationist policy. Our workers are more
than willing to compete in an international economy. But we want trade
laws that give us a level playing field.
When you have a situation where you have really what amounts to
illegal dumping of cheap semifinished steel or steel on the market or
when you have children working under deplorable working conditions,
with nothing done about that, we have to figure out a way that this new
global economy works for working people--works for working people in
Brazil, works for working people in Russia, works for working people in
South Korea, but also works for working people in the Iron Range of
Minnesota and all across our country.
We are committed to both fronts. I say to Senator Dayton, initially
we want to get this assistance to people right away, immediately. Then
we want to get colleagues engaged in this debate on trade policy which
is so important when it comes to what crucially affects the lives of
people.
I ask my colleague from Minnesota, if I can, whether he would be
willing to reflect with me on the floor of the Senate on some of the
meetings he has had in the range, just some of the conversations with
people and what this all means to Iron Rangers in personal terms. What
has been your experience meeting with steelworkers and others? I ask my
colleague that question.
Mr. DAYTON. I agree with you, Senator Wellstone. People up there are
suffering enormously because of these tragedies. To look in their
faces, to see the pain and suffering, to see fathers and mothers who
cannot support their families, who are losing not only their homes but
their jobs and way of life--as you know, Senator, thousands of people
from across the Iron Range have had to leave the area where they were
born, where their families have lived for generations, because they
cannot find work there.
We are losing especially the youngest. In fact, part of a whole
generation of Minnesotans have had to leave the Iron Range because of
the lack of job opportunities. The average age of a citizen now in
northeastern Minnesota is over the age of 55. Over half the citizens
who reside there are senior citizens. This kind of devastation is
really unspeakable, unfair, and, as I say, it is a consequence of over
20 years of what I believe are misguided trade policies.
I agree with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from
Minnesota, that we should be looking forward to working with the new
Secretary of Labor, the new ambassador, and the international trade
ambassador. They are not the architects of these policies. Hopefully,
with a new administration, we can work together because at least the
trade adjustment assistance benefits, the program itself--this is
clearly, precisely what was intended by Congress when it was passed. It
is just unconscionable that it has not been provided administratively
already.
I agree with you that should be an option. But in the broader context
of these policies, before these industries are wiped out in the United
States, I

[[Page S1753]]

hope the administration will take a serious look at them. I yield back
to my colleague.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, he is absolutely right. There
have been a number of meetings I have been at and I know the same
applies to Senator Dayton. I can remember one. It was right before
Christmas. It was a meeting in Aurora. There were a lot of people
there, a lot of the steelworkers, taconite workers, and also some of
their families. I was asking people, besides legislation, what else can
be done? This is the first time this has ever happened in the Iron
Range, at least in the 20 or 25 years I have been up there. Senator
Dayton, this one fairly young worker stood up and he said: We need help
for Christmas presents.

I never heard that before. When people were working, they made good
wages and had health care benefits. Now they are worried about
presents.
On the other issue that we are going to come up with, I don't know
what the position of the administration will be. I think the Clinton
administration was not strong enough at all. I am very skeptical about
where the Bush administration is going to go, but we are going to push
very hard, and where we can cooperate with them, we will do so; no
question about it.
One of the terrible issues when we get to the bankruptcy bill soon is
that for younger workers, next to losing their jobs, the next worst
thing is health care. You are losing your job, but then you are scared
to death about what is going to happen to health care coverage with
your children.
For the younger workers who have been laid off in the case of the LTV
mine shutting down, in a few months, they lose their health benefits;
for the older workers who have worked a little longer, 1 year.
Maybe the Senator would want to respond to this.
Then there are the retirees. What I heard from the retirees was they
are terrified LTV will file for chapter 7 and walk away from any health
care. A lot of those retirees--too many I think--are struggling with
cancer.
Did the Senator find that people were talking about health care as
well when he met with them, and does he think that is yet another issue
we ought to focus on?
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Wellstone. He points
to a couple of other failures of our society. As he said, there is a
lack of health coverage for families when someone loses their job
through no choice or fault of their own. That is one of the great
travesties of this situation. It takes what is an already awful
situation and makes it even more destructive to an individual. It is
bad enough when people can't afford Christmas presents, but then they
cannot afford to take their child to a doctor and cannot afford to have
their own health problems diagnosed on a timely basis. When they cannot
afford to get surgery, then it becomes a problem this country and
society should not allow.
I underscore the Senator's point that he made a short while ago.
There was a janitor's position that opened up to take care of all sorts
of restrooms and everything else in one of the county buildings and,
that paid less than $7 an hour. There were over 300 applicants for that
one position.
It underscores again how hard it is for people who want to work and
are willing to work at anything rather than take a handout and relief.
It is basic humanity to offer assistance.
Again, I hope to work with the Senator so that we can pass this
legislation. The administration must acknowledge their failure to
provide assistance to the men and women of the Iron Range who want to
contribute to the economic strength of this country.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my
colleague, Senator Dayton, on this. I think two Senators from the same
State who care deeply about people who are really hurting and who love
northeastern Minnesota are going to give this every bit of effort. I am
really looking forward to working with the Senator on this. I so much
want to help people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
from Michigan and Minnesota in sponsoring the Taconite Workers Relief
Act of 2001. This is an important piece of legislation for the future
of our States' taconite iron ore mines and their employees which are
facing a severe import crisis that is threatening to put them out of
business. Enactment of this legislation will simply allow an industry
providing a key input into finished steel to use existing trade laws to
fight back against harmful import surges and dumped steel as other
sectors of the steel industry may currently do under existing trade
law.
Taconite, iron ore, is an input into basic steel production and is
displaced when semi-finished steel slab are imported. For example, one
ton of semi-finished steel displaces 1.3 tons of iron ore in basic
steel production.
Unfairly traded steel imports are overwhelming U.S. production,
threatening to endanger both our national defense and manufacturing
base. Recently, steel producers have found it cheaper to import semi-
finished steel slabs than to make it themselves using iron ore from
Michigan's Upper Peninsula and Minnesota. Unfortunately, if our
taconite mines are overwhelmed by cheap imports and driven to
bankruptcy, we will lose our capacity to make steel without depending
on foreign sources of semi-finished steel. In effect, if we lose our
taconite mining industry, we lose our domestic integrated steel
manufacturing capabilities. For national security reasons, I don't
think that is something we want to do.
This crisis particularly impacts Michigan and Minnesota. The taconite
iron ore mines located there are a foundation of the economies in the
communities where they are located. To make matters worse, the iron ore
industry faces a unique problem in trying to combat these harmful and
unfair trade practices. Although its workers are losing their jobs to
cheap and probably illegally dumped imports, they cannot fight back
using our trade laws that were specifically designed to deal with these
situations.
This is because of how our trade laws have been interpreted in the
past and the failure to recognize the U.S. iron ore industry's standing
to file import relief cases against foreign producers of semi-finished
steel. For example, under previous interpretations of U.S. trade laws,
iron ore is not considered an article that is ``like or directly
competitive'' with an imported article that is found to be a
substantial cause of serious injury, or threat, to the domestic
industry, even though it is a key input in making finished steel. This
is clearly an oversight that should be corrected. The bill we are
introducing today will achieve that goal.
This legislation would ensure that the taconite industry and its
employees fully benefit from the protection of section 201, anti-
dumping and countervailing duties laws as well as making its displaced
employees eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. It does this by
designating Taconite pellets as ``like or directly competitive with
semi-finished steel slab'' for the purposes of eligibility for TAA and
Section 201 remedies. It also would consider imported semi-finished
steel slab eligible for countervailing duties, CVD, which are duties
intended to provide relief to a domestic industry, taconite, that has
been injured by subsidized imports, such as semi-finished steel, and
for anti- dumping remedies.
I hope the Senate will recognize the fairness in giving parity to a
critical sector of the steel industry that has been overlooked in the
past and should not be forgotten now. There is too much at stake to let
this industry go under.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 423. A bill to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
establishment of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in the State of Oregon,
and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Fort
Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2001 with my friends and
colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Senator Patty Murray
from Washington.
The Fort Clatsop Memorial marks the spot where Meriwether Lewis,
William Clark, and the Corps of Discovery

[[Page S1754]]

spent 106 days during the winter of 1805. The bicentennial of their
historic journey is fast approaching. It is estimated that over a
quarter-million people will visit the memorial during the bicentennial
years of 2003 though 2006. Despite this anticipated influx of visitors,
the memorial is legally limited to be no larger than 130 acres. This
legislation would authorize a boundary expansion of the memorial up to
1500 acres and will therefore help accommodate the increasing number of
visitors expected during the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The bill
also authorizes a study of the national significance of Station Camp,
another Lewis and Clark stopping point in 1805, located in Washington
State.
Since the 1980s, the United States Park Service in Astoria, OR has
been negotiating with Willamette Industries to acquire approximately
928 acres for the expansion of the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial. These
acres are integral to the interpretation and enjoyment of the
memorial's historic site. The Park Service and Willamette Industries
have reached an agreement that will enable the Park Service to acquire
this property. However, this legislation is necessary to authorize the
expansion of the memorial's boundary before any additional lands can be
acquired.
The Park Service has targeted the expansion of the Fort Clatsop
Memorial as one of its highest priorities. The Clatsop County
Commission supports this legislation, as do the local landowners in and
around the memorial. In addition, I have heard from the National Parks
and Conservation Association NPCA, the Trust for Public Lands, and the
Conservation Fund, all of whom support this effort to expand the Ft.
Clatsop Memorial.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation
because the protection of this important American historic area will
enable us to illustrate the story of Oregon and America's western
expansion for all who visit this special place. 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. 423

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 ``Fort Clatsop National
Memorial Expansion Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1805, the members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition
built Fort Clatsop at the mouth of the Columbia River near
Astoria, Oregon, where they spent 106 days waiting for the
end of winter and preparing for their journey home. The Fort
Clatsop National Memorial was created by Congress in 1958 for
the purpose of commemorating the culmination, and the winter
encampment, of the Lewis and Clark Expedition following its
successful crossing of the North American continent, and is
the only National Park Service site solely dedicated to the
Lewis and Clark expedition.
(2) The 1995 General Management Plan for the Fort Clatsop
National Memorial, prepared with input from the local
community, calls for the addition of lands to the memorial to
include the trail used by expedition members to travel from
the fort to the Pacific Ocean and to include the shore and
forest lands surrounding the fort and trail to protect their
natural settings.
(3) The area near present day McGowan, Washington where
Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery camped after
reaching the Pacific Ocean, performed detailed surveying, and
conducted the historic ``vote'' to determine where to spend
the winter, is of undisputed national significance.
(4) The National Park Service and State of Washington
should identify the best alternative for adequately and cost
effectively protecting and interpreting the ``Station Camp''
site.
(5) Expansion of the Fort Clatsop National Memorial would
require Federal legislation because the size of the memorial
is currently limited by statute to 130 acres.
(6) Congressional action to allow for the expansion of Fort
Clatsop for both the trail to the Pacific and, possibly, the
Station Camp site would be both timely and appropriate before
the start of the national bicentennial celebration of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition planned to take place during the
years 2004 through 2006.

SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR FORT CLATSOP NATIONAL
MEMORIAL.

The act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment
of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in the State of Oregon, and
for other purposes'', approved May 29, 1958 (Chapter 158; 72
Stat. 153), is amended--
(a) by inserting in section 2 ``(a)'' before ``The
Secretary''.
(b) by inserting in section 2 a period, ``.'', following
``coast'' and by striking the remainder of the section.
(c) by inserting in section 2 the following new
subsections:
``(b) The Memorial shall also include the lands depicted on
the map entitled `Fort Clatsop Boundary Map', numbered and
dated `405-80016-CCO-June-1996'. The area designated in the
map as a `buffer zone' shall not be developed but shall be
managed as a visual buffer between a commemorative trail that
will run through the property, and contiguous private land
holdings.
``(c) The total area designated as the Memorial shall
contain no more than 1,500 acres.''
(d) by inserting at the end of section 3 the following:
``(b) Such lands included within the newly expanded
boundary may be acquired from willing sellers only, with the
exception of corporately owned timberlands.''

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDY OF STATION CAMP.

The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a study of the
area known as ``Station Camp'' near McGowan, Washington, to
determine its suitability, feasibility, and national
significance, for inclusion into the National Park System.
The study shall be conducted in accordance with Section 8 of
Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 424. A bill to provide incentives to encourage private sector
efforts to reduce earthquake losses, to establish a national disaster
mitigation program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my thoughts go out today to the people
of Washington as they assess the damage and begin recovery from the
earthquake there yesterday afternoon.
Yesterday's event is a reminder that earthquakes are a national
problem, and one that can strike at any time, without warning.
It is in this light that I introduce, today, the Earthquake Loss
Reduction Act of 2001. This bill provides incentives to encourage
responsible state and local governments, individuals, and businesses to
invest in damage prevention measures before an earthquake strikes. It
is an ``ounce of prevention'' that will save the federal treasury,
homeowners, businesses, and state and local governments the ``pound of
cure'' for relief and recovery.
The legislation builds on the excellent work of our nation's earth
scientists and engineers by making implementation of loss reduction
measure a federal priority. We know where earthquake hazards exist,
which buildings and utility and transportation systems are most
vulnerable, and what the consequences will be to public safety,
community character, and our economy if an earthquake strikes. We also
know how to reduce losses. Guidelines exist that provide rational,
common sense approaches to upgrade weak facilities.
The challenge as we enter the 21st century is to put this knowledge
to work to reduce future losses, and improving the safety of Americans
and the performance of privately and publicly owned buildings and
facilities. The time to implement our knowledge is now.
There is no question that mitigation efforts save dollars and lives
in the long run. It worries me greatly that the President, in his
Budget, proposes a cut to existing mitigation efforts.
First, the President proposes eliminating the Project Impact program.
Project Impact is the nation's premier disaster prevention initiative.
Communities use Project Impact funds to retrofit hospitals and schools,
to create flood barriers, and to help shore-up communities against any
number of other possible natural disasters.
California has eight Project Impact communities, and has used Project
Impact funds to stabilize emergency facilities and other important
structures. Local communities do not always have the resources to
mitigate these facilities on their own.
There are two other proposals in President Bush's budget that are
cause for alarm.
1. The President's budget outline assumes $83 million in FEMA savings
by including a public buildings disaster insurance requirement, phased
in over three years. This provision would mean that public entities
like the U.C. system would have to have insurance on ALL structures
before they could apply for federal assistance in the event of a
disaster.
This proposal simply is not feasible for states like California.
Insurance companies in California do not offer

[[Page S1755]]

disaster insurance or, specifically, earthquake insurance.
It will be interesting to see how the cities affected by the
Washington earthquake would be affected by this rule. Insurance
companies in Washington do offer earthquake insurance and will be
paying-out over the coming months. It will be interesting to see if the
insurers are able to withstand the costs.
2. The budget also proposes reducing from 75 percent to 50 percent
the federal share of funding for hazard mitigation grants. Once again,
this is simply not feasible in California. California public
institutions would not be able to afford 50 percent of clean-up costs
after a major earthquake. It would be difficult for them to pay even 25
percent, which is current law.
These two provisions could cause my State, and others, great harm if
enacted. I am prepared to fight them, and I will.
The United States Geological Survey tells us there are 40 states and
five territories with a moderate or higher earthquake risk. Entire
metropolitan areas in these states and territories are at risk of being
crippled by earthquake damage because existing buildings and
infrastructure were built without appropriate seismic requirements.
Areas lying outside ``earthquake zones'' are also affected. Even
localized damage threatens complex economic systems and the magnitude
of federal disaster aid. Let me give you a few examples of potential
losses estimated by FEMA's regional earthquake loss estimation model,
HAZUS.
A magnitude of 7.0 earthquake on California's Newport-Inglewood fault
running through the Los Angeles basin could cause an estimated $80
billion in losses. Damage to buildings and business interruption would
affect Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and San
Diego Counties. About 58 percent of the damage would be to residential
buildings, displacing about 400,000 people. An estimated 100,000 people
would need shelter.
A magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault running along the
east side of the San Francisco Bay could cause about $37 billion in
damage. About 56 percent of the damage would be to residential
buildings, displacing about 140,000 people. More than half of the
losses would stem from damage to wood-frame homes and small business
buildings.
A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Border Ranges fault near Anchorage,
AK could cause about $5 billion in losses. Anchorage, a city of about
260,000 people, would suffer most of the damage. More than 60 percent
of the damage would be to wood-frame buildings serving as homes and
small businesses.
A magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Wasatch fault on the east side of
Salt Lake City could cause about $13 billion in losses to the eight
counties in that region. Most of the damage, about $11 billion, would
occur in Salt Lake County. Throughout the region, about 150,000 people
would be displaced, nearly 38,000 would require shelter, and nearly $10
billion of the losses would result from damage and disruption to
residential buildings.
As large as these estimates seem, the actual losses could be even
greater. Make no mistake, earthquakes will strike these regions and
others, we just do not know when. In each estimate, over half of the
losses are expected to come from residential buildings. Most vulnerable
residential buildings can be upgraded for reasonable levels of
expenditures. The incentives proposed in this bill could make it
happen.
While it is too early to determine the extent of the damage of
yesterday's earthquake in Washington, taking a look at the losses from
the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, CA. The direct losses from that
quake totaled more than $44 billion. For all disasters declared since
1989, FEMA has paid nearly $28 billion in disaster assistance for
repairs to public buildings and infrastructure and for humanitarian
aid. FEMA's outlay for Northridge alone represents 25 percent of this
12-year aggregate figure, approximately $7 billion.
You and I know that supplemental relief funds disrupt carefully
planned budget decisions and undermine on-going programs. For some
people, reducing recurring demands for federal disaster aid may be
reason enough to support this bill, but there are more compelling
reasons.
The cost and consequences of earthquakes are painful to the victims,
both individuals and businesses. The plight of those in the disaster
area may be obvious, but the effects extend outside of the disaster
area, often across state borders affecting those who depend on damaged
businesses and affected customers. The American economy depends on
closely linked businesses, suppliers of raw materials and components,
manufacturers, transporters, and marketers. Worldwide competitors seek
the market share of American business when a disaster disrupts our
economy.
Research from the Northridge earthquake indicates that even when
businesses did not suffer direct damage in that quake, their presence
in or near areas of wide-spread damage or disruption caused economic
hardship. Economic losses can be large and have long-term effects on
the future of businesses and regions. Simply put, earthquake loss
reduction efforts improve the sustainability of American businesses.
What we need is a widespread investment in loss reduction by many
parties, not just the federal government. Responsibility for earthquake
safety rests with state and local government, individuals, and
companies. The federal role I advocate is one of leadership backed by
incentives to inform and motivate those responsible to implement loss-
reduction actions. The result I seek is reduced pain and suffering, and
more sustainable communities and businesses.
The Federal Government is already contributing to earthquake disaster
prevention. In a little over twenty years, our National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program has sponsored research and development
activities in earth sciences and engineering and has produced the
knowledge and tools, such as the HAZUS estimates I noted earlier, we
need to reduce our risk. If we are to reduce losses, however, we must
put this knowledge to work.
Reducing earthquake losses depends on the actions of millions of
individual decision-makers, homeowners, business owners, and government
officials. Many successful measures are easy to implement, but may seem
expensive when considering competing demand for funds between immediate
issues and the perceived low probability threat of an earthquake. The
incentives in this bill provide good reasons to undertake loss
reduction efforts. This bill will move knowledge from the laboratory to
the community. The bill recognizes that shared responsibility for
prevention means that those responsible for the facilities at risk
accept responsibility for reducing the risk.
This legislation does the following:
1. It provides a credit against federal income taxes equal to 50
percent of a homeowner's investment in seismic retrofit, not to exceed
$6,000.
2. It provides businesses an opportunity to depreciate the cost of
seismic retrofit over five years.
3. The bill defines a seismic retrofitting bond as a bond for which
95 percent of the proceeds are used for seismic retrofitting
expenditures or used to finance loans to borrowers for seismic
retrofitting expenditures as ``qualified bonds.''
4. It encourages private investments in seismic retrofitting of
residential properties by allowing deduction of passive activity
losses.
5. The legislation provides mortgage insurance incentives for seismic
retrofitting of residences.
6. It authorizes a $1 billion Loss Reduction Trust Fund to provide
matching grants for mitigation measures and recovery planning grants to
reduce damage to buildings and utility and transportation systems
critical to disaster response. Provided to local government entities,
public and private hospitals, institutions of higher education, and
special districts, the trust fund grants would require that the state
and the local entity recipients benefitting from the investment fund a
portion of the cost. To be eligible, the local entities must also have
in place a long-term strategic earthquake loss reduction plan and
enforce land use, building code, and other measures to reduce the
vulnerability of facilities in the jurisdiction.
7. And the bill authorizes establishment of the Advanced National
Seismic Research and Monitoring System

[[Page S1756]]

by the United States Geological Survey.
The incentives offered in this bill are available only if the
recipient, sometimes with state aid, invests in the effort to prevent
losses. These investments will spawn meaningful loss prevention actions
that will benefit all of the stakeholders involved and will reduce the
need for disaster aid.
Public/private partnership work:
City of Berkeley, CA, has demonstrated that even small incentives
work. This city of 109,000 people spends about $1 million each year in
hazard reduction activities. It rebates a portion of its real estate
transfer tax, up to $1,500, to homeowners for loss reduction actions,
waives permit fees for seismic residential retrofit projects, and
offers low income loans up to $15,000 and some grants to low income
senior and disabled homeowners for retrofit work.
In the 10 ears since these incentives were put in place, 38 percent
of the single-family homes have had some form of retrofit work done and
30 percent of small apartment buildings have been improved.
Berkeley has also passed seven special taxes that concentrate funding
on pre-disaster mitigation.
Federal incentives can empower similar results nationwide. Cities
like Berkeley, where the earthquake threat is a critical community
concern, will benefit from the additional inducements included in this
bill.
Preventing damage makes sense, and it benefits our nation in many
ways besides reducing the need for disaster aide. Not all benefits are
easily quantified because they accrue to a variety of stakeholders and
many of the indirect and human effects are subtle, yet important.
Earthquakes impact all segments of the communities they strike,
individuals, businesses, and public services such as police, fire,
hospitals, and schools. Damage often creates economic ripples
throughout the community and beyond state borders. Homeowners, building
owners, their tenants, neighboring businesses, local and state
government, and the Federal Government will benefit.
Let me give you three examples of loss reduction projects that have
widespread benefits:
1. Water officials in Memphis, TN recently made the wise decision to
invest in a structural upgrade of the Davis Water Pumping station.
Strengthening this critical station cost about $488,000.
What the officials at the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division
recognize is that there is a fifty-fifty chance that a moderate
earthquake will strike the Memphis area within the next fifteen years.
It would cost $17 million to replace the water pumping station after
such an earthquake. Plus, every day the station is inoperable costs
about $1.4 million in lost services.
The loss of drinkable water affects the entire community and cripples
business activity. Considering the time to repair or replace a damaged
pump facility, it is estimated that the cost of lost services would be
$112 million. Clearly, a $488,000 investment is a good one.
The Loss Reduction Trust Fund established by this bill authorizes $1
billion in matching grants to strengthen critical infrastructure like
the Davis Water Pumping Station.
2. Another good example of forward thinking is the Anheuser-Busch
brewery in Los Angeles. After realizing its facilities were vulnerable
to earthquake damage, the company began a $20 million program to
retrofit critical buildings and equipment. The brewery is a critical
company asset because it supplies the Southwest and Pacific regions.
Although located only a few miles from the epicenter of the 1994
Northridge earthquake, the brewery was able to return to operation
after just minor cleanup, repairs, and restoration of off-site water
supply.
Anheuser-Busch estimated that damage and business interruption costs
could have exceeded $300 million after the Northridge quake, had it not
strengthened its facilities. There was more at stake than the viability
of a major business. Damage affects employees, federal, state, and
local government income, suppliers, vendors, and the surrounding
community.
By accelerating depreciation of seismic retrofit expenses, this bill
will encourage other businesses to carry out similar projects.
3. And there is another example from the Northridge earthquake. Three
months before that quake, a homeowner in the Hollywood area of Los
Angeles spent $3,200 to retrofit his 1911-vintage home. The house
survived with only minor damage, while similar houses on the same block
suffered severe damage. In fact, several of those neighboring homes
were demolished by the earthquake.
Many homes across the nation are built on poorly braced foundation
walls or piers and posts and are vulnerable to damage during even mild
earthquake activity. The cost to add the bracing needed generally is
only a few thousand dollars, yet the cost of repairing a home after it
falls is tens of thousands of dollars. As with a business, when a home
topples, there is more at stake than injury to family members and the
cost of repairs. Not to mention the fact that a falling home can spark
a fire that can burn an entire community.
This bill creates a tax credit for half of the cost of the seismic
retrofit of a residence, makes mortgages for earthquake resistant homes
more attractive than those for homes meeting lower standards, and makes
it easier for local government to use general obligation bonds
financing for loss prevention project loans.
FEMA's HAZUS software was recently used to estimate how the
individual actions provided by the bill could add up to significant
savings of importance to our communities, economy, and governments.
If a magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault
under Los Angeles today, it could cause about $80 billion in damages.
Thousands of businesses would be interrupted, 400,000 people would be
displaced, and there would be several hundred deaths. If every existing
building in that area were retrofitted to the standards in current
codes, the losses would drop by $28 billion to $52 billion. Business
interruption losses would drop from $15 billion to less than $6
billion. The number of people displaced would shrink to 93,000, and the
estimated number of deaths would drop by over 90 percent.
Similarly, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San
Francisco Bay area would cause about $37 billion in damages, if it
struck today. 140,000 people would be displaced. However, if every
existing building were retrofitted to the standards in current codes,
the losses would be reduced by a third. Business interruption losses
would drop from $6.5 billion to about $2 billion. The number of people
displaced would shrink to 40,000 and the estimated deaths would drop by
more than 90 percent.
Assuming that all buildings meet the latest seismic standards is
ambitious, but the resulting estimates give convincing evidence that
implementing loss reduction measures can pay handsome dividends.
Moreover, the importance of loss reduction efforts extends beyond
these quantitative estimates. Less damage means less psychological
pain, more sustainable communities and businesses, protected stocks of
low-income housing and architecturally and historically significant
buildings and neighborhoods, and protected family savings. Every time a
neighbor, employer, or local government invests in prevention, the
entire community benefits.
Earthquakes are a nationwide problem. They have struck the Northeast
and Northwest, damaged Charleston, Saint Louis, and Memphis, struck our
mountain states, Alaska, and Hawaii. They will strike these and other
places again.
Much of the knowledge we need to reduce losses from future
earthquakes exists. While some forward thinking businesses,
individuals, and local governments are already using the knowledge to
invest in measures to reduce future losses, the Earthquake Loss
Reduction Act creates modest federal incentives to foster a needed
increase in the implementation of hazard mitigation measures.
This bill also establishes a $1 billion grant program to match the
investments from local government entities, hospitals, and institutions
of higher education. It challenges states to add to this match, and
makes investment in properties for the purpose of seismic retrofit an
attractive investment in

[[Page S1757]]

our future. While the occurrence of large-scale earthquakes may be
perceived as a low probability, our experience shows the high
consequence of these events.
Strong federal leadership, and modest incentive, can lead Americans
to undertake loss reduction measures and can lead us to a safer
tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support the Earthquake Loss Reduction
Act.
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. 424

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 ``Earthquake Loss Reduction
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) After 23 years of research funded by the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, a substantial body of
knowledge exists about earth sciences, geotechnical, and
structural engineering and human behavior relating
earthquakes.
(2) The foremost challenge as we enter the 21st century is
putting this knowledge to work by reducing future losses to
improve the safety of Americans and the performance of State
and local government facilities and private buildings and
facilities.
(3) Earthquakes and tsunamis cause great danger to human
life and property throughout the United States and continue
to threaten Americans significantly in over 40 States and
territories.
(4) Too few States and local communities have sufficiently
identified and assessed their risk and implemented adequate
measures to reduce losses from such disasters and to ensure
that their critical public infrastructure and facilities will
continue to function after the disaster.
(5) Too much of the Nation's stocks of housing and
commercial buildings remain inherently vulnerable to
earthquake shaking. Future losses in these facilities can be
lessened using currently feasible technology.
(6) Too much of local government infrastructure remain at
risk and are likely to be non-functional in the aftermath of
foreseeable earthquake events at the time when the services
they provide are critically necessary.
(7) Federal, State and local government expenditures for
disaster assistance and recovery have increased without
commensurate reduction in the likelihood of future losses
from such earthquakes.
(8) Feasible techniques for reducing future earthquake
losses are readily available.
(9) Without economic incentives, it is unlikely that States
and local communities and the public will be able to
implement available measures to reduce losses and ensure
continued functionality of their infrastructure.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to establish a
national disaster mitigation program that --
(1) reduces the loss of life and property, human suffering,
economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting
from earthquakes;
(2) offers financial incentives to encourage private sector
efforts to reduce earthquake losses;
(3) provides matching finds to encourage and assist States
and local governments and the private sector in their efforts
to implement measures designed to ensure the continued
functionality of public infrastructure, commerce, and
habitation after earthquakes; and
(4) creates Federal, State and local government
partnerships to reduce the vulnerability of public
infrastructure, commercial enterprises, and residential
buildings to earthquakes.

SEC. 3. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO SEISMIC
RETROFIT OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.

(a) General Rule.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following:

``SEC. 25B. EXPENSES RELATED TO SEISMIC RETROFIT OF PRINCIPAL
RESIDENCE.

``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 50 percent of
so much of the qualified seismic retrofit expenses of the
taxpayer for the taxable year as do not exceed $6,000.
``(b) Qualified Seismic Retrofit Expenses.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified seismic retrofit
expenses' means amounts paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during the taxable year in relation to any seismic retrofit
construction of the principal residence of the taxpayer.
``(2) Seismic retrofit construction.--The term `seismic
retrofit construction' means any addition or improvement--
``(A) which is certified by the State disaster agency or
other applicable agency--
``(i) as resulting in the mitigation of the risk of damage
to existing property from an earthquake, and
``(ii) as being in addition to any addition or improvement
required by any State or local law with respect to such
property, and
``(B) which is placed in service at least 5 years after the
date the building is first placed in service.

Such term does not include the cost of acquiring such
property (or any interest therein).
``(3) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence'
has the same meaning as when used in section 121.
``(c) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under any other provision of this chapter with
respect to any amount of qualified seismic retrofit expenses
taken into account under subsection (a).
``(d) Basis Adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section with respect to any
residence, the basis of such residence shall be reduced by
the amount of the credit so allowed.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 25A the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Expenses related to seismic retrofit of principal
residence.''.

(2) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(28) in the case of a residence with respect to which a
credit was allowed under section 25B, to the extent provided
in section 25B(d).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenses paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 4. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN SEISMIC
RETROFIT EXPENSES.

(a) Treatment as 5-Year Property.--Section 168(e)(3)(B) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 5-year
property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause
(v), by striking the period and inserting ``, and'' at the
end of clause (vi), and by inserting after clause (vi) the
following new clause:
``(vii) any qualified seismic retrofit property.''.
(b) Definition of Qualified Seismic Retrofit Property.--
Section 168(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(15) Qualified Seismic Retrofit Property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified seismic retrofit
property' means any addition or improvement to real property
for which depreciation is allowable under this section--
``(i) for which the expenditure is properly chargeable to
the capital account, and
``(ii) which is a seismic retrofit.
``(B) Seismic retrofit.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), the term `seismic retrofit' means any addition or
improvement--
``(i) which is certified by the State disaster agency or
other applicable agency--

``(I) as resulting in the mitigation of the risk of damage
to existing property from an earthquake, and
``(II) as being in addition to any addition or improvement
required by any State or local law with respect to such
property, and

``(ii) which is placed in service at least 5 years after
the date the building is first placed in service.

Such term does not include the cost of acquiring such
property (or any interest therein).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified seismic retrofit property placed in
service after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 5. QUALIFIED SEISMIC RETROFITTING BONDS.

(a) In General.-- Section 144 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to qualified small issue bond; qualified
student loan bond; qualified redevelopment bond) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Qualified seismic retrofitting bond.--For purposes of
this part--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified seismic retrofitting
bond' means any bond issued as part of an issue 95 percent or
more of the net proceeds of which are to be used--
``(A) for seismic retrofitting expenditures, and
``(B) in a manner which meets the requirements of paragraph
(3).
``(2) Seismic retrofitting expenditure.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `seismic retrofitting expenditure'
means any amount properly chargeable to capital account--
``(A) which is certified by the State disaster agency or
other applicable agency--
``(i) as resulting in the mitigation of the risk of damage
to existing property from an earthquake, and
``(ii) as being in addition to any addition or improvement
required by any State or local law with respect to such
property, and
``(B) which is placed in service at least 5 years after the
date the building is first placed in service.

Such term does not include the cost of acquiring such
property (or any interest therein).

[[Page S1758]]

``(3) Use of proceeds requirements.--The use of the
proceeds of an issue meets the requirements of this paragraph
if within the 26-month period beginning with the date of
issue--
``(A) at least 95 percent of the net proceeds of such issue
are used for seismic retrofitting expenditures or are used to
finance 1 or more loans to ultimate borrowers for such
expenditures, or
``(B) to the extent not so used under subparagraph (A),
such proceeds in excess of $10,000 are used to redeem bonds
which are part of such issue.''.
(b) Bonds Treated as Qualified Bonds.--Paragraph (1) of
section 141(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining
qualified bond) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (F), by redesignating subparagraph (G) as
subparagraph (H), and by inserting after subparagraph (F) the
following new subparagraph:
``(G) a qualified seismic retrofitting bond, or''.
(c) Bonds Included for Purposes of Small Issuer Exemption
Status.--Subclause (I) of section 265(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to obligations not
taken into account in determining status as qualified small
issuer) is amended by inserting ``, or a qualified seismic
retrofitting bond, as defined in section 144(d)(1)'' after
``section 145''.
(d) Exception From Volume Cap.--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 a comma, and by adding after paragraph (4)
the following new paragraphs:
``(5) any qualified mortgage bond if 95 percent or more of
the net proceeds of the bond are to be used to provide home
improvement loans in connection with seismic retrofitting
expenditures (as defined in section 144(d)(2) without regard
to the capital account requirement), and
``(6) any qualified seismic retrofitting bond.''.
(e) Proceeds of Mortgage Revenue Bonds Used in Connection
With Seismic Retrofitting.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 143(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to other definitions
and special rules for qualified mortgage bonds) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Qualified home improvement loan.--The term `qualified
home improvement loan' means--
``(A) the financing (in an amount which does not exceed
$15,000)--
``(i) of alterations, repairs, and improvements on or in
connection with an existing residence by the owner thereof,
but
``(ii) only for such items as substantially protect or
improve the basic livability or energy efficiency of the
property, and
``(B) the financing (in an amount which does not exceed
$20,000) of seismic retrofitting expenditures (as defined in
section 144(d)(2) without regard to the capital account
requirement) in connection with an existing residence by the
owner thereof.''.
(2) Exception from income requirements.--Section 143(f) of
such Code (relating to income requirements) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Exception for certain qualified home improvement
loans.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
qualified home improvement loan (as defined in subsection
(k)(4)(B).''.
(f) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The heading of section 144 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by striking ``bond.'' and inserting ``bond
qualified seismic retrofitting bond.''.
(2) The item relating to section 144 in the table of
sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter B of chapter
1 of such Code is amended by striking ``bond.'' and inserting
``bond; qualified seismic retrofitting bond.''
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 6. TREATMENT OF PASSIVE LOSSES OF CERTAIN PARTNERSHIPS
ENGAGED IN SEISMIC RETROFITTING.

(a) In General.--Section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to passive activity losses and credits
limited) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(n) Exemption for Seismic Retrofitting Trade or
Business.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any natural person,
subsection (a) shall not apply to that portion of the passive
activity loss or the deduction equivalent (within the meaning
of subsection (j)(5)) of the passive activity credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to any seismic
retrofitting activity which such person engages in during the
taxable year, whether or not the taxpayer materially
participates in such activity.
``(2) Seismic retrofitting activity.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `seismic retrofitting activity' means
any activity which involves the trade or business of seismic
retrofit construction (as defined in section 25B(b)(2)) for
residential property.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 7. MORTGAGE INSURANCE INCENTIVE.

Section 203(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 12
U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)), is amended, in the second undesignated
paragraph, by inserting ``or due to seismic retrofitting of
the residence (within the meaning of the term `seismic
retrofit construction' under section 25B(b)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986)'' before the period at the
end.

SEC. 8. EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION AND RECOVERY PLANNING
GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--
(1) In general.--Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7703) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(8) Agency.--The term `Agency' means the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
``(9) Critical facility.--The term `critical facility'
means--
``(A) a public structure (including a police station, fire
station, city or town hall, school, or other public building)
or a public or nonprofit private hospital that is--
``(i) owned by an entity; and
``(ii) critical to the continuity of the entity or to the
conduct of the disaster response activities of the entity; or
``(B) a facility that--
``(i) provides medical services to a specific occupational
or industry segment of the general public; and
``(ii) is operated by an organization described in
subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under subsection (a) of
such section.
``(10) Critical public infrastructure.--The term `critical
public infrastructure' means a utility or transportation
system (including a bridge, energy system, water or sewer
system, or communication system) that is--
``(A) owned by an entity; and
``(B) critical to the conduct of the disaster response
activities of the entity.
``(11) Earthquake disaster.--
``(A) In general.--The term `earthquake disaster' means a
disaster that results from a movement of the earth.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `earthquake disaster' includes
a disaster that results from a tsunami or an earthquake-
caused landslide or liquefaction (as determined by the
Director of the Agency).
``(12) Grant program.--The term `grant program' means the
earthquake disaster mitigation and recovery planning grant
program established under section 6.
``(13) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
``(14) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001).
``(15) Local government.--The term `local government'
means--
``(A) a city, town, township, county, parish, village, or
other general-purpose political subdivision of a State;
``(B) an Indian tribe; and
``(C) a geologic hazard abatement or similar special
purpose district formed to carry out or fund projects to
reduce the vulnerability of infrastructure and buildings to
earthquake disasters.
``(16) Loss reduction trust fund.--The term `Loss Reduction
Trust Fund' means the Loss Reduction Trust Fund established
by section 7.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5(b)(1) of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7704(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``(hereafter in this Act
referred to as the `Agency')''.
(b) Grant Program.--The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 is amended by inserting after section 5 (42 U.S.C. 7704)
the following:

``SEC. 6. EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION AND RECOVERY
PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the Agency may
establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to
eligible recipients described in subsection (b) to pay the
Federal share of the cost of carrying out earthquake disaster
mitigation and recovery planning measures with respect to the
critical facilities and critical public infrastructure under
the jurisdiction of the recipients.
``(b) Eligible Recipients.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant under the
grant program, an entity shall be a local government, public
or nonprofit private hospital, or public institution of
higher education that--
``(A) has jurisdiction over, or is located in, an area that
is subject to earthquake disasters;
``(B) submits to the Director of the Agency for approval an
application for the grant in such form as the Director shall
require;
``(C) has completed an earthquake disaster risk analysis;
``(D) has adopted a long-term strategic earthquake disaster
loss reduction plan that identifies high priority earthquake
disaster loss reduction projects; and
``(E) meets criteria established by the Director under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Criteria.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Director of the Agency shall
establish, by regulation, criteria that local governments,
public and nonprofit private hospitals, and public
institutions of higher education shall meet to qualify for
grants under the grant program.
``(B) Requirement applicable to local governments.--The
criteria under subparagraph (A) applicable to local
governments shall include the requirement that a local

[[Page S1759]]

government adopt and enforce comprehensive ordinances,
building codes, land use measures, and other measures for
earthquake disaster loss reduction that--
``(i) take into consideration the identified earthquake
hazards applicable to the area over which the local
government has jurisdiction; and
``(ii) reflect current, cost-effective techniques designed
to reduce losses from earthquake disasters and ensure the
continued functionality of critical facilities and critical
public infrastructure.
``(C) Consultation.--The criteria under subparagraph (A)
shall be adopted after consultation with--
``(i) Federal, State, and local government officials and
agencies; and
``(ii) other persons knowledgeable in the fields of natural
disasters and hazard mitigation.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Federal
share of the cost of measures carried out using a grant under
the grant program shall be 75 percent.
``(B) Insufficiency of federal funds.--In paying the
Federal share under subparagraph (A) in a case in which there
are insufficient funds in the Loss Reduction Trust Fund to
fund all applications that are eligible for approval, the
Director of the Agency may consider--
``(i) the desirability of geographical dispersal of
available funds;
``(ii) the extent to which any applicant faces a greater
risk of earthquake disasters, in number or severity, than
other applicants;
``(iii) the extent to which each applicant is expending
resources on addressing urgent problems concerning critical
facilities or critical public infrastructure; and
``(iv) the extent to which the measures proposed to be
funded using the grant are expected to result in cost savings
to the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.).
``(2) Non-federal share.--
``(A) Grants to local governments (other than indian
tribes).--In the case of a grant to a local government (other
than an Indian tribe) under the grant program, the non-
Federal share of the cost of measures carried out using the
grant shall be provided as follows:
``(i) \1/2\ by the State.
``(ii) \1/2\ by the local government.
``(B) Grants to indian tribes.--In the case of a grant to
an Indian tribe under the grant program, the non-Federal
share of the cost of measures carried out using the grant
shall be provided as follows:
``(i) \1/2\ by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
``(ii) \1/2\ by the Indian tribe.
``(C) Grants to public hospitals.--In the case of a grant
to a public hospital under the grant program, the non-Federal
share of the cost of measures carried out using the grant
shall be provided as follows:
``(i) \1/2\ by the State, from funds other than general
State appropriations to the hospital.
``(ii) \1/2\ by the public hospital, from general State
appropriations to the hospital or from funds donated to the
hospital.
``(D) Grants to nonprofit private hospitals.--In the case
of a grant to a nonprofit private hospital under the grant
program, the non-Federal share of the cost of measures
carried out using the grant shall be provided by the
nonprofit private hospital.
``(E) Grants to public institutions of higher education.--
In the case of a grant to a public institution of higher
education under the grant program, the non-Federal share of
the cost of measures carried out using the grant shall be
provided as follows:
``(i) \1/2\ by the State, from funds other than general
State appropriations to the institution of higher education.
``(ii) \1/2\ by the public institution of higher education,
from general State appropriations to the institution of
higher education or from funds donated to the institution of
higher education.
``(d) Use of Grant Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A grant under the grant program may be
used--
``(A) to retrofit critical facilities and critical public
infrastructure in accordance with paragraph (2);
``(B) to implement earthquake disaster mitigation measures
in accordance with paragraph (3); or
``(C) to develop earthquake disaster recovery plans in
accordance with paragraph (4).
``(2) Retrofit of critical facilities and critical public
infrastructure.--
``(A) In general.--A grant under the grant program may be
used to retrofit a critical facility or critical public
infrastructure with parts or equipment that meets current
standards for withstanding earthquake disasters (as
determined by the Director of the Agency).
``(B) Selection of critical facilities and critical public
infrastructure.--A critical facility or critical public
infrastructure shall be selected for a grant under
subparagraph (A) if the critical facility or critical public
infrastructure is identified in a long-term strategic
earthquake disaster loss reduction plan adopted under
subsection (b)(1)(D) as having high priority for retrofit
because of the effect that damage to the critical facility or
critical public infrastructure from an earthquake disaster
would have on the quality of human life in the region and on
recovery from the earthquake disaster.
``(3) Implementation of earthquake disaster mitigation
measures.--A grant under the grant program may be used to
implement an earthquake disaster mitigation measure designed
to ensure the continued functionality of a critical facility
or critical public infrastructure.
``(4) Development of earthquake disaster recovery plans.--
``(A) In general.--A grant under the grant program may be
used to develop an earthquake disaster recovery plan that
includes--
``(i) a plan for reestablishing government operations and
community services after an earthquake disaster; and
``(ii) a plan for long-term recovery after an earthquake
disaster.
``(B) Schedule for payment of grant funds.--Of a grant for
measures described in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) 50 percent shall be paid upon approval by the
Director of the Agency of the application for the grant; and
``(ii) 50 percent shall be paid upon adoption of the
earthquake disaster recovery plan by the local government,
public hospital, or public institution of higher education.

``SEC. 7. LOSS REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States a fund to be known as the `Loss
Reduction Trust Fund', consisting of--
``(1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Loss
Reduction Trust Fund under subsection (b);
``(2) such amounts as are appropriated to the Loss
Reduction Trust Fund under section 13(e); and
``(3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the
Loss Reduction Trust Fund under subsection (d).
``(b) Transfers to Loss Reduction Trust Fund.--There are
appropriated to the Loss Reduction Trust Fund amounts
equivalent to--
``(1) such amounts as the Director of the Agency determines
are remaining after the close-out of any active disaster
declaration account under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
``(2) such amounts as--
``(A) were allocated for hazard mitigation assistance with
respect to a major disaster under section 404 of that Act (42
U.S.C. 5170c); and
``(B) the Director of the Agency determines are remaining
after expiration of the time limits established under
subsection (c) of that section; and
``(3) amounts received as gifts under subsection (f).
``(c) Expenditures From Loss Reduction Trust Fund.--Upon
request by the Director of the Agency, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer from the Loss Reduction Trust Fund to
the Director of the Agency such amounts as the Director of
the Agency determines are necessary to carry out section 6.
``(d) Investment of Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Loss Reduction Trust Fund as is
not, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury,
required to meet current withdrawals. Investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
``(2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be
acquired--
``(A) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
``(3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Loss Reduction Trust Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the
Treasury at the market price.
``(4) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Loss Reduction Trust Fund shall be credited to and form a
part of the Loss Reduction Trust Fund.
``(e) Transfers of Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred
to the Loss Reduction Trust Fund under this section shall be
transferred at least monthly from the general fund of the
Treasury to the Loss Reduction Trust Fund on the basis of
estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
``(f) Gifts.--The Secretary of the Treasury may accept
gifts of cash for transfer to the Loss Reduction Trust
Fund.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Loss Reduction Trust Fund.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Loss Reduction Trust Fund
$1,000,000,000.''.
(d) Postdisaster Assistance.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Critical facility.--The term `critical facility'
means--
``(A) a public structure (including a police station, fire
station, city or town hall, school, or other public building)
or a public or nonprofit private hospital that is--
``(i) owned by an entity; and
``(ii) critical to the continuity of the entity or to the
conduct of the disaster response activities of the entity; or

[[Page S1760]]

``(B) a facility that--
``(i) provides medical services to a specific occupational
or industry segment of the general public; and
``(ii) is operated by an organization described in
subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under subsection (a) of
such section.
``(11) Critical public infrastructure.--The term `critical
public infrastructure' means a utility or transportation
system (including a bridge, energy system, water or sewer
system, or communication system) that is--
``(A) owned by an entity; and
``(B) critical to the conduct of the disaster response
activities of the entity.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--Section 12(a) of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(a)) is amended
by inserting ``(as in effect on September 30, 1997)'' after
``6 of this Act'' each place it appears.

SEC. 9. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING
SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 12 as section 13; and
(2) by inserting after section 11 the following:

``SEC. 12. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING
SYSTEM.

``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States
Geological Survey shall establish and operate an advanced
national seismic research and monitoring system (referred to
in this section as the `system').
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the system shall be to
organize, modernize, standardize, and stabilize the national,
regional, and urban seismic monitoring systems in the United
States, including sensors, recorders, and data analysis
centers, and meld the monitoring systems into a coordinated
system that will measure and record the full range of
frequencies and amplitudes exhibited by seismic waves, in
order to enhance earthquake research and warning
capabilities.
``(c) Management Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act of 2001, the
Director of the United States Geological Survey shall submit
to Congress a 5-year management plan for establishing and
operating the system.
``(2) Required elements.--The plan shall include--
``(A) annual cost estimates for--
``(i) milestones, standards, and performance goals for
modernization of the seismic monitoring systems referred to
in subsection (b); and
``(ii) milestones, standards, and performance goals for
operation of the system; and
``(B) plans for securing the participation of all existing
networks in the system and for establishing new, or enhancing
existing, partnerships to leverage resources.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Establishment.--In addition to amounts made available
under section 13(b), there are authorized to be appropriated
to establish the system--
``(A) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(B) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(C) $35,100,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(D) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(E) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(2) Operation.--In addition to amounts made available
under section 13(b), there are authorized to be appropriated
to operate the system--
``(A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(B) $10,300,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2 of Public Law 105-47
(42 U.S.C. 7704 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section 12(b) of
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7706(b))'' and inserting ``section 13(b) of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``section 12(c) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 7706(c))'' and inserting ``section 13(c)
of that Act''.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
S. 425. A bill to establish the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation,
along with my good friend and Colorado colleague, Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, to permanently designate Rocky Flats as a National
Wildlife Refuge following the cleanup and closure of the site.
This legislation is the beginning of a new chapter in the history of
Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act is the
product of more than a year's worth of work by citizens, community
leaders, and local elected officials. Its passage will ensure our
children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the wildlife and open
space that currently exists at Rocky Flats.
To that end, I have worked in a bi-partisan manner with my Colorado
colleague from the other body, Congressman Mark Udall, to produce the
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001. This bill was
originally introduced in November of 2000, and with a few refinements,
is being reintroduced today in both the Senate and House. Also, this
bill could not be possible without the hard work and dedication of the
local governments and the Rocky Flats stakeholders.
My vested interest in Rocky Flats began during the 1980's when I was
the Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Health, Environment,
Welfare and Institutions. Although I supported the national security
mission of the Rocky Flats site prior to closure, I believe that the
Department of Energy must also ensure the safety and health of all
Coloradans and the environment. When the Rocky Flats site was shut down
in 1990, cleaning up and closing of the site became one of my top
legislative priorities and will remain so until this project is
complete.
In 1999, I became the Strategic Subcommittee Chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, which has direct oversight of former DoE
weapons facilities including Rocky Flats. This is the first site in the
DoE complex to receive funding for cleanup and closure, and will
therefore be a role model for other sites in the complex. As Chairman
of the Subcommittee, I will continue to work closely with my colleagues
to educate them on the importance of cleaning up and closing down Rocky
Flats so it can be utilized as a National Wildlife Refuge. This
education extends beyond the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats to the
importance of cleaning up and closing of all the former DoE weapons
sites and how all closure sites in the DoE complex are closely tied
together. That is why it is important for everyone in Congress with a
closure site to work together in a non-partisan manner for the good of
the country. We also need to work close with our new Secretary of
Energy, Spencer Abraham, to ensure that cleanup and closure remain a
priority for DoE.
As a brief summary of the bill, I would like to bring to your
attention a few of the following high points of the bill:
To begin, Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership
through a transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete.
The historic Lindsay Ranch will be preserved for future generations.
There will be no annexation of land to any local government, nor any
construction of through roads. The only roads that may be constructed
on the site would be by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the
management of the refuge.
The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior are
authorized to grant a transportation right-of-way on the eastern
boundary of the site for transportation improvements along Indiana
Street. Please note, however, that we are aware of the continued
evaluation of this issue and want this section of the bill to be
consistent with the needs of the local governments.
The Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service are to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing administrative
responsibilities prior to the transfer of the site not later than 1
year after the enactment of this Act.
The Department of Energy will not transfer any property to the Fish
and Wildlife Service that must be retained for future onsite monitoring
or that must be retained for protection of human health and safety.
This legislation also clarifies that in the event of future cleanup
activities, this action will take priority over wildlife management.
One of the most important directives in this Act and it states that
``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the degree of
cleanup at the Rocky Flats site required under the Rocky Flats Cleanup
Agreement or any Federal or State law.'' I believe it is important to
reiterate that this bill should not be used as a mechanism to drive the
level of cleanup. As with any cleanup, the future land use is always
considered in setting cleanup levels, but other important factors will
play into any decision. For instance, the protection of surface water
coming off the site, the desire to minimize long-

[[Page S1761]]

term operation and monitoring costs, and the State of Colorado's rules
for decommissioning nuclear sites which say licensees should reduce
potential radiation dose levels as low as reasonably achievable.
Once the site is transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
refuge will be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge
System Act to preserve wildlife, enhance wildlife habitat, conserve
threatened and endangered species, provide education opportunities and
scientific research, as well as wildlife compatible recreation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service are to convene a public process to
include input on the management of the site.
I firmly believe that access rights and property rights must be
preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all
mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-way. This Act does,
however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior
the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private
property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes.
With regard to mineral rights, the Secretary of Energy is required to
seek to purchase mineral rights from willing sellers.
As a tribute to the Cold War and the dedicated Rocky Flats workers
both prior to and after the site closure, the bill authorizes the
establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the site requiring
that the creation of the museum shall be studied, and a report shall be
submitted to Congress within three years following the enactment of
this act.
Finally, this bill directs the Department of Energy and the Fish and
Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with the
implementation of this Act.
Lastly, I want to thank Representative Mark Udall for the bi-partisan
manner in which he and his staff worked with me and my office. Rocky
Flats, like all other cleanup sites, is bigger than partisan politics
and this effort proves it. I would also like to specifically thank the
Department of Energy for taking the expedited cleanup plan and making
it work within their budgetary guidelines; Kaiser-Hill for making the
impossible, possible; and, I would like to say a great big thanks to
all of the workers at Rocky Flats whose skill and dedication have made
the reality of cleanup possible. Without the workers, even the best
laid plans would be for naught.
Once cleanup and closure is accomplished in 2006, I look forward to
returning to Rocky Flats for the dedication of the new Rocky Flats
National Wildlife Refuge.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 426. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
an income tax credit to holders of bonds financing new communications
technologies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 427. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the work opportunity tax credit for small business jobs creation; to
the Committee on Finance.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 428. A bill to provide grants and other incentives to promote new
communications technologies, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 429. A bill to expand the Manufacturing Extension Program to bring
the new economy to small and medium-sized businesses; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 430. A bill to provide incentives to promote broadband
telecommunications services in rural America, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 431. A bill to establish regional skills alliances, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 432. A bill to provide for business incubator activities, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about bringing
development and good jobs to upstate New York and other regions of our
country that have not fully participated in our nation's economic
growth.
As I travel across the state and listen to the struggles of small
business owners and workers, I'm often reminded of my father, who ran a
small business and worked hard every day to provide for our family. I
think about people like him who live in Plattsburgh and Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, Oneonta and every town and village in
between. Most importantly, I think that--with the right ideas and a lot
of hard work--we can create opportunities that will revitalize New
York's upstate economy, as well as in places like these all across our
country.
Now as we all know, a historic shift has taken place in our economy
and, to succeed in the twenty first century new economy, businesses
have to be innovative, creative and flexible. Workers have to have
better education and training; and community leaders have to bring all
sectors of our communities together to make their hometowns more
hospitable to high tech industries.
Many parts of upstate New York have not been able to fully enjoy the
fruits of the new knowledge based economy. Too many of our finest young
people leave the state for better jobs elsewhere. Two summers ago, I
talked to an upstate New York professor who told me what he thought was
the biggest barrier to economic progress in the region: poor internet
access. He pointed out that just as canals and railroad lines had made
upstate, western and central New York the hub of the industrial economy
in the 19th and 20th centuries, the region's shortage of high speed
internet lines would hold us back in the 21st Century.
Studies have shown, for example, that New York lags behind many
states when it comes to the internet connections that are essential to
commerce and communications in this new economy. But with leadership,
and through partnerships, we can meet these challenges. All of us who
care about the towns and villages in upstate New York and across our
country have an obligation to help. That is why I am very proud today
to introduce a package of legislation that is designed to bring new
jobs to New York and to America.
This legislation is the result of a lot of conversations, and
listening, and hard work by many people. These seven bills will help
bring all of New York online and into the new economy by promoting
entrepreneurship and innovation, and by knocking down some of the
stubborn barriers to economic progress.

[[Page S1762]]

Just in the past three weeks, I have been in Rochester, and Rome and
Watertown--Buffalo, and Niagara Falls meeting with business and labor
leaders, academic, religious and civic leaders as well as citizens from
all walks of life. I've also been meeting and talking with many of my
Republican and Democratic colleagues here in the Congress--talking
about the budget, and talking about the economies of New York and the
rest of our nation.
I have found that this legislation I propose today reflects the views
and values, not only of many New Yorkers, but also a number of my
colleagues here in the Senate. We agree that we have to clear away some
of the major obstacles to economic growth and that we must invest in
the skills of our country's greatest resources--our people.
After all, upstate New York is the region where America's innovators,
businesses and workers spun Thomas Edison's first light bulb, made
cameras widely available to all Americans, created the nation's first
business incubator and the pacemaker. Now, with a proud place in the
economic history of our country, upstate New York deserves its place in
the economic future as well. My legislation is designed to help bring
all of New York to the forefront of the 21st century economy.
Specifically, I propose the creation of new technology bonds. Using
federal tax credits, states and local governments will be able to issue
such bonds to help local governments invest in the high-speed data
lines they need to attract cutting edge businesses.
I propose creating new incentives to link industrial parks and small
business incubators to the Internet--and to bring access to high-speed
internet connections called broadband. Too many families and businesses
still have to dial long distance to get on the Internet. That's why my
plan also includes a $100 million initiative to help businesses bring
broadband to rural and underserved communities.
I also support research into the next generation of broadband
technologies that could make access to the Internet even more cost-
effective. We have to help small businesses make the most of the new
technologies to maximize profits and productivity. Too many firms still
do not know where to begin when it comes to bringing their businesses
online. Large businesses, we know, can spend millions on high-priced
consultants to find out which computer and software systems to buy so
they can best use the new technologies. But small, and even medium size
businesses, just can't afford to do that.
So, as part of my package of incentives, I am introducing what I call
a Technology Extension Program to help small and medium business
owners. For years, the federal government has provided farmers advice
and expertise through the Cooperative Extension system. More recently,
the Department of Commerce has successfully helped small manufacturers
with new technologies through the Manufacturing Extension Program. I
think we can build on the successes of these programs and help small
and medium business owners in the same way, creating partnerships with
universities and community colleges to transform their innovations into
jobs for more and more people.
New York is also a state blessed with some of the finest colleges and
research institutions in the world. Yet, we haven't been able to
transform a lot of those discoveries into commercial ventures near
where they have been made. That's why my plan increases support for
business incubators that can cut the time it takes for a breakthrough
on the laboratory bench to make it to the factory and sales floor.
Of course one of the most important parts of this legislation focuses
on investing in the skills of our people. We can create all the high
tech jobs we need from, you know, Plattsburg to Reno--but if they don't
have people to fill them it's not going to mean anything, as I know
that the President understands. That's why I'll fight to increase
America's investment in the Regional Skills Alliances that bring
businesses, universities, and community colleges together to make sure
workers have the training they need in the modern workplace.
I know that we have to support and encourage small businesses to
bring jobs to places like upstate New York. My legislation will create
a new Small Business Jobs Tax Credit to allow small firms in
underserved communities across the country eligible because of
population loss and low job growth--to claim a $3,000 tax credit for
every employee they hire.
Mr. President, during my campaign I promised that my first
legislation would focus on promoting economic growth in upstate New
York. That is why I am particularly pleased to be here in fulfillment
of that pledge.
But I see my plan as a part of a larger partnership to spur job
creation across our country, where good people and their communities
are in need of help. According to the latest Labor Department
statistics New York, for example, as a whole enjoyed a 2.3 percent job
growth rate last year. But upstate New York's job growth rate was about
half of that at 1.2% and below the national average of 2.1 percent. Now
behind those numbers are the lives and livelihoods of millions of
people, and it is for those people that this legislation is being
introduced. No parent should have to see a child leave his or her
hometown simply because a good job can't be found.
My co-sponsors and I know that the fight for new jobs for New York
and America is a long and difficult one. We do not expect everything in
this plan to pass in one year alone, or even in the exact form in which
it is introduced. And standing alone, no single plan or Senator will be
able to get the job done. But my colleagues and I understand we need a
long-term partnership among people in government at all levels and with
the private sector, business, labor, schools universities and others.
That is why I also support S. 41 introduced by Senators Hatch and
Baucus, and supported by many Democrats and Republicans to make the
research and development tax credit permanent and to promote
entrepreneurship and innovation. It's why I think we have to continue
to tackle other stubborn barriers to economic growth like high
utilities costs, high taxes and inadequate transportation and poor
infrastructure. And of course, I can't talk about upstate New York
without mentioning the spectacular geography and cultural heritage that
is not only a source of pride, but also as a valuable economic
resource.
Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, representing both
parties, who have come together to join and sponsor one or more of my
bills today. I look forward to talking to more members of this chamber
and the other body in the days and weeks ahead. I believe if we take
good ideas and through hard work make them real, we can revitalize New
York's upstate economy and also give hope to the hardworking, deserving
families of communities across our country. No one should have to leave
their hometown, their families, and their roots to find a good job in
America.
I ask unanimous consent that text of the bills, the summary of the
bills, and articles relevant to the bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 426

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Bond Initiative
of 2001''.

SEC. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Access to high-speed Internet is as important to 21st
Century businesses as access to the railroads and interstate
highways was to businesses of the last century.
(2) Up to one-third of the United States population lacks
access to high-speed Internet.
(3) Companies without access to high-speed Internet are
unable to meet their market potential, just as a community
cannot prosper if it doesn't have high quality roads and
bridges.
(4) Technology bonds would provide incentives to State and
local governments to partner with the private sector to
expand broadband deployment in their communities, especially
underserved urban and rural areas.

SEC. 2. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TECHNOLOGY BONDS.

(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credits
against tax) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subpart:

[[Page S1763]]

``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Technology
Bonds

``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of qualified technology bonds.

``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TECHNOLOGY BONDS

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified technology bond on a credit allowance date
of such bond which occurs during the taxable year, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for such taxable year the amount determined under
subsection (b).
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any qualified
technology bond is the amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under
paragraph (2) for the month in which such bond was issued,
multiplied by
``(B) the face amount of the bond held by the taxpayer on
the credit allowance date.
``(2) Determination.--During each calendar month, the
Secretary shall determine a credit rate which shall apply to
bonds issued during the following calendar month. The credit
rate for any month is the percentage which the Secretary
estimates will permit the issuance of qualified technology
bonds without discount and without interest cost to the
issuer.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(1) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than this subpart and subpart C).
``(d) Qualified Technology Bond.--For purposes of this
part--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified technology bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for any or a series of qualified projects,
``(B) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such project is located.
``(C) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section.
``(D) certifies that it has obtained the written approval
of the Secretary of Commerce for such project, and
``(E) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.
``(2) Qualified project.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means a
project--
``(i) to expand broadband telecommunications services in an
area within the jurisdiction of a State or local government,
``(ii) which is nominated by such State or local government
for designation as a qualified project, and
``(iii) which the Secretary of Commerce, after consultation
with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
designates as a qualified project or a series of qualified
projects.
``(B) Designation preferences.--With respect to
designations under this section, preferences shall be given
to--
``(i) nominations of projects involving underserved urban
or rural areas lacking access to high-speed Internet
connections, and
``(ii) nominations reflecting partnerships and
comprehensive planning between State and local governments
and the private sector.
``(e) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) National limitation.--There is a national technology
bond limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is
$100,000,000 for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and,
except as provided in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--The national technology
bond limitation for a calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the qualified projects designated for such
year.
``(3) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (d)(1)
with respect to any qualified project shall not exceed the
limitation amount allocated to such project under paragraph
(2) for such calendar year.
``(4) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(A) the national technology limitation amount, exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (d)(1) with respect to qualified
projects, the national technology limitation amount for the
following calendar year shall be increased by the amount of
such excess.
``(f) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means, with respect to any issue, the last day of the
1-year period beginning on the date of issuance of such issue
and the last day of each successive 1-year period thereafter.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means the several States and
the District of Columbia.
``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(h) Other Special Rules.--
``(1) Paratnerhsip; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in
the case of a partnership, trust, S corporation, or other
pass-thru entity, rules similar to the rules of section 41(g)
shall apply with respect to the credit allowable under
subsection (a).
``(2) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
qualified technology bond is held by a regulated investment
company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(3) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
technology bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated
as if it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer
on such date.
``(4) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified technology bonds
shall submit reports similar to the reports required under
section 149(e).''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns regarding
payments of interest) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Reporting of credit on qualified technology bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(f)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--the Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:

``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Technology
Bonds.''

(2) Section 6401(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``and G'' and inserting ``G, and H''.
(d) Effective Date.--the amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2001.
____

S. 427

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 ``Small Business Jobs Tax
Credit Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) In many parts of the United States, segments of large
cities, smaller cities, and rural areas are experiencing
population loss and low job growth that hurt the surrounding
communities.
(2) In areas hurt by low job growth, people are forced to
leave the communities they have lived in their whole life to
secure a job.
(3) A small business tax credit to promote jobs in areas
suffering from low job growth and population loss would spur
economic growth and would provide incentives for businesses
to take advantage of an often underutilized, well-educated
workforce.
(4) By promoting economic growth, such a tax credit would
revitalize these areas that are less likely to receive other
Federal investments.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and
inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(I) a qualified small business employee.''.
(b) Qualified Small Business Employee.--Section 51(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (10) through (12) as paragraphs (11) through (13),
respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the
following:
``(10) Qualified small business employee.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business
employee' means any individual--
``(i) hired by a qualified small business located in a
development zone, or
``(ii) hired by a qualified small business and who is
certified by the designated local agency as residing in such
a development zone.
``(B) Qualified small business.--The term `qualified small
business' has the meaning given the term `small employer' by
section 4980D(d)(2).
``(C) Development zone.--For purposes of this section--
``(i) In general.--The term `development zone' means any
area--

[[Page S1764]]

``(I) which is nominated under the procedures defined in
sections 1400E(a)(1)(A) and 1400E(a)(4) for renewal
communities;
``(II) which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
designates as a development zone, after consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce;
``(III) which has a population of not less than 5,000 and
not more than 150,000;
``(IV) which has a poverty rate not less than 20 percent
(within the meaning of section 1400E(c)(3)(C));
``(V) which has an average annual rate of job growth of
less than 2 percent during any 3 years of the preceding 5-
year period; and
``(VI) which, during the period beginning January 1, 1990
and ending with the date of the enactment of this Act, has a
net out-migration of inhabitants, or other population loss,
from the area of at least 2 percent of the population of the
area during such period.

``(ii) Number of designations.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may not designate more than 100
development zones.
``(D) Special rules for determining amount of credit.--For
purposes of applying this subpart to wages paid or incurred
to any qualified small business employee--
``(i) subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ``20
percent of the qualified first, second, third, fourth, or
fifth year wages'' for ``40 percent of the qualified first
year wages'', and
``(ii) in lieu of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b),
the following definitions and special rule shall apply:

``(I) Qualified first-year wages.--The term `qualified
first-year wages' means, with respect to any individual,
qualified wages attributable to service rendered during the
1-year period beginning with the day the individual begins
work for the employer.
``(II) Qualified second-year wages.--The term `qualified
second-year wages' means, with respect to any individual,
qualified wages attributable to service rendered during the
1-year period beginning on the day after the last day of the
1-year period with respect to such individual determined
under subclause (I).
``(III) Qualified third-year wages.--The term `qualified
third-year wages' means, with respect to any individual,
qualified wages attributable to service rendered during the
1-year period beginning on the day after the last day of the
1-year period with respect to such individual determined
under subclause (II).
``(IV) Qualified fourth-year wages.--The term `qualified
fourth-year wages' means, with respect to any individual,
qualified wages attributable to service rendered during the
1-year period beginning on the day after the last day of the
1-year period with respect to such individual determined
under subclause (III).
``(V) Qualified fifth-year wages.--The term `qualified
fifth-year wages' means, with respect to any individual,
qualified wages attributable to service rendered during the
1-year period beginning on the day after the last day of the
1-year period with respect to such individual determined
under subclause (IV).
``(VI) Only first $15,000 of wages per year taken into
account.--The amount of the qualified first, second, third,
fourth, and fifth year wages which may be taken into account
with respect to any individual shall not exceed $15,000 per
year.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
____

S. 428

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 ``Broadband Expansion Grant
Initiative of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Investing in a telecommunications infrastructure for
underserved rural communities will increase the potential for
long-term economic growth in those areas.
(2) Currently, too many families have to make long distance
calls to connect to the Internet, and the deployment of
broadband networks would make sure that connection to the
Internet is more cost-effective and only a local call away.
(3) Small businesses would benefit from access to high-
speed Internet links that would allow them to compete on
national and international levels.
(4) Broadband deployment grants and loan guarantees would
encourage private-sector investment in infrastructure
advances.

SEC. 3. FACILITATION OF DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES TO UNDERSERVED
RURAL AREAS.

(a) In General.--In order to facilitate the deployment by
the private sector of broadband telecommunications networks
and capabilities (including wireless and satellite networks
and capabilities) to underserved rural areas, the Secretary
of Commerce (in this section, referred to as the
``Secretary'') may--
(1) make grants to eligible recipients for that purpose;
(2) guarantee loans, either whole or in part, of eligible
recipients the proceeds of which are to be used for that
purpose; or
(3) carry out activities under both paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Eligible Recipients.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible recipient of a grant or loan guarantee under
subsection (a) is any person or entity selected by the
Secretary in accordance with such procedures as the Secretary
shall establish.
(c) Underserved Rural Areas.--The Secretary shall identify
the areas that constitute underserved rural areas for
purposes of this section.
(d) Emphasis on Particular Capabilities.--In selecting a
person or entity as an eligible recipient of a grant or loan
guarantee under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give
particular emphasis to persons or entities that propose to
use the grant or the proceeds of the loan guaranteed, as the
case may be, to leverage non-Federal resources to do one or
more of the following:
(1) Provide underserved rural areas with access to Internet
service by local telephone.
(2) Demonstrate new models or emerging technologies to
bring broadband telecommunications services to underserved
rural areas on a cost-effective basis.
(3) Use broadband telecommunications services to stimulate
economic development, such as providing connections between
and among industrial parks located in such areas and
providing high-speed telecommunications service links to
small business incubators.
(e) Consultation.--The Secretary may consult with the
Federal Communications Commission in carrying out activities
under this section.
(f) Limitation on Amount.--The amount of any grants made
under this section, and the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C.
661a(5)) of any loans guaranteed under this section, may not,
in the aggregate, exceed $100,000,000.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Commerce for
purposes of grants and loan guarantees under this section
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as are
necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.
____

S. 429

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Extension Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Federal Government developed the Agriculture
Extension Program, and more recently, the Manufacturing
Extension Program to help farmers and small manufacturers
gain access to the latest technologies. Today's small and
medium-sized businesses need a technology extension program
that provides access to cutting edge technology.
(2) There is a need to create partnerships to cut the time
it takes for new developments in university laboratories to
reach the manufacturing floor, to help small and medium-sized
businesses transform their innovations into jobs.
(3) There is a need to build upon the Manufacturing
Extension Program to encourage the adoption of advanced
technology.

SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION PROGRAM.

(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
(1) to encourage meaningful use of the most advanced
available technologies by small businesses and medium-sized
businesses to the maximum extent possible to improve the
productivity of those businesses and thereby to promote
economic growth; and
(2) to promote regional partnerships between educational
institutions and businesses to develop such technologies and
products in the surrounding areas.
(b) Grant Program.--To achieve the purpose of this section,
the Secretary of Commerce (in this section, referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a program to provide,
through grants, financial assistance for the establishment
and support of regional centers for the commercial use of
advanced technologies by small businesses and medium-sized
businesses.
(c) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a grant
as a regional center under this section if the entity--
(1) is affiliated with a United States-based institution or
organization that is operated on a not-for-profit basis, or
any combination of two or more of such institutions or
organizations;
(2) offers to enter into an agreement with the Secretary to
function as a regional center for the commercial use of
advanced technologies for the purpose of this section within
a region determined appropriate by the Secretary; and
(3) demonstrates that it has the capabilities necessary to
achieve the purpose of this section through its operations as
a center within that region.
(d) Selection of Applicants.--
(1) Competitive process.--The Secretary shall use a
competitive process for the awarding of grants under this
section and, under that process, select recipients of the
grants on the basis of merit, with priority given to
underserved areas.
(2) Applications for grants.--The Secretary shall prescribe
the form and content of applications required for grants
under this section.
(e) Specific Activities of Regional Centers.--A regional
center may use the proceeds of a grant under this section for
any

[[Page S1765]]

activity that carries out the purpose of this section,
including such activities as the following:
(1) Assist small businesses and medium-sized businesses to
address their most critical needs for the application of the
latest technology, improvement of infrastructure, and use of
best business practices.
(2) In conjunction with institutions of higher education
and laboratories located in the region, transfer technologies
to small businesses and medium-sized businesses located in
such region to create jobs and increase production in
surrounding areas.
(f) Addition Administrative Authorities.--
(1) Cost-sharing.--The Secretary may require the recipient
of a grant to defray, out of funds available from sources
other than the Federal Government, a specific level of the
operating expenses of the regional center for which the grant
is made.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary, in
awarding a grant, may impose any other terms and conditions
for the use of the proceeds of the grant that the Secretary
determines appropriate for carrying out the purpose of this
section and to protect the interests of the United States.
(g) Definitions of Small Business and Medium-Sized
Business.--
(1) Secretary to prescribe.--The Secretary shall prescribe
the definitions of the terms ``small business'' and ``medium-
sized business'' for the purpose of this section.
(2) Small business standards.--In defining the term ``small
business'', the Secretary shall apply the standards
applicable for the definition of the term ``small-business
concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations
for the grant program administered under this section.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Commerce for
carrying out this section $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,
and such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year
thereafter.
____

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 ``Broadband Rural Research
Investment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress find the following:
(1) The availability of broadband telecommunications
services in rural America is critical to economic
development, job creation, and new services such as distance
learning and telemedicine.
(2) Existing broadband technology cannot be deployed in
many rural areas, either because of technical limitations, or
the cost of deployment relative to the available market.
(3) Research in new broadband technology that addresses
these barriers could increase the availability of broadband
telecommunications services in rural areas.

SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON ENHANCEMENT OF BROADBAND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

(a) In General.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation (in this section, referred to as the ``Director'')
shall carry out research on the following:
(1) Means of enhancing or facilitating the availability of
broadband telecommunications services in rural areas and
other remote areas.
(2) Means of facilitating or enhancing access to the
Internet through broadband telecommunications services.
(b) Scope of Authority.--The Director may carry out
research under subsection (a) within the National Science
Foundation or pursuant to such grants, agreements, or other
arrangements as the Director considers appropriate.
(c) Results of Research.--The Director shall make available
to the public, in such manner as the Director considers
appropriate, the results of any research carried out under
this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation for
purposes of activities under this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as are necessary for each
fiscal year thereafter.
____

S. 431

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 ``Regional Skills Alliances
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

(1) Many small businesses lack the financial capacity to
support the training of high-skilled workers.
(2) Many high-tech companies concerned about worker
training consider recruiting employees from overseas because
a shortage of information technology workers remains a
significant problem.
(3) Too many highly educated workers in underserved
communities do not have the specialized skills needed to meet
the needs of local businesses.
(4) Regional skills alliances bring businesses and 4-year
colleges and universities and community colleges together to
help develop and implement effective programs to make sure
workers have the training needed to compete in the modern
workplace.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Labor.

TITLE I--SKILL GRANTS

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce, shall award grants to eligible
entities described in subsection (b) to assist such entities
to improve the job skills necessary for employment in
specific industries.
(b) Elgible Entities Described.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity described in this
subsection is a consortium that--
(A) shall consist of representatives from not less than 5
businesses, or a lesser number of businesses if such lesser
number of businesses employs at least 30 percent of the
employees in the industry involved in the region (or a non-
profit organization that represents such businesses);
(B) may consist of representatives from--
(i) labor organizations;
(ii) State and local government; and
(iii) educational institutions;
(C) is established to serve one or more particular
industries; and
(D) is established to serve a particular geographic region.
(2) Majority of representatives.--A majority of the
representatives described in paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Priority for Small Businesses.--In providing grants
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to an
eligible entity if a majority of representatives forming the
entity represent small-business concerns (as defined in
section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
(d) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant awarded
to an eligible entity under subsection (a) may not exceed
$1,000,000 for any fiscal year.

SEC. 102. USE OF AMOUNTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may not award a grant under
section 101 to an eligible entity unless such entity agrees
to use amounts received from such grant to improve the job
skills necessary for employment by businesses in the industry
with respect to which such entity was established.
(b) Conduct of Program.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program described in
subsection (a), the eligible entity may provide for--
(A) an assessment of training and job skill needs for the
industry;
(B) the development of a sequence of skill standards that
are benchmarked to advanced industry practices;
(C) the development of curriculum and training methods,
including, where appropriate, e-learning or technology-based
training;
(D) the purchase, lease, or receipt of donations of
training equipment;
(E) the identification of training providers and the
development of partnerships between the industry and
educational institutions, including community colleges;
(F) the development of apprenticeship programs;
(G) the development of training programs for workers,
including dislocated workers;
(H) the development of training plans for businesses; and
(I) the development of the membership of the entity.
(2) Additional requirement.--In carrying out the program
described in subsection (a), the eligible entity shall
provide for the development and tracking of performance
outcome measures for the program and the training providers
involved in the program.
(c) Administrative Costs.--The eligible entity may use not
more than 10 percent of the amount of a grant to pay for
administrative costs associated with the program described in
subsection (a).

SEC. 103. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may not award a grant under
section 101 to an eligible entity unless such entity agrees
that the entity will make available non-Federal contributions
toward the costs of carrying out activities under the grant
in an amount that is not less than $2 for each $1 of Federal
funds provided under the grant, of which--
(1) $1 shall be provided by the businesses participating in
the entity; and
(2) $1 shall be provided by the State or local government
involved.
(b) Other Contributions.--
(1) Equipment.--Equipment donations to facilities that are
not owned or operated by the members of the eligible entity
involved and that are shared by such members may be included
in determining compliance with subsection (a).
(2) Limitation.--An eligible entity may not include in-kind
contributions in complying with the requirement of subsection
(a). The Secretary may consider such donations in ranking
applications.

SEC. 104. LIMIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the
amounts made available to carry out this title to pay the
Federal administrative costs associated with awarding grants
under this title.

SEC. 105 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003,
and 2004, and such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year
thereafter.

TITLE II--PLANNING GRANTS

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce,

[[Page S1766]]

shall award grants to States to enable such states to assist
businesses, organizations, and agencies described in section
101(b) in conducting planning to form consortia described in
such section.
(b) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant awarded
to a State under subjection (a) may not exceed $500,000 for
any fiscal year.

SEC. 202. APPLICATION.

The Secretary may not award a grant under section 201 to a
State unless such State submits to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.

SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

The Secretary may not award a grant under section 201 to a
State unless such State agrees that it will make available
non-Federal contributions toward the costs of carrying out
activities under this title in an amount that is not less
than $1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided under the
grant.

SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
____

S. 432

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 ``Entrepreneurial Incubators
Development Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) While small businesses have been an engine of economic
growth over the past decade, they often lack access to the
technology available to larger businesses.
(2) Business incubators have proven an effective source of
economic growth in the States.
(3) Scientific discoveries need to be quickly converted
into job and community ventures.

SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF BUSINESS INCUBATOR ACTIVITIES.

(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
encourage entrepreneurial creativity and risk taking through
the support of the furnishing of business incubator services
for newly established small businesses and medium-sized
businesses.
(b) Grant Program.--to achieve the purpose of this section,
the Secretary of Commerce (in this section, referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a program to provide,
through grants, financial assistance for the establishment
and support of entities that provide business incubator
services in support of the initiation and initial sustainment
of business activities by newly established small businesses
and medium-sized businesses.
(c) Awards of Grants.--
(1) Eligibility requirements.--The Secretary shall
prescribe the eligibility requirements for the awarding of
grants under this section.
(2) Competitive selection.--The Secretary shall use a
competitive process for the awarding of grants under this
section and, under that process, select recipients of the
grant son the basis of merit, with priority given to
underserved rural and urban communities.
(3) Applications for grants.--The Secretary shall prescribe
the form and content of applications required for grants
under this section.
(d) Additional Administrative Authorities.--
(1) Cost-sharing.--The Secretary may require the recipient
of a grant under this section to defray a specific level of
its operating expenses for business incubator services out of
funds available from sources other than the Federal
Government.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary, in
awarding a grant, may impose any other terms and conditions
for the use of the proceeds of the grant that the Secretary
determines appropriate for carrying out the purpose of this
section and to protect the interests of the United States,
including the requirement that entities providing business
incubator services that receive a grant under this section
develop a plan for ultimately becoming self-sufficient.
(e) Definitions.--
(1) Business incubator services.--In this section, the term
``business incubator services'' includes professional and
technical services necessary for the initiation and initial
sustainment of operations of a newly established business,
including such services as the following:
(A) Legal services.--Legal services, including aid in
preparing corporate charters, partnership agreements, and
basic contracts.
(B) Intellectual property services.--Services in support of
the protection of intellectual property through patents,
trademarks, or otherwise.
(C) Technology services.--Services in support of the
acquisition and use of advanced technology, including the use
of Internet services and web-based services.
(D) Planning.--Advice on--
(i) strategic planning; and
(ii) marketing, including advertising.
(2) Small business and medium-sized business.--
(A) Secretary to prescribe.--The Secretary shall prescribe
the definitions of the terms ``small business'' and ``medium-
sized business'' for the purpose of this section.
(B) Small business standards.--In defining the term ``small
business'' for the purpose of this section, the Secretary
shall apply the standards applicable for the definition of
the term ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations
for the grant program administered under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Commerce for
carrying out this section $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,
and $200,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
____

Economic Development Proposals for the New Economy--Summary

In too many parts of America, many of our communities are
plagued by low job growth and economic stagnation. These
communities, which historically have been the backbone of our
nation, are deeply concerned about their economic prospects.
This package of incentives focuses on encouraging new
technology companies to move to places where they can take
advantage of a well-educated workforce and a higher education
infrastructure that is often available and underutilized.
Technology Bonds: In order to help states and local
governments invest in telecommunications infrastructure, this
proposal invests $100 million a year in a new type of tax
incentive: Technology Bonds. Localities would be allowed to
use Technology Bonds to expand high-speed Internet access in
their communities. These bonds would provide a significant
incentive to state and local governments because they would
not have to pay any interest on them, and, thus, would make
no payments until maturity (15 years in the future). Because
the program directs its benefits to communities, it will
better ensure that higher need communities receive the
benefits.
Small Business Jobs Tax Credit: This tax credit for small
businesses will promote jobs in smaller communities. This
proposal will provide a tax credit for wages, up to $3,000
per employee, for small businesses that locate in communities
that are losing population, have low job growth rates and
high poverty rates. Specifically, this proposal creates a 20%
tax credit for wages of up to $15,000 per year, which is a
value of up to $3,000 per employee, companies could receive
the credit for up to five years. This initiative will focus
on smaller communities by targeting communities with a
population over 5,000. The program would designate roughly
100 communities and could subsidize roughly 8,000 jobs for
each area.
Broadband Expansion Grant Initiative of 2001: This proposal
complements Tech Bonds by creating a $100 million initiative
to accelerate private-sector deployment of broadband networks
in under-served rural communities. Right now many families
have to make long distances calls to connect to Internet.
This initiative will support $100 million in grants and loan
guarantees to ensure the Internet is more cost-effective and
only a local call away. It will connect industrial parks and
small business incubators with high-speed links; and
encourage trials of innovative deployment of broadband
networks to provide cost-effective access to rural areas.
Technology Extension Act of 2001: During the early part of
this century, the Federal government helped farmers gain
access to new agricultural technologies through the
Agriculture Extension Program at the Department of
Agriculture. More recently, the Department of Commerce has
successfully helped small manufacturers with new technologies
through its Manufacturing Extension Program. Now it is time
to provide small and medium-sized businesses with a
technology extension program that provides the latest
technology to improve productivity and promote economic
growth. This initiative will build upon the Manufacturing
Extension Program to address critical needs in areas such as
technology applications, infrastructure upgrades and business
practices, insurance and other forms. It would also work with
universities and laboratories to transfer technologies to
small and medium-sized businesses that will help them move
products to markets faster. This program would be funded at
$25 million the first year, growing to $125 million in fiscal
year 2002.
Broadband Rural Research Investment Act of 2001: This
proposal targets $25 million in funding for research to
ensure the availability of broadband in rural areas. This
proposal supports additional investments at the National
Science Foundation for research in new broadband technology
to increase the availability of broadband telecommunications
services in remote and rural areas.
Regional Skills Alliances: Throughout the nation, high-tech
companies often consider recruiting employees from overseas
because a shortage of information technology workers remains
a significant problem throughout the state. Too many small
firms do not have the resources to train the workers they
need. This proposals creates Regional Skills Alliances to
bring businesses, schools, and community college together to
help create effective programs to ensure workers have the
training needed to compete in the new economy. Without some
kind of support to create alliances, small firms just don't
have the time or resources to collaborate with anybody on
training. In fact, almost all existing RSA's report that they
would not have been able to get off the ground without an

[[Page S1767]]

independent, staffed entity to operate the alliance.
Entrepreneurial Incubators: This initiative would help
entrepreneurs who have good ideas but cannot afford lawyers
and consultants to access the help they need with legal
complexities such as preparing corporate charters,
partnership agreements, contracts, patent and intellectual
property rules, and basic marketing strategies. This will
especially help areas where universities can be key
collaborators in entrepreneurial incubators. This proposal
would initially invest $50 million and up to $200 million the
following years, to increase business incubators nationally
by a third.
____

[From the Associated Press]

How Does Upstate Keep Best and Brightest?

(By Michael Hill)

Albany, NY.--Jaclyn Welcher's college degree turned out to
be a one-way ticket out of upstate New York.
After graduating from Siena College near Albany in 1998,
Welcher tried to apply her marketing and management degree to
a job around her parents' home in Queensbury. It didn't work
out.
``I said: `There's no point in this at all,' '' Welcher
recalled, ``I'm outta here!'' Welcher--now 24 and working in
Los Angeles--is far from the only twenty-something to leave
upstate New York.
Young New Yorkers have long been leaving for bigger
paychecks and jazzier lifestyles in places like Boston,
Austin and Atlanta. The exodus is considered a serious
problem because young people are a vital cog in local
economies--they take entry-level jobs, spend money and add
vibrancy to an area. Employers and local officials have
become concerned enough to try out some new strategies to
attract and retain young workers.
Updated U.S. Census figures tracking local population
changes by age won't be available until later this year.
However, interviews with recent college graduates, employers
and local leaders across New York reveal a widespread
perception that upstate areas struggle in the competition for
young workers.
Part of the problem is higher salaries offered elsewhere
for certain jobs. For instance, the mean 1998 salary for a
computer engineer in Rochester area was $54,910; it was
$62,930 in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area of North
Carolina, according to federal Bureau of Labor Statistics
data.
Lower pay can be mitigated by a relatively inexpensive
costs of living--three-bedroom houses in Buffalo or Syracuse
areas can be purchased for under $100,000. Albany Molecular
Research Inc. Vice President James Grates said when he tells
potential recruits in Berkeley that homes in the Albany area
can go for $90,000-$110,000--two or three times less than
similar houses in the Bay Area of California--``their jaws
drop to the table.''
But inexpensive housing is a bigger draw for workers ready
to settle down and have a family. People in their 20s have
been known to have other priorities--like being around other
people in their 20s.
``California, Boston, Texas--they have some glitter to
them. Fancy nightclubs, bars, sports bars, restaurants,
entertainment . . . the perception is here we don't have as
much of that,'' said Rochester Institute of Technology
President Albert Simone.
Take Atlanta, where Jonathan Cancro reports that there are
so many of his fellow University of Buffalo graduates that
he's helping start a local chapter of the college's alumni
association. One obvious sign of the Buffalo connection,
Cancro said, is the number of bars catering to Bills fans.
``There are tons of people down here from New York,'' said
the 30-year-old Long Island native. ``Not just UB.''
The twentysomething exodus has been serious enough to show
up on some politicians' radar. Erie County Executive Joel
Giambra ran a successful campaign in 1999 on the slogan
``Keep Our Kids.'' Sen. Hilliary Rodham Clinton also lamented
the loss of young people from New York while on the campaign
trail last year.
Employers have noticed too, and have tried to sweeten the
pot for young people. A survey last year by the Business
Council of New York State employers bumping up starting pay
and hastening first raises.
Companies also are experimenting with benefits that might
be attractive to younger, childless workers. Media Logic, a
marketing and advertising firm in Albany, includes yoga and
stress classes as part of its employees benefits package.
Meanwhile, business groups in several cities are
strengthening their links to local colleges in hopes in
grabbing graduates to fill job slots.
In Sycrause, the Metropolitan Development Association is
spending $550,000 in state grant money for summer internship
programs aimed at keeping area college students in the region
after graduation.
In Rochester, presidents of a number of area schools--
including RIT, the University of Rochester and the state
universities at Geneseo and Brockport--have met with local
employers to find ways to make it easier for small- and
medium-sized businesses to recruit local talent.
In Albany, the Center for Economic Growth plans to bring
together business leaders, students and maybe even guidance
counselors to start dialogues on what young graduates look
for in an employer.
``To tell a 22-year-old freshly minted college graduate
that the reason they should come to work for my company is
because I have this incredible 401k plan--it's probably not
going to raise their eyebrows and make them go `Yahoo!' ''
said center President Kelly Lovell. Also, there are new signs
of nightlife in many old upstate cities, be it brew pubs or
couch-crammed coffee houses. Buffalo's Chippewa Street might
be the most dramatic transformation--once notorious for its
sex trade, it is now a gentrified strip packed with bars,
dance clubs and restaurants.
Syracuse also is showing signs of rebirth, said super
booster Jeff Brown. The 36-year-old lawyer is helping start a
unique program to draw young people back to his hometown.
Under the ``Come Home to Sycrause'' program volunteers will
work off of alumni lists from local colleges and high
schools, contacting young expatriates to see if they want to
come back. The volunteers will help returnees network for
jobs.
A web site is planned and there's already a toll-free
number: 1-866-BAK-2SYR. Brown seems qualified for the job. He
was once one of those young people who left, in his case for
Washington D.C. Brown said he liked the hubbub but missed his
home community. ``At some point in your life,'' he said,
``you realize there's something more to life than 20
different Ethiopian restaurants.''
____

[From the New York Post, Mar. 1, 2001]

New York's Job Growth Again Tops U.S. Rate

(By Kenneth Lovett)

Albany.--Spurred by a surge in New York City, job growth in
the state surpassed the nation's average, for the second
straight year, in 2000.
The total number of jobs in the state grew by 2.3 percent
last year, compared with the national average of 2.1 percent,
the state Labor Department reported yesterday. New York's 4.2
percent unemployment rate in January matched the nation's for
the first time in nearly a decade.
The city had a 5.6 percent unemployment rate in January,
down from 5.9 percent in December and 6.4 percent last
January.
Overall, New York had 7.168 million private-sector jobs in
January, the highest number on record.
``Our policies have better positioned New York to fend off
a national economic slowdown,'' Gov. Pataki said. Mayor
Giuliani recently said the city was the ``economic
engine'' for the state as a whole. The numbers seem to
back him up.
New York City saw a 3.3-percent increase in jobs last year,
by far the largest jump in the state.
Upstate saw 1.2 percent growth, significantly lower than
the state average.
Large urban regions like Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Syracuse
and Rochester saw jobs grow by only .3 percent, .9 percent
and 1.1 percent, respectively.
The health of the upstate economy looms as a major issue in
next year's gubernatorial race. Republican Rick Lazio drew
heavy criticism last year when he downplayed the region's
economic woes in his failed Senate bid against Hillary Rodham
Clinton.
Democrats have already targeted the upstate economy as one
of the primary issues they will use against Pataki next year.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a growing crisis
in America's rural communities. We live in a time of balanced budgets,
large surpluses, record unemployment, and average wages rising across
the country. However, this wealth is not universal across the United
States. Our rural areas are suffering the exact opposite effect with
large outmigration and negative job growth. My highest priority is
reversing this trend, stimulating economic growth and bringing higher
paying jobs to my home State of Montana. I am pleased to join Senator
Clinton in introducing economic development legislation that is
targeted to the areas of greatest need, our rural communities.
Our Nation has enjoyed unparalleled economic prosperity during the
past decade. However, the boom on Wall Street has not extended to Main
Street, MT. The rural areas of America and Montana have endured
increased unemployment, the loss of family farms, and the transition
from a traditional economy based on natural resources to a new economy
where information and technology are highly valued. The effects have
been disastrous. Small businesses, which are essential components of
community, have been driven under as people have been forced to make
the most difficult choice of all and leave their home towns seeking a
new and better paying job.
In Montana, the problems are actually worse. Statewide, we are
suffering. Comparatively we rank forty-seventh in per-capita personal
income and second in the number of people holding more than one job.
With such a massive economic down-turn, State and local governments are
left unable to assist in this economic transition simply due to a lack
of funding. The private sector invests where it can, but

[[Page S1768]]

there is not a company in existence that could finance the investment
necessary to bring essential technology to sparsely populated areas.
Many of our small towns are left without hope because they are faced
with no alternative to the current situation. The tools that are
necessary to compete in the new economy are just not available to rural
communities and the means to attain them do not exist. If rural America
is to survive, we are charged with finding a way for these communities
to compete on an equal footing with the more populous areas of this
country and the world.
That is the intent of the legislative package that we are introducing
today. In the same spirit that brought electricity and basic telephone
service to our rural communities, we propose a mechanism for bringing
broadband capabilities, cutting-edge technology equipment, and
incentives for bringing new business to communities and regions that
have been left behind.
The issues addressed by this legislation strike to the heart of the
most pressing problems in my home State of Montana. Especially in
Eastern Montana, the so-called ``Digital Divide'' is very real and
presents a significant obstacle to economic growth and prosperity.
Specifically, the Broadband Deployment Initiative and the Technology
Extension Program will not only provide an incentive to the private
sector to bring cutting-edge technology to the most rural areas, they
will also provide the technical expertise to allow small and medium
businesses to use these new tools to their maximum potential. They will
be fully equipped to compete in a global economy.
I look forward to seeing this bipartisan legislation through Congress
and enacted into law. I encourage my colleagues to assist us in this
endeavor. It is our duty to ensure that all regions of America have a
chance to achieve economic prosperity and have access to the necessary
instruments of success.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hagel):
S. 434. A bill to provide equitable compensation to the Yankton Sioux
Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for the
loss of value of certain lands; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Tim
Johnson and Chuck Hagel to introduce legislation to compensate the
Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska for losses the tribes suffered when the Fort Randall and
Gavins Point dams were constructed on the Missouri River over four
decades ago.
As a result of the construction of these dams, more than 3,259 acres
of land owned by the Yankton Sioux Tribe were flooded or subsequently
lost to erosion. Also, approximately 600 acres of land located near the
Santee village and 400 acres on the Niobrara Island of the Santee Sioux
Tribe Indian Reservation were flooded. The flooding of these fertile
lands struck a significant blow to the economies of these tribes, a
loss for which they have never been adequately compensated. This
legislation attempts to redress that unfortunate reality by providing
the tribes resources to rebuild their infrastructure and strengthen
their economies.
To appreciate fully the need for this legislation, it is important to
understand history. The Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were
constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat.
887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the
Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water development and flood
control for downstream states.
The Fort Randall dam, which was an integral part of the Pick-Sloan
project, initially flooded 2,851 acres of tribal land, forcing the
relocation and resettlement of numerous families, including the
traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the
four major settlement areas on the reservation. On other reservations,
such as Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Fort
Berthold, communities affected by the Pick-Sloan dams were relocated to
higher ground. In contract, the White Swan community was completely
dissolved and its residents dispersed to whatever areas they could
settle and start again.
The bill I am introducing today, the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee
Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act, follows the
precedent established over the last ten years by a series of laws that
address similar claims by other tribes in South Dakota for losses
caused by the Pick-Sloan dams. In 1992, Congress granted the Three
Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe compensation for direct damages, including lost reservation
infrastructure, relocation and resettlement expenses, the general
rehabilitation of the tribes and unfulfilled government commitments
regarding replacement facilities. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation
compensating the Crow Creek tribe for its losses and in 1997
legislation was enacted to compensate the Lower Brule tribe. Last year,
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also received compensation.
The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe have not yet received
fair compensation for their losses. Their time has come.
The flooding caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect
of life on the Yankton and Santee Sioux reservations, as large portions
of their communities were forced to relocate wherever they could find
shelter. These effects were never fully considered when the federal
government was acquiring these lands or designing the Pick-Sloan
projects.
The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska
Development Trust Fund Act represents an important element of our
continuing effort to compensate fairly the tribes of the Missouri River
Basin for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of
the dams. Passage of this legislation will not only right a historic
wrong, but in doing so it will also improve the lives of Native
Americans living on these reservations.
It took decades for Congress to recognize the government's
unfulfilled federal obligation to compensate the tribes for the effects
of the construction of the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams. We
cannot, of course, reclaim the productive lands lost to those projects
which are now covered with water and return them to the tribes. We can,
however, help replace the forsaken economic potential of those lands by
providing resources to improve the infrastructure on the reservations.
This approach, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic
development that will benefit all members of the tribe.
I strongly urge my colleagues to approve the Yankton Sioux Tribe and
Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act this year.
Providing compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux
Tribe of Nebraska for past economic harm inflicted by the federal
government is long overdue, and further delay only compounds that harm.
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. 434

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 ``Yankton Sioux Tribe and
Santee Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) by enacting the Act of December 22, 1944, commonly
known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1944'' (58 Stat. 887,
chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.) Congress approved the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program (referred to in this
section as the ``Pick-Sloan program'')--
(A) to promote the general economic development of the
United States;
(B) to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa;
(C) to protect urban and rural areas from devastating
floods of the Missouri River; and
(D) for other purposes;
(2) the waters impounded for the Fort Randall and Gavins
Point projects of the Pick-Sloan program have inundated the
fertile, wooded bottom lands along the Missouri River that
constituted the most productive agricultural and pastoral
lands of, and the homeland of, the members of the Yankton
Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe;
(3) the Fort Randall project (including the Fort Randall
Dam and Reservoir) overlies the western boundary of the
Yankton Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation;
(4) the Gavins Point project (including the Gavins Point
Dam and Reservoir) overlies

[[Page S1769]]

the eastern boundary of the Santee Sioux Tribe;
(5) although the Fort Randall and Gavins Point projects are
major components of the Pick-Sloan program, and contribute to
the economy of the United States by generating a substantial
amount of hydropower and impounding a substantial quantity of
water, the reservations of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the
Santee Sioux Tribe remain undeveloped;
(6) the United States Army Corps of Engineers took the
Indian lands used for the Fort Randall and Gavins Point
projects by condemnation proceedings;
(7) the Federal Government did not give Yankton Sioux Tribe
and the Santee Sioux Tribe an opportunity to receive
compensation for direct damages from the Pick-Sloan program,
even though the Federal Government gave 5 Indian reservations
upstream from the reservations of those Indian tribes such an
opportunity;
(8) the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe did
not receive just compensation for the taking of productive
agricultural Indian lands through the condemnation referred
to in paragraph (6);
(9) the settlement agreement that the United States entered
into with the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe
to provide compensation for the taking by condemnation
referred to in paragraph (6) did not take into account the
increase in property values over the years between the date
of taking and the date of settlement; and
(10) in addition to the financial compensation provided
under the settlement agreements referred to in paragraph
(9)--
(A) the Yankton Sioux Tribe should receive an aggregate
amount equal to $23,023,743 for the loss value of 2,851.40
acres of Indian land taken for the Fort Randall Dam and
Reservoir of the Pick-Sloan program; and
(B) the Santee Sioux Tribe should receive an aggregate
amount equal to $4,789,010 for the loss value of 593.10 acres
of Indian land located near the Santee village.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(2) Santee sioux tribe.--The term ``Santee Sioux Tribe''
means the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.
(3) Yankton sioux tribe.--The term Yankton Sioux Tribe''
means the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

SEC. 4. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Yankton Sioux
Tribe Development Trust Fund'' (referred to in this section
as the ``Fund''). The Fund shall consist of any amounts
deposited in the Fund under this Act.
(b) Funding.--On the first day of the 11th fiscal year that
begins after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall, from the General Fund of the Treasury,
deposit into the Fund established under subsection (a)--
(1) $23,023,743; and
(2) an additional amount that equals the amount of interest
that would have accrued on the amount described in paragraph
(1) if such amount had been invested in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States, or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States, on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins
after the date of enactment of this Act and compounded
annually thereafter.
(c) Investment of Trust Fund.--It shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the Fund
as is not, in the Secretary of Treasury's judgment, required
to meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or
in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest
by the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit interest resulting from such investments into the
Fund.
(d) Payment of Interest to Tribe.--
(1) Withdrawal of interest.--Beginning on the first day of
the 11th fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act
and, on the first day of each fiscal year thereafter, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw the aggregate amount
of interest deposited into the Fund for that fiscal year and
transfer that amount to the Secretary of the Interior for use
in accordance with paragraph (2). Each amount so transferred
shall be available without fiscal year limitation.
(2) Payments to yankton sioux tribe.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall use
the amounts transferred under paragraph (1) only for the
purpose of making payments to the Yankton Sioux Tribe, as
such payments are requested by that Indian tribe pursuant to
tribal resolution.
(B) Limitation.--Payments may be made by the Secretary of
the Interior under subparagraph (A) only after the Yankton
Sioux Tribe has adopted a tribal plan under section 6.
(C) Use of payments by yankton sioux tribe.--The Yankton
Sioux Tribe shall use the payments made under subparagraph
(A) only for carrying out projects and programs under the
tribal plan prepared under section 6.
(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in
subsections (c) and (d)(1), the Secretary of the Treasury may
not transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under
subsection (b).

SEC. 5. SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Santee Sioux
Tribe Development Trust Fund'' (referred to in this section
as the ``Fund''). The Fund shall consist of any amounts
deposited in the Fund under this Act.
(b) Funding.--On the first day of the 11th fiscal year that
begins after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall, from the General Fund of the Treasury,
deposit into the Fund established under subsection (a)--
(1) $4,789,010; and
(2) an additional amount that equals the amount of interest
that would have accrued on the amount described in paragraph
(1) if such amount had been invested in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States, or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States, on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins
after the date of enactment of this Act and compounded
annually thereafter.
(c) Investment of Trust Fund.--It shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the Fund
as is not, in the Secretary of Treasury's judgment, required
to meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or
in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest
by the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit interest resulting from such investments into the
Fund.
(d) Payment of Interest to Tribe.--
(1) Withdrawal of interest.--Beginning on the first day of
the 11th fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act
and, on the first day of each fiscal year thereafter, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw the aggregate amount
of interest deposited into the Fund for that fiscal year and
transfer that amount to the Secretary of the Interior for use
in accordance with paragraph (2). Each amount so transferred
shall be available without fiscal year limitation.
(2) Payments to santee sioux tribe.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall use
the amounts transferred under paragraph (1) only for the
purpose of making payments to the Santee Sioux Tribe, as such
payments are requested by that Indian tribe pursuant to
tribal resolution.
(B) Limitation.--Payments may be made by the Secretary of
the Interior under subparagraph (A) only after the Santee
Sioux Tribe has adopted a tribal plan under section 6.
(C) Use of payments by santee sioux tribe.--The Santee
Sioux Tribe shall use the payments made under subparagraph
(A) only for carrying out projects and programs under the
tribal plan prepared under section 6.
(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in
subsections (c) and (d)(1), the Secretary of the Treasury may
not transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under
subsection (b).

SEC. 6. TRIBAL PLANS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the tribal council of each of the
Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux Tribes shall prepare a plan
for the use of the payments to the tribe under section 4(d)
or 5(d) (referred to in this subsection as a ``tribal
plan'').
(b) Contents of Tribal Plan.--Each tribal plan shall
provide for the manner in which the tribe covered under the
tribal plan shall expend payments to the tribe under
subsection (d) to promote--
(1) economic development;
(2) infrastructure development;
(3) the educational, health, recreational, and social
welfare objectives of the tribe and its members; or
(4) any combination of the activities described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(c) Tribal Plan Review and Revision.--
(1) In general.--Each tribal council referred to in
subsection (a) shall make available for review and comment by
the members of the tribe a copy of the tribal plan for the
Indian tribe before the tribal plan becomes final, in
accordance with procedures established by the tribal council.
(2) Updating of tribal plan.--Each tribal council referred
to in subsection (a) may, on an annual basis, revise the
tribal plan prepared by that tribal council to update the
tribal plan. In revising the tribal plan under this
paragraph, the tribal council shall provide the members of
the tribe opportunity to review and comment on any proposed
revision to the tribal plan.
(3) Consultation.--In preparing the tribal plan and any
revisions to update the plan, each tribal council shall
consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(4) Audit.--
(A) In general.--The activities of the tribes in carrying
out the tribal plans shall be audited as part of the annual
single-agency audit that the tribes are required to prepare
pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget circular
numbered A-133.
(B) Determination by auditors.--The auditors that conduct
the audit described in subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) determine whether funds received by each tribe under
this section for the period covered by the audits were
expended to carry out the respective tribal plans in a manner
consistent with this section; and

[[Page S1770]]

(ii) include in the written findings of the audits the
determinations made under clause (i).
(C) Inclusion of findings with publication of proceedings
of tribal council.--A copy of the written findings of the
audits described in subparagraph (A) shall be inserted in the
published minutes of each tribal council's proceedings for
the session at which the audit is presented to the tribal
councils.
(d) Prohibition on Per Capita Payments.--No portion of any
payment made under this Act may be distributed to any member
of the Yankton Sioux Tribe or the Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska on a per capita basis.

SEC. 7. ELIGIBILITY OF TRIBE FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES.

(a) In General.--No payment made to the Yankton Sioux Tribe
or Santee Sioux Tribe pursuant to this Act shall result in
the reduction or denial of any service or program to which,
pursuant to Federal law--
(1) the Yankton Sioux Tribe or Santee Sioux Tribe is
otherwise entitled because of the status of the tribe as a
federally recognized Indian tribe; or
(2) any individual who is a member of a tribe under
paragraph (1) is entitled because of the status of the
individual as a member of the tribe.
(b) Exemptions From Taxation.--No payment made pursuant to
this Act shall be subject to any Federal or State income tax.
(c) Power Rates.--No payment made pursuant to this Act
shall affect Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin power rates.

SEC. 8. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as diminishing or
affecting any water right of an Indian tribe, except as
specifically provided in another provision of this Act, any
treaty right that is in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act, any authority of the Secretary of the Interior or
the head of any other Federal agency under a law in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may
be necessary for the administration of the Yankton Sioux
Tribe Development Trust Fund under section 4 and the Santee
Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund under section
5.

SEC. 10. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.

Upon the deposit of funds under sections 4(b) and 5(b), all
monetary claims that the Yankton Sioux Tribe or the Santee
Sioux Tribe of Nebraska has or may have against the United
States for loss of value or use of land related to lands
described in section 2(a)(10) resulting from the Fort Randall
and Gavins Point projects of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program shall be extinguished.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Gramm):
S. 435. A bill to provide that the annual drug certification
procedures under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 not apply to
certain countries with which the United States has bilateral agreements
and other plans relating to counterdrug activities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, over the last several years, Congress has
had no good options when it comes to the certification of major drug
producing and drug transit countries. This has been most apparent in
our annual debate over the certification of Mexico's efforts in
combating illicit drugs.
Certifying Mexico has been very difficult to do in light of the
upsetting statistics showing that Mexico is a major point of production
and transit for drugs entering the United States. I have also been, and
continue to be, concerned about the influence of powerful drug cartels
in Mexico. In fact, in 1998, I joined 44 other Senators in voting in
favor of decertifying Mexico.
Nevertheless, I join many of my colleagues in the belief that the
certification process does not work as it was intended. In some cases,
what we have now is the worst of both worlds. The certification process
subjects some of our closest allies and trading partners to an annual
ritual of finger-pointing and humiliation rather than supporting mutual
efforts to control illicit drugs.
Today, Senator Gramm and I are reintroducing legislation which we
hope will lead to a more honest and realistic way of addressing the
international drug problem. By replacing confrontation with
cooperation, we are encouraging nations to join the United States in
fighting drugs while eliminating a process which strains our relations
with allies such as Mexico.
Our legislation would exempt from the certification process those
countries that have a bilateral agreement with the United States. These
agreements would have to address issues relating to the control of
illicit drugs--including production, distribution, interdiction, demand
reduction, border security, and cooperation among law enforcement
agencies.
This alternative will give both countries a way to work together for
real goals with real results. Make no mistake, this will not give
Mexico or any other country a free pass on fighting illicit drugs. On
the contrary, our bill encourages the adoption of tough bilateral
agreements. It specifically spells out issues that must be addressed in
the agreements.
We specifically require the adoption of ``timetables and objective
and measurable standards.'' And we require semi-annual reports
assessing the progress of both countries under the bilateral agreement.
If progress is not made, the country returns to the annual
certification process, which involves the possibility of sanctions.
This issue is particularly important to those of us from border
states, which are hit so hard by the traffic in illegal drugs. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan and comprehensive
solution.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 436. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the
transfer of a handgun and provide safety standards for child safety
locks; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act
of 2001, along with Senators Chafee, Durbin, Schumer, Reed, Corzine,
Boxer and Kerry. Our bipartisan measure will save children's lives by
reducing the senseless tragedies that result when children get their
hands on improperly stored and unlocked handguns.
Each year, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000
accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die. In addition,
every year 1,300 children use firearms to commit suicide. Safety locks
can be effective in deterring some of these incidents and in preventing
others.
The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster every time an unlocked
gun is stored but is still easily accessible to children. In fact, guns
are kept in 43 percent of American households with children. In 23
percent of the gun households, the guns are kept loaded. And, in one
out of every eight of those homes the guns are left unlocked.
That is wrong. It is unacceptable. But these cold statistics do not
begin to describe in human terms the daily tragedies that could be
prevented by the use of a safety lock.
Take, for example, the story of a teenage girl in Milwaukee last year
who was killed when the gun her boyfriend found accidentally went off,
shooting her in the chest. A lock certainly would have prevented this
tragedy. A lock would have also saved both the three-year-old in New
Orleans who shot himself in the head with his mother's gun two months
ago or the two-year-old boy who shot himself in the forehead with his
mother's pistol in Pennsylvania last October. Of course, no one will
ever forget the story of six-year-old Kayla Rolland in Michigan killed
last year by a classmate who had brought a gun to school. The stories
could go on for pages, each more tragic than the last, but the most
tragic fact of all is that many of them were entirely preventable.
Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple,
effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device,
or trigger lock, be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in
form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun
trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of
thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from
unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store
for less than ten dollars.
This year, for the first time, this child safety lock bill includes
standards for the safety locks, building on the work of Senator Kerry
on this issue. A recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission
and a recent recall by the safety lock manufacturers conclusively
demonstrates that child safety locks are not being made

[[Page S1771]]

well enough. A lock that is easily picked or one that breaks apart with
little force defeats the safety purpose of this bill. We wouldn't use a
lock that is less than foolproof to guard our most valuable
possessions. We shouldn't use defective locks to protect what is most
valuable to us--our children.
A child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an overwhelming
vote of 78-20 last session as an amendment during the juvenile justice
debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the country and
the law enforcement community as it was with the last Senate. Polls
show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American public, including
gun owners, favor the mandatory sale of child safety locks with guns.
When I surveyed almost 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs
last summer, approximately 90 percent responded that child safety locks
should be sold with each gun.
In addition, according to published reports from last year's
campaign, President Bush indicated that he supports the idea of
mandatory child safety locks and would sign a bill that required the
sale of a child safety lock with all new handguns. Attorney General
Ashcroft confirmed that the administration supports the mandatory sale
of child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the
Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year.
This legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are
provided with all handguns and to keep the pressure on handgun
manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children by
requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that
childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no
less vigilant when it comes to gun safety.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 436

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 ``Child Safety Lock Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(35) The term `locking device' means a device or locking
mechanism--
``(A) that--
``(i) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a
key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically
operated combination lock, is designed to prevent the firearm
from being discharged without first deactivating or removing
the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically,
or electromechanically operated combination lock;
``(ii) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is
designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person
who does not have access to the key or other device designed
to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the
firearm; or
``(iii) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other
device that is designed to store a firearm and that is
designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a
combination, or other similar means; and
``(B) that is approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer
for use on the handgun with which the device or locking
mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred.''.
(b) Unlawful Acts.--
(1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the
following:
``(z) Locking Devices.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed
importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee
is provided with a locking device for that handgun.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the--
``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the
United States or a State or a department or agency of the
United States, or a State or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a firearm; or
``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a
firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off
duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of
a firearm for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off
duty).''.
(2) Effective date.--Section 922(y) of title 18, United
States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Liability; Evidence.--
(1) Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to--
(A) create a cause of action against any firearms dealer or
any other person for any civil liability; or
(B) establish any standard of care.
(2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the
amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as
evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or
other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce
this section.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty
under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a
failure to comply with section 922(y) of that title.
(d) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and
inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil
penalties.--With respect to each violation of section
922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee
under this chapter; or
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount
equal to not more than $10,000.
``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or
revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty
under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative
remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.

(a) In General.--The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2051 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:

``SEC. 38. CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY LOCKS.

``(a) Establishment of Standard.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Rulemaking required.--Notwithstanding section
3(a)(1)(E) of this Act, the Commission shall initiate a
rulemaking proceeding under section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, within 90 days after the date of enactment of
the Child Safety Lock Act of 2001 to establish a consumer
product safety standard for locking devices. The Commission
may extend the 90-day period for good cause. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, including chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, the Commission shall promulgate a final
consumer product safety standard under this paragraph within
12 months after the date on which it initiated the
rulemaking. The Commission may extend that 12-month period
for good cause. The consumer product safety standard
promulgated under this paragraph shall take effect 6 months
after the date on which the final standard is promulgated.
``(B) Standard requirements.--The standard promulgated
under subparagraph (A) shall require locking devices that--
``(i) are sufficiently difficult for children to de-
activate or remove; and
``(ii) prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the
locking device has been de-activated or removed.
``(2) Certain provisions not to apply.--
``(A) Provisions of this act.--Sections 7, 9, and 30(d) of
this Act do not apply to the rulemaking proceeding under
paragraph (1). Section 11 of this Act does not apply to any
consumer product safety standard promulgated under paragraph
(1).
``(B) Chapter 5 of title 5.--Except for section 553,
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, does not apply to
this section.
``(C) Chapter 6 of title 5.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United
States Code, does not apply to this section.
``(D) National environmental policy act.--The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) does not
apply to this section.
``(b) No Effect on State Law.--Notwithstanding section 26
of this Act, this section does not annul, alter, impair,
affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of
this section from complying with any provision of the law of
any State or any political subdivision thereof, except to the
extent that such provisions of State law are inconsistent
with any provision of this section, and then only to the
extent of the inconsistency. A provision of State law is not
inconsistent with this section if such provision affords
greater protection to children in respect of handguns than is
afforded by this section.
``(c) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2)(A),
the consumer product safety standard promulgated by the
Commission under subsection (a) shall be enforced under this
Act as if it were a consumer product safety standard
described in section 7(a).
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Child.--The term `child' means an individual who has
not attained the age of 13 years.

[[Page S1772]]

``(2) Locking device.--The term `locking device' has the
meaning given that term in clauses (i) and (iii) of section
921(a)(35)(A) of title 18, United States Code.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1 of the Consumer
Product Safety Act is amended by adding at the end of the
table of contents the following:

``Sec. 38. Child handgun safety locks.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
$2,000,000 to carry out the provisions of section 38 of the
Consumer Product Safety Act, such sums to remain available
until expended.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, and Mr.
Grassley):
S. 437. A bill to revise and extend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act of 1994; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. 437

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 ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACT OF 1965.

Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``TITLE IV--SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

``SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

``This part may be cited as the `Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act of 1994'.

``SEC. 4002. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Every student should attend a school in a drug- and
violence-free learning environment.
``(2) The widespread illegal use of alcohol and drugs among
the Nation's secondary school students, and increasingly by
students in elementary schools as well, constitutes a grave
threat to such students' physical and mental well-being, and
significantly impedes the learning process. For example, data
show that students who drink tend to receive lower grades and
are more likely to miss school because of illness than
students who do not drink.
``(3) Drug and violence prevention programs are essential
components of a comprehensive strategy to promote school
safety, youth development, positive school outcomes, and to
reduce the demand for and illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and
drugs throughout the Nation. Schools, local organizations,
parents, students, and communities throughout the Nation have
a special responsibility to work together to combat the
continuing epidemic of violence and illegal drug use and
should measure the success of their programs against clearly
defined goals and objectives.
``(4) Drug and violence prevention programs are most
effective when implemented within a research-based, drug and
violence prevention framework of proven effectiveness.
``(5) Research clearly shows that community contexts
contribute to substance abuse and violence.
``(6) Substance abuse and violence are intricately related
and must be dealt with in a holistic manner.
``(7) Research has documented that parental behavior and
environment directly influence a child's inclination to use
alcohol, tobacco or drugs.

``SEC. 4003. PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this part is to support programs that
prevent violence in and around schools and prevent the
illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, involve parents,
and are coordinated with related Federal, State, school, and
community efforts and resources, through the provision of
Federal assistance to--
``(1) States for grants to local educational agencies and
educational service agencies and consortia of such agencies
to establish, operate, and improve local programs of school
drug and violence prevention, early intervention,
rehabilitation referral, and education in elementary and
secondary schools for the development and implementation of
policies that set clear and appropriate standards regarding
the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and for
violent behavior (including intermediate and junior high
schools);
``(2) States for grants to, and contracts with, community-
based organizations and other public and private nonprofit
agencies and organizations for programs of drug and violence
prevention including community mobilization, early
intervention, rehabilitation referral, and education;
``(3) States for development, training, technical
assistance, and coordination activities; and
``(4) public and private nonprofit organizations to provide
technical assistance, conduct training, demonstrations, and
evaluation, and to provide supplementary services and
community mobilization activities for the prevention of drug
use and violence among students and youth.

``SEC. 4004. FUNDING.

``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for State grants under part A;
``(2) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for national programs under part B; and
``(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years,
for the National Coordinator Initiative under section 4122.

``PART A--STATE GRANTS FOR DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS

``SEC. 4111. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.

``(a) Reservations.--From the amount made available under
section 4004(1) to carry out this part for each fiscal year,
the Secretary--
``(1) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for grants
under this part to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, to be
allotted in accordance with the Secretary's determination of
their respective needs;
``(2) shall reserve 1 percent of such amount for the
Secretary of the Interior to carry out programs under this
part for Indian youth;
``(3) may reserve not more than $2,000,000 for the national
impact evaluation required by section 4117(a); and
``(4) shall reserve 0.2 percent of such amount for programs
for Native Hawaiians under section 4118.
``(b) State Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall, for each fiscal year, allocate among the
States--
``(A) one-half of the remainder not reserved under
subsection (a) according to the ratio between the school-aged
population of each State and the school-aged population of
all the States; and
``(B) one-half of such remainder according to the ratio
between the amount each State received under section 1124A
for the preceding year and the sum of such amounts received
by all the States.
``(2) Minimum.--For any fiscal year, no State shall be
allotted under this subsection an amount that is less than
one-half of 1 percent of the total amount allotted to all the
States under this subsection.
``(3) Reallotment.--The Secretary may reallot any amount of
any allotment to a State if the Secretary determines that the
State will be unable to use such amount within 2 years of
such allotment. Such reallotments shall be made on the same
basis as allotments are made under paragraph (1).
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
``(B) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' includes educational service agencies and
consortia of such agencies.
``(c) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated under section
4004(2) for a fiscal year may not be increased above the
amounts appropriated under such section for the previous
fiscal year unless the amounts appropriated under section
4004(1) for the fiscal year involved are at least 10 percent
greater that the amounts appropriated under such section
4004(1) for the previous fiscal year.

``SEC. 4112. STATE APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--In order to receive an allotment under
section 4111 for any fiscal year, a State shall submit to the
Secretary, at such time as the Secretary may require, an
application that--
``(1) contains a comprehensive plan for the use of funds by
the State educational agency and the chief executive officer
to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and
communities;
``(2) contains the results of the State's needs assessment
for drug and violence prevention programs, which shall be
based on the results of on-going State evaluation activities,
including data on the incidence and prevalence, age of onset,
perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and
communities and the prevalence of risk or protective factors,
buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the
school and community;
``(3) contains assurances that the sections of the
application concerning the funds provided to the chief
executive officer and the State educational agency were
developed together, with each such officer or State
representative, in consultation and coordination with
appropriate State officials and others, including the chief
State school officer, the chief executive officer, the head
of the State alcohol and drug abuse agency, the heads of the
State health and mental health agencies, the head of the
State criminal justice planning agency, the head of the State
child welfare agency, the head of the State board of
education, or their designees, and representatives of
parents, students, and community-based organizations;

[[Page S1773]]

``(4) contains an assurance that the State will cooperate
with, and assist, the Secretary in conducting a national
impact evaluation of programs required by section 4117(a);
``(5) contains assurances that the State education agency
and the Governor will develop their respective applications
in consultation with an advisory council that includes, to
the extent practicable, representatives from school
districts, businesses, parents, youth, teachers,
administrators, pupil services personnel, private schools,
appropriate State agencies, community-based organization, the
medical profession, law enforcement, the faith-based
community and other groups with interest and expertise in
alcohol, tobacco, drug, and violence prevention;
``(6) contains assurances that the State education agency
and the Governor involve the representatives described in
paragraph (5), on an ongoing basis, to review program
evaluations and other relevant material and make
recommendations to the State education agency and the
Governor on how to improve their respective alcohol, tobacco,
drug, and violence prevention programs;
``(7) contains a list of the State's results-based
performance measures for drug and violence prevention, that
shall--
``(A) be focused on student behavior and attitudes and be
derived from the needs assessment;
``(B) include targets and due dates for the attainment of
such performance measures; and
``(C) include a description of the procedures that the
State will use to inform local educational agencies of such
performance measures for assessing and publicly reporting
progress toward meeting such measures or revising them as
needed; and
``(8) includes any other information the Secretary may
require.
``(b) State Educational Agency Funds.--A State's
application under this section shall also contain a
comprehensive plan for the use of funds under section 4113(a)
by the State educational agency that includes--
``(1) a plan for monitoring the implementation of, and
providing technical assistance regarding, the drug and
violence prevention programs conducted by local educational
agencies in accordance with section 4116
``(2) a description of how the State educational agency
will use funds under section 4113(b), including how the
agency will receive input from parents regarding the use of
such funds;
``(3) a description of how the State educational agency
will coordinate such agency's activities under this part with
the chief executive officer's drug and violence prevention
programs under this part and with the prevention efforts of
other State agencies; and
``(4) a description of the procedures the State educational
agency will use to review applications from and allocate
funding to local educational agencies under section 4115 and
how such review will receive input from parents.
``(c) Governor's Funds.--A State's application under this
section shall also contain a comprehensive plan for the use
of funds under section 4114(a) by the chief executive officer
that includes, with respect to each activity to be carried
out by the State--
``(1) a description of how the chief executive officer will
coordinate such officer's activities under this part with the
State educational agency and other State agencies and
organizations involved with drug and violence prevention
efforts;
``(2) a description of how funds reserved under section
4114(a) will be used so as not to duplicate the efforts of
the State educational agency and local educational agencies
with regard to the provision of school-based prevention
efforts and services and how those funds will be used to
serve populations not normally served by the State
educational agency, such as school dropouts and youth in
detention centers;
``(3) a description of how the chief executive officer will
award funds under section 4114(a) and a plan for monitoring
the performance of, and providing technical assistance to,
recipients of such funds;
``(4) a description of the special outreach activities that
will be carried out to maximize the participation of
community-based nonprofit organizations of demonstrated
effectiveness which provide services in low-income
communities;
``(5) a description of how funds will be used to support
community-wide comprehensive drug and violence prevention
planning and community mobilization activities; and
``(6) a specific description of how input from parents will
be sought regarding the use of funds under section 4114(a).
``(d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review
process in reviewing State applications under this section.
``(e) Interim Application.--Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this section, a State may submit for fiscal
year 2001 a 1-year interim application and plan for the use
of funds under this part that are consistent with the
requirements of this section and contain such information as
the Secretary may specify in regulations. The purpose of such
interim application and plan shall be to afford the State the
opportunity to fully develop and review such State's
application and comprehensive plan otherwise required by this
section. A State may not receive a grant under this part for
a fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 2001 unless the
Secretary has approved such State's application and
comprehensive plan in accordance with this part.

``SEC. 4113. STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PROGRAMS.

``(a) Use of Funds.--An amount equal to 80 percent of the
total amount allocated to a State under section 4111 for each
fiscal year shall be used by the State educational agency and
its local educational agencies for drug and violence
prevention activities in accordance with this section.
``(b) State Level Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use not
more than 5 percent of the amount available under subsection
(a) for activities such as--
``(A) voluntary training and technical assistance
concerning drug and violence prevention for local educational
agencies and educational service agencies, including
teachers, administrators, coaches and athletic directors,
other staff, parents, students, community leaders, health
service providers, local law enforcement officials, and
judicial officials;
``(B) the development, identification, dissemination, and
evaluation of the most readily available, accurate, and up-
to-date drug and violence prevention curriculum materials
(including videotapes, software, and other technology-based
learning resources), for consideration by local educational
agencies;
``(C) making available to local educational agencies cost
effective research-based programs for youth violence and drug
abuse prevention;
``(D) demonstration projects in drug and violence
prevention, including service-learning projects;
``(E) training, technical assistance, and demonstration
projects to address violence associated with prejudice and
intolerance;
``(F) financial assistance to enhance resources available
for drug and violence prevention in areas serving large
numbers of economically disadvantaged children or sparsely
populated areas, or to meet other special needs consistent
with the purposes of this part; and
``(G) the evaluation of activities carried out within the
State under this part.
``(2) Special rule.--A State educational agency may carry
out activities under this subsection directly, or through
grants or contracts.
``(c) State Administration.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency may use not
more than 5 percent of the amount reserved under subsection
(a) for the administrative costs of carrying out its
responsibilities under this part.
``(2) Uniform management information and reporting
system.--In carrying out its responsibilities under this
part, a State shall implement a uniform management
information and reporting system that includes information on
the types of curricula, programs and services provided by the
State, Governor, local education agencies, and other
recipients of funds under this title.
``(d) Local Educational Agency Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall
distribute not less than 91 percent of the amount made
available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to local
educational agencies in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Distribution.--A State educational agency shall
distribute amounts under paragraph (1) in accordance with any
one of the following subparagraphs:
``(A) Enrollment and combination approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute
``(i) at least 70 percent of such amount to local
educational agencies, based on the relative enrollments in
public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools
within the boundaries of such agencies; and
``(ii) not to exceed 30 percent of any amounts remaining
after amounts are distributed under clause (i)--

``(I) to each local educational agency in an amount
determined appropriate by the State education agency; or
``(II) to local educational agencies that the State
education agency determines have the greatest need for
additional funds to carry out drug and violence prevention
programs authorized by this part.

``(B) Competitive and need approach.--Of the amount
distributed under paragraph (1), a State educational agency
shall distribute
``(i) not to exceed 70 percent of such amount to local
educational agencies that the State agency determines,
through a competitive process, have the greatest need for
funds to carry out drug and violence prevention programs
based on criteria established by the State agency and
authorized under this part; and
``(ii) at least 30 percent of any amounts remaining after
amounts are distributed under clause (i) to local education
agencies that the State agency determines have a need for
additional funds to carry out the program authorized under
this part.
``(3) Consideration of objective data.--For purposes of
paragraph (2), in determining which local educational
agencies have the greatest need for funds, the State
educational agency shall consider objective data which may
include--
``(A) high or increasing rates of alcohol or drug use among
youth;
``(B) high or increasing rates of victimization of youth by
violence and crime;

[[Page S1774]]

``(C) high or increasing rates of arrests and convictions
of youth for violent or drug- or alcohol-related crime;
``(D) the extent of illegal gang activity;
``(E) high or increasing incidence of violence associated
with prejudice and intolerance;
``(F) high or increasing rates of referrals of youths to
drug and alcohol abuse treatment and rehabilitation programs;
``(G) high or increasing rates of referrals of youths to
juvenile court;
``(H) high or increasing rates of expulsions and
suspensions of students from schools;
``(I) high or increasing rates of reported cases of child
abuse and domestic violence; and
``(J) high or increasing rates of drug related emergencies
or deaths.
``(e) Reallocation of Funds.--If a local educational agency
chooses not to apply to receive the amount allocated to such
agency under subsection (d), or if such agency's application
under section 4115 is disapproved by the State educational
agency, the State educational agency shall reallocate such
amount to one or more of its other local educational
agencies.
``(f) Return of Funds to State Educational Agency;
Reallocation.--
``(1) Return.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon
the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date
that a local educational agency or educational service agency
under this title receives its allocation under this title--
``(A) such agency shall return to the State educational
agency any funds from such allocation that remain
unobligated; and
``(B) the State educational agency shall reallocate any
such amount to local educational agencies or educational
service agencies that have plans for using such amount for
programs or activities on a timely basis.
``(2) Reallocation.--In any fiscal year, a local
educational agency, may retain for obligation in the
succeeding fiscal year--
``(A) an amount equal to not more than 25 percent of the
allocation it receives under this title for such fiscal year;
or
``(B) upon a demonstration of good cause by such agency or
consortium, a greater amount approved by the State
educational agency.

``SEC. 4114. GOVERNOR'S PROGRAMS.

``(a) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--An amount equal to 20 percent of the
total amount allocated to a State under section 4111(b)(1)
for each fiscal year shall be used by the chief executive
officer of such State for drug and violence prevention
programs and activities in accordance with this section.
``(2) Administrative costs.--A chief executive officer may
use not more than 5 percent of the 20 percent described in
paragraph (1) for the administrative costs incurred in
carrying out the duties of such officer under this section.
The chief executive officer of a State may use amounts under
this paragraph to award grants to State, county, or local law
enforcement agencies, including district attorneys, in
consultation with local education agencies or community-based
agencies, for the purposes of carrying out drug abuse and
violence prevention activities.
``(b) State Plan.--Amounts shall be used under this section
in accordance with a State plan submitted by the chief
executive office of the State. Such State plan shall
contain--
``(1) an objective analysis of the current use (and
consequences of such use) of alcohol, tobacco, and
controlled, illegal, addictive or harmful substances as well
as the violence, safety, and discipline problems among
students who attend schools in the State (including private
school students who participate in the States's drug and
violence prevention programs) that is based on ongoing local
assessment or evaluation activities;
``(2) an analysis, based on data reasonably available at
the time, of the prevalence of risk or protective factors,
buffers or assets or other research-based variables in
schools and communities in the State;
``(3) a description of the research-based strategies and
programs, which shall be used to prevent or reduce drug use,
violence, or disruptive behavior, which shall include--
``(A) a specification of the objectively measurable goals,
objectives, and activities for the program;
``(B) a specification for how risk factors, if any, which
have been identified will be targeted through research-based
programs; and
``(C) a specification for how protective factors, buffers,
or assets, if any, will be targeted through research-based
programs;
``(4) a specification for the method or methods by which
measurements of program goals will be achieved; and
``(5) a specification for how the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the prevention program will be assessed and
how the results will be used to refine, improve, and
strengthen the program.
``(c) Programs Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--A chief executive officer shall use
funds made available under subsection (a)(1) directly for
grants to or contracts with parent groups, schools, community
action and job training agencies, community-based
organizations, community anti-drug coalitions, law
enforcement education partnerships, and other public entities
and private nonprofit organizations and consortia thereof. In
making such grants and contracts, a chief executive officer
shall give priority to programs and activities described in
subsection (d) for--
``(A) children and youth who are not normally served by
State or local educational agencies; or
``(B) populations that need special services or additional
resources (such as preschoolers, youth in juvenile detention
facilities, runaway or homeless children and youth, pregnant
and parenting teenagers, and school dropouts).
``(2) Peer review.--Grants or contracts awarded under this
subsection shall be subject to a peer review process.
``(d) Authorized Activities.--Grants and contracts under
subsection (c) shall be used to carry out the comprehensive
State plan as required under section 4112(a)(1) through
programs and activities such as--
``(1) disseminating information about drug and violence
prevention;
``(2) the voluntary training of parents, law enforcement
officials, judicial officials, social service providers,
health service providers and community leaders about drug and
violence prevention, health education (as it relates to drug
and violence prevention), early intervention, pupil services,
or rehabilitation referral;
``(3) developing and implementing comprehensive, community-
based drug and violence prevention programs that link
community resources with schools and integrate services
involving education, vocational and job skills training and
placement, law enforcement, health, mental health, community
service, service-learning, mentoring, and other appropriate
services;
``(4) planning and implementing drug and violence
prevention activities that coordinate the efforts of State
agencies with efforts of the State educational agency and its
local educational agencies;
``(5) activities to protect students traveling to and from
school;
``(6) before-and-after school recreational, instructional,
cultural, and artistic programs that encourage drug- and
violence-free lifestyles;
``(7) activities that promote the awareness of and
sensitivity to alternatives to violence through courses of
study that include related issues of intolerance and hatred
in history;
``(8) developing and implementing activities to prevent and
reduce violence associated with prejudice and intolerance;
``(9) developing and implementing strategies to prevent
illegal gang activity;
``(10) coordinating and conducting school and community-
wide violence and safety and drug abuse assessments and
surveys;
``(11) service-learning projects that encourage drug- and
violence-free lifestyles;
``(12) evaluating programs and activities assisted under
this section;
``(13) developing and implementing community mobilization
activities to undertake environmental change strategies
related to substance abuse and violence; and
``(14) partnerships between local law enforcement agencies,
including district attorneys, and local education agencies or
community-based agencies.

``SEC. 4115. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

``(a) Application Required.--
``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
distribution under section 4113(d) for any fiscal year, a
local educational agency shall submit, at such time as the
State educational agency requires, an application to the
State educational agency for approval. Such an application
shall be amended, as necessary, to reflect changes in the
local educational agency's program.
``(2) Development.--
``(A) Consultation.--A local educational agency shall
develop its application under subsection (a)(1) in
consultation with a local or substate regional advisory
council that includes, to the extent possible,
representatives of local government, business, parents,
students, teachers, pupil services personnel, appropriate
State agencies, private schools, the medical profession, law
enforcement, community-based organizations, and other groups
with interest and expertise in drug and violence prevention.
``(B) Duties of advisory council.--In addition to assisting
the local educational agency to develop an application under
this section, the advisory council established or designated
under subparagraph (A) shall, on an ongoing basis--
``(i) disseminate information about research-based drug and
violence prevention programs, projects, and activities
conducted within the boundaries of the local educational
agency;
``(ii) advise the local educational agency regarding how
best to coordinate such agency's activities under this part
with other related programs, projects, and activities;
``(iii) ensure that a mechanism is in place to enable local
educational agencies to have access to up-to-date information
concerning the agencies that administer related programs,
projects, and activities and any changes in the law that
alter the duties of the local educational agencies with
respect to activities conducted under this part; and
``(iv) review program evaluations and other relevant
material and make recommendations on an active and ongoing
basis to the local educational agency on how to improve such
agency's drug and violence prevention programs.
``(b) Contents of Applications.--An application under this
section shall contain--
``(1) an objective analysis of the current use (and
consequences of such use) of alcohol, tobacco, and
controlled, illegal, addictive or harmful substances as well
as the violence, safety, and discipline problems among

[[Page S1775]]

students who attend the schools of the applicant (including
private school students who participate in the applicant's
drug and violence prevention program) that is based on
ongoing local assessment or evaluation activities;
``(2) an analysis, based on data reasonably available at
the time, of the prevalence of risk or protective factors,
buffers or assets or other research-based variables in the
school and community;
``(3) a description of the research-based strategies and
programs, which shall be used to prevent or reduce drug use,
violence, or disruptive behavior, which shall include--
``(A) a specification of the objectively measurable goals,
objectives, and activities for the program, which shall
include--
``(i) reductions in the use of alcohol, tobacco, and
illicit drugs and violence by youth;
``(ii) specific reductions in the prevalence of identified
risk factors;
``(iii) specific increases in the prevalence of protective
factors, buffers, or assets if any have been identified; or
``(iv) other research-based goals, objectives, and
activities that are identified as part of the application
that are not otherwise covered under clauses (i) through
(iii);
``(B) a specification for how risk factors, if any, which
have been identified will be targeted through research-based
programs; and
``(C) a specification for how protective factors, buffers,
or assets, if any, will be targeted through research-based
programs;
``(4) a specification for the method or methods by which
measurements of program goals will be achieved;
``(5) a specification for how the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the prevention program will be assessed and
how the results will be used to refine, improve, and
strengthen the program;
``(6) an assurance that the applicant has, or the schools
to be served have, a plan for keeping schools safe and drug-
free that includes--
``(A) appropriate and effective discipline policies that
prohibit disorderly conduct, the possession of firearms and
other weapons, and the illegal use, possession, distribution,
and sale of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs by students;
``(B) security procedures at school and while students are
on the way to and from school;
``(C) prevention activities that are designed to create and
maintain safe, disciplined, and drug-free environments; and
``(D) a crisis management plan for responding to violent or
traumatic incidents on school grounds; and
``(7) such other information and assurances as the State
educational agency may reasonably require.
``(c) Review of Application.--
``(1) In general.--In reviewing local applications under
this section, a State educational agency shall use a peer
review process or other methods of assuring the quality of
such applications.
``(2) Considerations.--
``(A) In general.--In determining whether to approve the
application of a local educational agency under this section,
a State educational agency shall consider the quality of the
local educational agency's comprehensive plan under
subsection (b)(6) and the extent to which the proposed
plan provides a thorough assessment of the substance abuse
and violence problem, uses objective data and the
knowledge of a wide range of community members, develops
measurable goals and objectives, and implements research-
based programs that have been shown to be effective and
meet identified needs.
``(B) Disapproval.--A State educational agency may
disapprove a local educational agency application under this
section in whole or in part and may withhold, limit, or place
restrictions on the use of funds allotted to such a local
educational agency in a manner the State educational agency
determines will best promote the purposes of this part,
except that a local educational agency shall be afforded an
opportunity to appeal any such disapproval.

``SEC. 4116. LOCAL DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

``(a) Program Requirements.--A local educational agency
shall use funds received under this part to adopt and carry
out a comprehensive drug and violence prevention program
which shall--
``(1) be designed, for all students and school employees,
to--
``(A) prevent the use, possession, and distribution of
tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs by students and to
prevent the illegal use, possession, and distribution of such
substances by school employees;
``(B) prevent violence and promote school safety; and
``(C) create a disciplined environment conducive to
learning;
``(2) include activities to promote the involvement of
parents and coordination with community groups and agencies,
including the distribution of information about the local
educational agency's needs, goals, and programs under this
part;
``(3) implement activities which shall only include--
``(A) a thorough assessment of the substance abuse violence
problem, using objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(B) the development of measurable goals and objectives;
``(C) the implementation of research-based programs that
have been shown to be effective and meet identified goals;
and
``(D) an evaluation of program activities; and
``(4) implement prevention programming activities within
the context of a research-based prevention framework.
``(b) Use of Funds.--A comprehensive, age-appropriate,
developmentally-, and research-based drug and violence
prevention program carried out under this part may include--
``(1) drug or violence prevention and education programs
for all students, from the preschool level through grade 12,
that address the legal, social, personal and health
consequences of the use of illegal drugs or violence, promote
a sense of individual responsibility, and provide information
about effective techniques for resisting peer pressure to use
illegal drugs;
``(2) programs of drug or violence prevention, health
education (as it relates to drug and violence prevention),
early intervention, pupil services, mentoring, or
rehabilitation referral, which emphasize students' sense of
individual responsibility and which may include--
``(A) the dissemination of information about drug or
violence prevention;
``(B) the professional development or voluntary training of
school personnel, parents, students, law enforcement
officials, judicial officials, health service providers and
community leaders in prevention, education, early
intervention, pupil services or rehabilitation referral; and
``(C) the implementation of strategies, including
strategies to integrate the delivery of services from a
variety of providers, to combat illegal alcohol, tobacco and
drug use, such as--
``(i) family counseling; and
``(ii) activities, such as community service and service-
learning projects, that are designed to increase students'
sense of community;
``(3) age-appropriate, developmentally based violence
prevention and education programs for all students, from the
preschool level through grade 12, that address the legal,
health, personal, and social consequences of violent and
disruptive behavior, including sexual harassment and abuse,
and victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance,
and that include activities designed to help students develop
a sense of individual responsibility and respect for the
rights of others, and to resolve conflicts without violence,
or otherwise decrease the prevalence of risk factors or
increase the prevalence of protective factors, buffers, or
assets in the community;
``(4) violence prevention programs for school-aged youth,
which emphasize students' sense of individual responsibility
and may include--
``(A) the dissemination of information about school safety
and discipline;
``(B) the professional development or voluntary training of
school personnel, parents, students, law enforcement
officials, judicial officials, and community leaders in
designing and implementing strategies to prevent school
violence;
``(C) the implementation of strategies, such as conflict
resolution and peer mediation, student outreach efforts
against violence, anti-crime youth councils (which work with
school and community-based organizations to discuss and
develop crime prevention strategies), and the use of
mentoring programs, to combat school violence and other forms
of disruptive behavior, such as sexual harassment and abuse;
and
``(D) the development and implementation of character
education programs, as a component of a comprehensive drug or
violence prevention program, that are tailored by
communities, parents and schools; and
``(E) comprehensive, community-wide strategies to prevent
or reduce illegal gang activities and drug use;
``(5) supporting `safe zones of passage' for students
between home and school through such measures as Drug- and
Weapon-Free School Zones, enhanced law enforcement, and
neighborhood patrols;
``(6) the acquisition or hiring of school security
equipment, technologies, personnel, or services such as--
``(A) metal detectors;
``(B) electronic locks;
``(C) surveillance cameras; and
``(D) other drug and violence prevention-related equipment
and technologies;
``(7) professional development for teachers and other staff
and curricula that promote the awareness of and sensitivity
to alternatives to violence through courses of study that
include related issues of intolerance and hatred in history;
``(8) the promotion of before-and-after school
recreational, instructional, cultural, and artistic programs
in supervised community settings;
``(9) other research-based prevention programming that is--
``(A) effective in reducing the prevalence of alcohol,
tobacco or drug use, and violence in youth;
``(B) effective in reducing the prevalence of risk factors
predictive of increased alcohol, tobacco or drug use, and
violence; or
``(C) effective in increasing the prevalence of protective
factors, buffers, and assets predictive of decreased alcohol,
tobacco or drug use and violence among youth;
``(10) the collection of objective data used to assess
program needs, program implementation, or program success in
achieving program goals and objectives;

[[Page S1776]]

``(11) community involvement activities including community
mobilization;
``(12) voluntary parental involvement and training;
``(13) the evaluation of any of the activities authorized
under this subsection;
``(14) the provision of mental health counseling (by
qualified counselors) to students for drug or violence
related problems;
``(15) consistent with the fourth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, the testing of a student
for illegal drug use or inspecting a student's locker for
guns, explosives, other weapons, or illegal drugs, including
at the request of or with the consent of a parent or legal
guardian of the student, if the local educational agency
elects to so test or inspect; and
``(16) the conduct of a nationwide background check of each
local educational agency employee (regardless of when hired)
and prospective employees for the purpose of determining
whether the employee or prospective employee has been
convicted of a crime that bears upon the employee's or
prospective employee's fitness--
``(A) to have responsibility for the safety or well-being
of children;
``(B) to serve in the particular capacity in which the
employee or prospective employee is or will be employed; or
``(C) to otherwise be employed at all by the local
educational agency.
``(c) Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--Not more than 20 percent of the funds
made available to a local educational agency under this part
may be used to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b).
``(2) Special rule.--A local educational agency shall only
be able to use funds received under this part for activities
described in paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) if
funding for such activities is not received from other
Federal agencies.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to prohibit the use of funds under this part by
any local educational agency or school for the establishment
or implementation of a school uniform policy so long as such
policy is part of the overall comprehensive drug and violence
prevention plan of the State involved and is supported by the
State's needs assessment and other research-based
information.

``SEC. 4117. EVALUATION AND REPORTING.

``(a) Impact Evaluation.--
``(1) Biennial evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the National Advisory Committee, shall conduct an
independent biennial evaluation of the impact of programs
assisted under this part and of other recent and new
initiatives to combat violence in schools. The evaluation
shall report on--
``(A) whether funded community and local education agency
programs--
``(i) provided a thorough assessment of the substance abuse
and violence problem;
``(ii) used objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(iii) developed measurable goals and objectives; and
``(iv) implemented research-based programs that have been
shown to be effective and meet identified needs;
``(v) conducted periodic program evaluations to assess
progress made towards achieving program goals and objectives
and whether they used evaluations to improve program goals,
objectives and activities;
``(B) whether funded community and local education agency
programs have been designed and implemented in a manner that
specifically targets, if relevant to the program--
``(i) research-based variables that are predictive of drug
use or violence;
``(ii) risk factors that are predictive of an increased
likelihood that young people will use drugs, alcohol or
tobacco or engage in violence or drop out of school; or
``(iii) protective factors, buffers, or assets that are
known to protect children and youth from exposure to risk,
either by reducing the exposure to risk factors or by
changing the way the young person responds to risk, and to
increase the likelihood of positive youth development;
``(C) whether funded community and local education agency
programs have appreciably reduced the level of drug, alcohol
and tobacco use and school violence and the presence of
firearms at schools; and
``(D) whether funded community and local educational agency
programs have conducted effective parent involvement and
voluntary training programs.
``(2) Data collection.--The National Center for Education
Statistics shall collect data to determine the incidence and
prevalence of social disapproval of drug use and violence in
elementary and secondary schools in the States.
``(3) Biennial report.--Not later than January 1, 2003, and
every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
President and Congress a report on the findings of the
evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) together with the
data collected under paragraph (2) and data available from
other sources on the incidence and prevalence, age of onset,
perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use in elementary and secondary schools
in the States. The Secretary shall include data submitted by
the States pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B).
``(b) State Report.--
``(1) In general.--By December 1, 2002, and every 2 years
thereafter, the chief executive officer of the State, in
cooperation with the State educational agency, shall submit
to the Secretary a report--
``(A) on the implementation and outcomes of State programs
under section 4114 and section 4113(b) and local educational
agency programs under section 4113(d), as well as an
assessment of their effectiveness;
``(B) on the State's progress toward attaining its goals
for drug and violence prevention under subsections (b)(1) and
(c)(1) of section 4112; and
``(C) on the State's efforts to inform parents of, and
include parents in, violence and drug prevention efforts.
``(2) Special rule.--The report required by this subsection
shall be--
``(A) in the form specified by the Secretary;
``(B) based on the State's ongoing evaluation activities,
and shall include data on the incidence and prevalence, age
of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social
disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and
communities; and
``(C) made readily available to the public.
``(c) Local Educational Agency Report.--
``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency receiving
funds under this part shall submit to the State educational
agency such information that the State requires to complete
the State report required by subsection (b), including a
description of how parents were informed of, and participated
in, violence and drug prevention efforts.
``(2) Availability.--Information under paragraph (1) shall
be made readily available to the public.
``(3) Provision of documentation.--Not later than January 1
of each year that a State is required to report under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to the State
education agency all of the necessary documentation required
for compliance with this section.

``SEC. 4118. PROGRAMS FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

``(a) General Authority.--From the funds made available
pursuant to section 4111(a)(4) to carry out this section, the
Secretary shall make grants to or enter into cooperative
agreements or contracts with organizations primarily serving
and representing Native Hawaiians which are recognized by the
Governor of the State of Hawaii to plan, conduct, and
administer programs, or portions thereof, which are
authorized by and consistent with the provisions of this
title for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.
``(b) Definition of Native Hawaiian.--For the purposes of
this section, the term `Native Hawaiian' means any individual
any of whose ancestors were natives, prior to 1778, of the
area which now comprises the State of Hawaii.

``PART B--NATIONAL PROGRAMS

``SEC. 4121. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Program Authorized.--From funds made available to
carry out this part under section 4004(2), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
and the Attorney General, shall carry out programs to prevent
the illegal use of drugs and violence among, and promote
safety and discipline for, students at all educational levels
from preschool through the post-secondary level. The
Secretary shall carry out such programs directly, or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and
private nonprofit organizations and individuals, or through
agreements with other Federal agencies, and shall coordinate
such programs with other appropriate Federal activities. Such
programs may include--
``(1) the development and demonstration of innovative
strategies for the voluntary training of school personnel,
parents, and members of the community, including the
demonstration of model preservice training programs for
prospective school personnel;
``(2) demonstrations and rigorous evaluations of innovative
approaches to drug and violence prevention;
``(3) the provision of information on drug abuse education
and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
for dissemination by the clearinghouse for alcohol and drug
abuse information established under section 501(d)(16) of the
Public Health Service Act;
``(4) the development of curricula related to child abuse
prevention and education and the training of personnel to
teach child abuse education and prevention to elementary and
secondary schoolchildren;
``(5) program evaluations in accordance with section 10201
that address issues not addressed under section 4117(a);
``(6) direct services to schools and school systems
afflicted with especially severe drug and violence problems
or to support crisis situations and appropriate response
efforts;
``(7) activities in communities designated as empowerment
zones or enterprise communities that will connect schools to
community-wide efforts to reduce drug and violence problems;
``(8) developing and disseminating drug and violence
prevention materials, including video-based projects and
model curricula;
``(9) developing and implementing a comprehensive violence
prevention strategy for schools and communities, that may
include conflict resolution, peer mediation, the teaching of
law and legal concepts, and other activities designed to stop
violence;
``(10) the implementation of innovative activities, such as
community service and service-learning projects, designed to
rebuild safe and healthy neighborhoods and increase students'
sense of individual responsibility;

[[Page S1777]]

``(11) grants to noncommercial telecommunications entities
for the production and distribution of national video-based
projects that provide young people with models for conflict
resolution and responsible decisionmaking;
``(12) the development of education and training programs,
curricula, instructional materials, and professional training
and development for preventing and reducing the incidence of
crimes and conflicts motivated by hate in localities most
directly affected by hate crimes; and
``(13) other activities that meet unmet national needs
related to the purposes of this title.
``(b) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall use a peer review
process in reviewing applications for funds under this
section.

``SEC. 4122. NATIONAL COORDINATOR PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--From amounts available to carry out this
section under section 4004(3), the Secretary shall provide
for the establishment of a National Coordinator Program under
which the Secretary shall award grants to local education
agencies for the hiring of drug prevention and school safety
program coordinators.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
subsection (a) shall be used by local education agencies to
recruit, hire, and train individuals to serve as drug
prevention and school safety program coordinators in schools
with significant drug and school safety problems. Such
coordinators shall be responsible for developing, conducting,
and analyzing assessments of drug and crime problems at their
schools, and administering the safe and drug free grant
program at such schools.

``SEC. 4123. SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is hereby established an advisory
committee to be known as the `Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Communities Advisory Committee' (referred to in this section
as the `Advisory Committee') to--
``(A) consult with the Secretary under subsection (b);
``(B) coordinate Federal school- and community-based
substance abuse and violence prevention programs and reduce
duplicative research or services;
``(C) develop core data sets and evaluation protocols for
safe and drug free school- and community-based programs;
``(D) provide technical assistance and training for safe
and drug free school- and community-based programs;
``(E) provide for the diffusion of research-based safe and
drug free school- and community-based programs; and
``(F) review other regulations and standards developed
under this title.
``(2) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be
composed of representatives from--
``(A) the Department of Education,
``(B) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
``(C) the National Institute on Drug Abuse;
``(D) the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol
Abuse;
``(E) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention;
``(F) the Center for Mental Health Services;
``(G) the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention;
``(H) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and
``(I) State and local governments, including education
agencies.
``(3) Consultation.--In carrying out its duties under this
section, the Advisory Committee shall annually consult with
interested State and local coordinators of school- and
community-based substance abuse and violence prevention
programs and other interested groups.
``(b) Programs.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
section 4004(2) to carry out this part, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Advisory Committee, shall carry out
research-based programs to strengthen the accountability and
effectiveness of the State, Governor's, and national programs
under this title.
``(2) Grants, contracts or cooperative agreements.--The
Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) directly or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and
nonprofit private organizations and individuals or through
agreements with other Federal agencies.
``(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
programs under this section with other appropriate Federal
activities.
``(4) Activities.--Activities that may be carried out under
programs funded under this section may include--
``(A) the provision of technical assistance and training,
in collaboration with other Federal agencies utilizing their
expertise and national and regional training systems, for
Governors, State education agencies and local education
agencies to support high quality, effective programs that--
``(i) provide a thorough assessment of the substance abuse
and violence problem;
``(ii) utilize objective data and the knowledge of a wide
range of community members;
``(iii) develop measurable goals and objectives; and
``(iv) implement research-based activities that have been
shown to be effective and that meet identified needs;
``(B) the provision of technical assistance and training to
foster program accountability;
``(C) the diffusion and dissemination of best practices and
programs;
``(D) the development of core data sets and evaluation
tools;
``(E) program evaluations;
``(F) the provision of information on drug abuse education
and prevention to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
for dissemination by the Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Information established under section 501(d)(16) of the
Public Health Service Act; and
``(G) other activities that meet unmet needs related to the
purposes of this title and that are undertaken in
consultation with the Advisory Committee.

``SEC. 4124. HATE CRIME PREVENTION.

``(a) Grant Authorization.--From funds made available to
carry out this part under section 4004(2) the Secretary may
make grants to local educational agencies and community-based
organizations for the purpose of providing assistance to
localities most directly affected by hate crimes.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Program development.--Grants under this section may
be used to improve elementary and secondary educational
efforts, including--
``(A) development of education and training programs
designed to prevent and to reduce the incidence of crimes and
conflicts motivated by hate;
``(B) development of curricula for the purpose of improving
conflict or dispute resolution skills of students, teachers,
and administrators;
``(C) development and acquisition of equipment and
instructional materials to meet the needs of, or otherwise be
part of, hate crime or conflict programs; and
``(D) professional training and development for teachers
and administrators on the causes, effects, and resolutions of
hate crimes or hate-based conflicts.
``(2) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for any fiscal year, a local
educational agency, or a local educational agency in
conjunction with a community-based organization, shall submit
an application to the Secretary in such form and containing
such information as the office may reasonably require.
``(3) Requirements.--Each application under paragraph (2)
shall include--
``(A) a request for funds for the purposes described in
this section;
``(B) a description of the schools and communities to be
served by the grants; and
``(C) assurances that Federal funds received under this
section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
Federal funds.
``(4) Comprehensive plan.--Each application shall include a
comprehensive plan that contains--
``(A) a description of the hate crime or conflict problems
within the schools or the community targeted for assistance;
``(B) a description of the program to be developed or
augmented by such Federal and matching funds;
``(C) assurances that such program or activity shall be
administered by or under the supervision of the applicant;
``(D) proper and efficient administration of such program;
and
``(E) fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may
be necessary to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and
accurate accounting of funds received under this section.
``(c) Award of Grants.--
``(1) Selection of recipients.--The Secretary shall
consider the incidence of crimes and conflicts motivated by
bias in the targeted schools and communities in awarding
grants under this section.
``(2) Geographic distribution.--The Secretary shall
attempt, to the extent practicable, to achieve an equitable
geographic distribution of grant awards.
``(3) Dissemination of information.--The Secretary shall
attempt, to the extent practicable, to make available
information regarding successful hate crime prevention
programs, including programs established or expanded with
grants under this section.
``(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress
a report every two years which shall contain a detailed
statement regarding grants and awards, activities of grant
recipients, and an evaluation of programs established under
this section.

``PART C--GENERAL PROVISIONS

``SEC. 4131. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Community-based organization.--The term `community-
based organization' means a private nonprofit organization
which is representative of a community or significant
segments of a community and which provides educational or
related services to individuals in the community.
``(2) Drug and violence prevention.--The term `drug and
violence prevention' means--
``(A) with respect to drugs, prevention, early
intervention, rehabilitation referral, or education related
to the illegal use of alcohol and the use of controlled,
illegal, addictive, or harmful substances, including
inhalants and anabolic steroids;
``(B) prevention, early intervention, smoking cessation
activities, or education, related to the use of tobacco by
children and youth eligible for services under this title;
and
``(C) with respect to violence, the promotion of school
safety, such that students

[[Page S1778]]

and school personnel are free from violent and disruptive
acts, including sexual harassment and abuse, and
victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance, on
school premises, going to and from school, and at school-
sponsored activities, through the creation and maintenance of
a school environment that is free of weapons and fosters
individual responsibility and respect for the rights of
others.
``(3) Hate crime.--The term `hate crime' means a crime as
described in section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of
1990.
``(4) Nonprofit.--The term `nonprofit', as applied to a
school, agency, organization, or institution means a school,
agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by
one or more nonprofit corporations or associations, no part
of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure,
to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
``(5) Objectively measurable goals.--The term `objectively
measurable goals' means prevention programming goals defined
through use of quantitative epidemiological data measuring
the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use,
violence, and the prevalence of risk and protective factors
predictive of these behaviors, collected through a variety of
methods and sources known to provide high quality data.
``(6) Protective factor, buffer, or asset.--The terms
`protective factor', `buffer', and `asset' mean any one of a
number of the community, school, family, or peer-individual
domains that are known, through prospective, longitudinal
research efforts, or which are grounded in a well-established
theoretical model of prevention, and have been shown to
prevent alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drug use, as well as
violent behavior, by youth in the community, and which
promote positive youth development.
``(7) Risk factor.--The term `risk factor' means any one of
a number of characteristics of the community, school, family,
or peer-individual domains that are known, through
prospective, longitudinal research efforts, to be predictive
of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, as well as violent
behavior, by youth in the school and community.
``(8) School-aged population.--The term `school-aged
population' means the population aged five through 17, as
determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent
satisfactory data available from the Department of Commerce.
``(9) School personnel.--The term `school personnel'
includes teachers, administrators, counselors, social
workers, psychologists, nurses, librarians, and other support
staff who are employed by a school or who perform services
for the school on a contractual basis.

``SEC. 4132. MATERIALS.

``(a) `Illegal and Harmful' Message.--Drug prevention
programs supported under this part shall convey a clear and
consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other
drugs is illegal and harmful.
``(b) Curriculum.--The Secretary shall not prescribe the
use of specific curricula for programs supported under this
part, but may evaluate the effectiveness of such curricula
and other strategies in drug and violence prevention.

``SEC. 4133. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.

``No funds under this part may be used for--
``(1) construction (except for minor remodeling needed to
accomplish the purposes of this part); and
``(2) medical services, drug treatment or rehabilitation,
except for pupil services or referral to treatment for
students who are victims of or witnesses to crime or who use
alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

``SEC. 4134. QUALITY RATING.

``(a) In General.--The chief executive officer of each
State, or in the case of a State in which the constitution or
law of such State designates another individual, entity, or
agency in the State to be responsible for education
activities, such individual, entity, or agency, is authorized
and encouraged--
``(1) to establish a standard of quality for drug, alcohol,
and tobacco prevention programs implemented in public
elementary schools and secondary schools in the State in
accordance with subsection (b); and
``(2) to identify and designate, upon application by a
public elementary school or secondary school, any such school
that achieves such standard as a quality program school.
``(b) Criteria.--The standard referred to in subsection (a)
shall address, at a minimum--
``(1) a comparison of the rate of illegal use of drugs,
alcohol, and tobacco by students enrolled in the school for a
period of time to be determined by the chief executive
officer of the State;
``(2) the rate of suspensions or expulsions of students
enrolled in the school for drug, alcohol, or tobacco-related
offenses;
``(3) the effectiveness of the drug, alcohol, or tobacco
prevention program as proven by research;
``(4) the involvement of parents and community members in
the design of the drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention
program; and
``(5) the extent of review of existing community drug,
alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs before
implementation of the public school program.
``(c) Request for Quality Program School Designation.--A
school that wishes to receive a quality program school
designation shall submit a request and documentation of
compliance with this section to the chief executive officer
of the State or the individual, entity, or agency described
in subsection (a), as the case may be.
``(d) Public Notification.--Not less than once a year, the
chief executive officer of each State or the individual,
entity, or agency described in subsection (a), as the case
may be, shall make available to the public a list of the
names of each public school in the State that has received a
quality program school designation in accordance with this
section.''.
______

By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 438. A bill to improve the quality of teachers in elementary and
secondary schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. 438

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 ``Teacher Quality Act of
2001''.

TITLE I--EISENHOWER NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE IMPROVEMENT

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The most important education tool in any classroom is a
qualified, highly trained teacher.
(2) The collection and effective dissemination of best
practices in education is a primary responsibility of the
Federal Government.
(3) The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse is the Nation's
repository of kindergarten through grade 12 instructional
materials in mathematics and science education, and
disseminates information about these materials in a user-
friendly format for educators.
(4) The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collaborates with
the national network of Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and
Science Education Consortia and the collaboration includes
twelve demonstration sites throughout the Nation.
(5) Since 1992, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse has
distributed 3,714,807 CD-ROM's and print publications.
Products are distributed to every school building in the
Nation, colleges of education, and various education groups
and professional organizations. The Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse has received over 40,000,000 hits to their web
site since the creation of the web site in 1994. In addition,
the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse has established over
100 access centers across the Nation to expand direct service
to more teachers.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is--
(1) to expand the activities of the Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse to include collecting and reviewing
instructional and professional development materials and
programs for language arts and social studies; and
(2) to require the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse to
collect and analyze the materials and programs.

SEC. 102. EXPANDED ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 2102 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6622(b)) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``for Mathematics and
Science'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and science'' each
place the term appears and inserting ``, science, language
arts, and social studies'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and science'' and
inserting ``, science, language arts, and social studies'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and science'' and
inserting ``, science, language arts, and social studies'';
and
(iv) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) gather (in consultation with the Department, national
teacher associations, professional associations, and other
reviewers and developers of education materials and programs)
qualitative and evaluative materials and programs for the
Clearinghouse, review the evaluation of the materials and
programs, rank the effectiveness of the materials and
programs on the basis of the evaluations, and distribute the
results of the reviews to teachers in an easily accessible
manner, except that nothing in this subparagraph shall be
construed to permit the Clearinghouse to directly conduct an
evaluation of the materials or programs.'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or science'' and
inserting ``, science, language arts, or social studies'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Effective use of technology.--In reviewing
evaluations of materials and programs under this subsection
the Clearinghouse shall give particular attention to the
effective use of education technology in mathematics,
science, language arts, and social studies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 13302(10) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8672(10)) is amended by striking ``Mathematics and Science''.

[[Page S1779]]

TITLE II--TEACHER MENTORING

SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The American teaching force is aging. The average
school teacher was 43 years old in academic year 1993-1994,
an increase of 3 years over the average age of school
teachers in academic year 1987-1998. Nearly a quarter of
American teachers are over 50 years old and nearing
retirement.
(2) On average public school teachers have slightly more
than 15 years teaching experience, and over a third of the
public school teachers have 20 or more years of teaching
experience.
(3) The experience of America's veteran teachers should be
utilized to help introduce beginning teachers to the
profession and to their new school.
(4) Retention of beginning teachers is a growing problem,
with approximately 25 percent of beginning teachers leaving
the teaching profession within their first 3 years in the
classroom.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to increase
teacher retention and improve the support and performance of
teachers by encouraging and assisting States to develop and
operate mentoring programs for beginning teachers.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

The terms used in this title have the meanings given the
terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).

SEC. 203. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to State educational agencies to enable the State
educational agencies to carry out mentoring programs under
which public elementary school or secondary school teachers
with more than 3 years teaching experience serve as mentor
teachers to public elementary school or secondary school
teachers with less than 3 years teaching experience.
(b) Amount.--Each State educational agency having an
application approved under subsection (d) for a fiscal year
shall receive a grant in an amount that bears the same
relation to the amount appropriated under subsection (f) for
the fiscal year as the number of elementary school and
secondary school students in the State for the fiscal year
bears to the number of such students in all States for the
fiscal year.
(c) Reallocation.--The amount of a State educational
agency's grant that will not be used by the State educational
agency for a fiscal year shall be reallotted to the other
State educational agency in the same manner as grants are
awarded under subsection (b).
(d) Application.--Each State educational agency that
desires a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner and
accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require.
Each such application shall--
(1) describe the activities and services for which
assistance is sought;
(2) contain an assurance that funds provided under this
title will be used to supplement and not supplant State or
local public funds available for teacher mentoring programs;
and
(3) contain an assurance that the State educational agency
consulted with local educational agencies, school
superintendents, school boards, parents, and institutions of
higher education in the design and implementation of the
teacher mentoring program to be assisted.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this title $5,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

TITLE III--ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE OF TEACHERS

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the measure of a good teacher is how much and how well
the teacher's students learn;
(2) the main teacher quality problem in 1998 was the lack
of subject matter knowledge;
(3) knowledgeable and eager individuals of sound character
and various professional backgrounds should be encouraged to
enter the kindergarten through grade 12 classrooms as
teachers;
(4) many talented professionals who have demonstrated a
high level of subject area competence outside the education
profession may wish to pursue careers in education, but have
not fulfilled the traditional requirements to be certified or
licensed as teachers;
(5) States should have maximum flexibility and incentives
to create alternative teacher certification and licensure
programs in order to recruit well-educated people into the
teaching profession; and
(6) alternative routes can enable qualified individuals to
fulfill State teacher certification or licensure requirements
and will allow school systems to utilize the expertise of
professionals and improve the pool of qualified individuals
available to local educational agencies as teachers.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to improve
the supply of well-qualified elementary school and secondary
school teachers by encouraging and assisting States to
develop and implement programs for alternative routes to
teacher certification or licensure requirements.

SEC. 302. ALLOTMENTS.

(a) Allotments to States.--
(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated to carry out
this title for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to
each State the lesser of--
(A) the amount the State applies for under section 303; or
(B) an amount that bears the same relation to the amount so
appropriated as the total population of children ages 5
through 17 in the State bears to the total population of such
children in all the States (based on the most recent data
available that is satisfactory to the Secretary).
(2) Reallocation.--If a State does not apply for the
State's allotment, or the full amount of the State's
allotment, under paragraph (1), the Secretary may reallocate
the excess funds to 1 or more other States that demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Secretary, a current need for the
funds.
(b) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding section 421(b) of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1225(b)), funds
awarded under this title shall remain available for
obligation by a recipient for a period of 2 calendar years
from the date of the grant.

SEC. 303. STATE APPLICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Any State desiring to receive an allotment
under this title shall, through the State educational agency,
submit an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information, as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
(b) Requirements.--Each application shall--
(1) describe the programs, projects, and activities to be
undertaken with assistance provided under this title; and
(2) contain such assurances as the Secretary considers
necessary, including assurances that--
(A) assistance provided to the State educational agency
under this title will be used to supplement, and not to
supplant, any State or local funds available for the
development and implementation of programs to provide
alternative routes to fulfilling teacher certification or
licensure requirements;
(B) the State educational agency has, in developing and
designing the application, consulted with--
(i) representatives of local educational agencies,
including superintendents and school board members (including
representatives of their professional organizations if
appropriate);
(ii) elementary school and secondary school teachers,
including representatives of their professional
organizations;
(iii) schools or departments of education within
institutions of higher education;
(iv) parents; and
(v) other interested individuals and organizations; and
(C) the State educational agency will submit to the
Secretary, at such time as the Secretary may specify, a final
report describing the activities carried out with assistance
provided under this title and the results achieved with
respect to such activities.
(c) GEPA Provisions Inapplicable.--Sections 441 and 442 of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232d and
1232e), except to the extent that such sections relate to
fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, shall not
apply to this title.

SEC. 304. USE OF FUNDS.

(a) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use funds
provided under this title to support programs, projects, or
activities that develop and implement new, or expand and
improve existing, programs that enable individuals to move to
a teaching career in elementary or secondary education from
another occupation through an alternative route to teacher
certification or licensure.
(2) Types of assistance.--A State educational agency may
carry out such programs, projects, or activities directly,
through contracts, or through grants to local educational
agencies, intermediate educational agencies, institutions of
higher education, or consortia of such agencies or
institutions.
(b) Uses.--Funds received under this title may be used
for--
(1) the design, development, implementation, and evaluation
of programs that enable qualified professionals who have
demonstrated a high level of subject area competence outside
the education profession and are interested in entering the
education profession to fulfill State teacher certification
or licensure requirements;
(2) the establishment of administrative structures
necessary for the development and implementation of programs
to provide alternative routes to fulfilling State teacher
certification or licensure requirements;
(3) training of staff, including the development of
appropriate support programs, such as mentor programs, for
teachers entering the school system through alternative
routes to teacher certification or licensure;
(4) the development of recruitment strategies;
(5) the development of reciprocity agreements between or
among States for the certification or licensure of teachers;
or
(6) other programs, projects, and activities that--
(A) are designed to meet the purpose of this title; and
(B) the Secretary determines appropriate.

SEC. 305. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary
school; secretary; and state educational agency.--

[[Page S1780]]

The terms ``elementary school'', ``local educational
agency'', ``secondary school'', ``Secretary'', and ``State
educational agency'' have the meanings given the terms in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.

SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.

TITLE IV--TEACHER QUALITY

SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) individuals entering a classroom should have a sound
grasp of the subject the individuals intend to teach, and the
individuals should know how to teach;
(2) the quality of teachers impacts student achievement;
(3) people who enter the teaching profession through
alternative certification programs can benefit from having
the opportunity to attend a teacher training facility;
(4) teachers need to increase their subject matter
knowledge;
(5) less than 40 percent of the individuals teaching the
core subjects (English, mathematics, science, social studies,
and foreign languages) majored or minored in the core
subjects; and
(6) according to the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study, American high school seniors finished near the
bottom of the study in both science and mathematics.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to strengthen
teacher training programs by establishing a private and
public partnership to create the best teacher training
facilities in the world to ensure that teachers receive
unlimited access to the most updated technology and skills
training in education, so that students can benefit from the
teachers' knowledge and experience.

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in 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. 403. GRANTS.

(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under section
404 for a fiscal year the Secretary shall award grants to
local educational agencies to enable the local educational
agencies to establish teacher training facilities for
elementary and secondary school teachers.
(b) Competitive Basis.--The Secretary shall award grants
under this title on a competitive basis.
(c) Partnership Contract Required.--In order to receive a
grant under this title, a local educational agency shall
enter into a contract with a nongovernmental organization to
establish a teacher training facility.
(d) Applications.--Each local educational agency desiring a
grant under this title shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require. Each such
application shall contain an assurance that the local
educational agency--
(1) will raise matching funds, from public or private
sources, for the support of the teacher training facility in
an amount equal to the amount of funds provided under the
grant;
(2) will train the teachers employed by the local
educational agency at the teacher training facility for a
period of 10 years after the date the agency enters into the
contract described in subsection (c); and
(3) will spend not less than 0.5 percent of the local
educational agency's total school budget for each fiscal year
to support the teacher training facility.
(e) Amount.--The Secretary shall award each grant under
this section in an amount that is not less than $1,000,000
and not more than $4,000,000.

SEC. 404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $12,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003, $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $16,000,000
for fiscal year 2005.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Thompson):
S. 439. A bill to authorize the establishment of a suboffice of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in Nashville, Tennessee; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Nashville INS Sub-
office Act along with Senator Thompson. This bill addresses important
immigration issues facing Tennessee by authorizing funds for a much
needed INS sub-office in Nashville.
The Mid-South region is experiencing exceptional population growth
from not only other parts of the nation, but also from a significant
number of foreign nationals looking to relocate. As a result of this
new influx in population, the existing Memphis INS office is
overstretched and facing an enormous backlog of cases. As the largest
metropolitan area in the state, it only makes sense to open another INS
office in Nashville.
The new office would be geographically positioned to better provide
the necessary services for individuals living in Middle and East
Tennessee. It would also help alleviate the excessive burden facing the
Memphis office by transferring a large portion of its workload. The new
Nashville sub-office would improve overall services and enables the INS
to better address illegal immigration concerns in our area.
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. 439

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 ``Nashville INS Suboffice
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Immigration and Naturalization Service field office
in Memphis, Tennessee, is designated as a suboffice within
the jurisdiction of the district office in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
(2) Over the past 10 years, the foreign national population
has grown substantially in the jurisdictional area of the
Memphis suboffice.
(3) It is estimated that more than 200,000 foreign
nationals are residing in the jurisdictional area of the
Memphis suboffice.
(4) The Memphis suboffice has pending an equal or greater
number of cases, and receives as many new cases, as the New
Orleans district office.
(5) Approximately 46 percent of the total number of
permanent resident applications received by the Memphis
suboffice come from individuals residing in middle and
eastern Tennessee.
(6) In many instances, such individuals have to travel 3 to
6 hours each way to Memphis to receive service.
(7) Nashville is a logical location for a new Immigration
and Naturalization Service suboffice because its central
location will reduce such travel time and allow the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide better and
more efficient service to such individuals.
(8) As the largest metropolitan area in the State of
Tennessee, major routes from across the State flow into
Nashville and air transportation is readily available there.
(9) Establishment of a Nashville suboffice would make a
strong statement about the commitment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to gaining control over illegal
immigration and would facilitate legal immigration and
citizenship initiatives in central and eastern Tennessee.
(10) Congress has identified Nashville as a region
underserved by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each
fiscal year to establish and operate an Immigration and
Naturalization Service suboffice in Nashville, Tennessee.
Such suboffice shall have jurisdiction over the following
counties in the State of Tennessee: Anderson, Bedford,
Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Cheatham,
Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Cumberland, Davidson, Dekalb,
Dickson, Fentress, Franklin, Giles, Grainger, Greene, Grundy,
Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin, Hawkins, Hickman,
Houston, Humphries, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox,
Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Loudon, Macon, Marion, Marshall,
Maury, McMinn, Meigs, Moore, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
Overton, Perry, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane,
Robertson, Rutherford, Scott, Sevier, Sequatchie, Smith,
Stewart, Sullivan, Sumner, Trousdale, Unicoi, Union, Van
Buren, Warren, Washington, Wayne, White, Williamson, and
Wilson.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 440. A bill to establish a matching grant program to help State
and local jurisdictions purchase bullet-resistant equipment for use by
law enforcement departments; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of four
bills that will help improve our nation's justice system and honor
those law enforcement officers and firefighters who gave their lives in
the line of duty.
The first bill I am introducing is the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet
Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 2001, an updated version
of legislation I introduced during the last Congress.

[[Page S1781]]

This bill is named in honor of Officer Dale Claxton of Cortez, CO, a
fine law enforcement officer and family man, who was fatally shot
through the windshield of his patrol car on May 29, 1998, after
stopping a stolen truck. His assailants turned out to be dangerous
fugitives and a large-scale man hunt was launched. Officer Claxton was
tragically and prematurely taken away from his wife and four children.
The Officer Dale Claxton Act would help law enforcement agencies
acquire bullet resistant equipment including bullet resistant glass for
law enforcement vehicles, hand-held shields and any other equipment
that officers may need when they serve on the front lines of law
enforcement. Specifically, this legislation would help our nation's
state and local law enforcement officers acquire the bullet resistant
equipment they need to protect themselves from would-be killers. This
legislation would authorize the Department of Justice's Bureau of
Justice Assistance to administer a $40 million matching grant program
to assist these agencies purchase bullet resistant equipment.
This legislation is a worthy companion, and similar in many ways, to
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, P.L. 105-181, which I
introduced and the President signed into law on June 16, 1998. The
legislation I am introducing today would help state and local law
enforcement agencies acquire a wider array of bullet resistant
equipment to supplement bullet proof vests.
As a former deputy sheriff, I am personally aware of the dangers
which law enforcement officers face on the front lines every day. One
way in which the federal government can improve their safety is to help
them acquire bullet resistant glass and other equipment for patrol
cars. These partnership grants are especially crucial for officers who
serve in small local jurisdictions that often lack the funds to provide
their officers with the life saving equipment they may need.
The second component of this legislation would launch an expedited
and targeted research and development by authorizing $3 million over 3
years for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice, NIJ,
to conduct research and development of a new bullet resistant
technologies, such as bonded acrylic, polymers, polycarbons, aluminized
material, and transparent ceramics.
Promising new bullet resistant materials now being developed could be
as revolutionary in coming years as the development of Kevlar was in
the 1970s for the manufacture of body armor. These exciting new
technologies promise to be lighter, more versatile and hopefully less
expensive than traditional heavy bulletproof glass.
Our Nation's police officers, sheriffs and deputies regularly put
their lives in harm's way as they protect the people and preserve the
peace. They deserve to have access to the bullet resistant equipment
they need. The Officer Dale Claxton bill will both accelerate the
development of new lifesaving bullet resistant technologies and then
help get them deployed into the field where they are needed. Officers
lives will be saved.
I ask unanimous consent that the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet
Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 2001 be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 440

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 ``Officer Dale Claxton
Bulletproof Police Protective Equipment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Officer Dale Claxton of the Cortez, Colorado, Police
Department was shot and killed by bullets that passed through
the windshield of his police car after he stopped a stolen
truck, and his life may have been saved if his police car had
been equipped with bullet-resistant equipment;
(2) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed
in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had access to
additional bullet-resistant equipment;
(3) according to studies, between 1990 and 2000, 1,700 law
enforcement officers in the United States were shot and
killed in the line of duty;
(4) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not
wearing bullet-resistant equipment, such as an armor vest, is
14 times higher than for officers wearing an armor vest; and
(5) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply despite a decrease in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to save lives of
law enforcement officers by helping State, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies provide officers with bullet-
resistant equipment and video cameras.

SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLET-
RESISTANT EQUIPMENT.

(a) In General.--Part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
(1) by striking the part designation and part heading and
inserting the following:

``PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

``Subpart A--Grant Program for Armor Vests'';

(2) by striking ``this part'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``this subpart''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:

``Subpart B--Grant Program for Bullet-Resistant Equipment

``SEC. 2511. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of
local government, and Indian tribes to purchase bullet-
resistant equipment for use by State, local, and tribal law
enforcement officers.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be--
``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe; and
``(2) used for the purchase of bullet-resistant equipment
for law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the
grantee.
``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this subpart, the Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance may give preferential consideration, if feasible,
to an application from a jurisdiction that--
``(1) has the greatest need for bullet-resistant equipment
based on the percentage of law enforcement officers in the
department who do not have access to a vest;
``(2) has a violent crime rate at or above the national
average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
or
``(3) has not received a block grant under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program described under the heading
`State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' of the
Departments of Commerce Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law
106-553).
``(d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.50 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall
each be allocated 0.25 percent.
``(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe may not receive more than 5
percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year
for grants under this section, except that a State, together
with the grantees within the State may not receive more than
20 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal
year for grants under this section.
``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a
program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not
exceed 50 percent. Any funds appropriated by Congress for the
activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or
the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement
functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-
Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this
subsection.
``(g) Allocation of Funds.--At least half of the funds
available under this subpart shall be awarded to units of
local government with fewer than 100,000 residents.

``SEC. 2512. APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart,
the chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe shall submit an application to the Director of
the Bureau of Justice Assistance in such form and containing
such information as the Director may reasonably require.
``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this subpart, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement
this section (including the information that must be included
and the requirements that the States, units of local
government, and Indian tribes must meet) in submitting the
applications required under this section.
``(c) Eligibility.--A unit of local government that
receives funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
program, described under the heading `State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance' of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-553), during a

[[Page S1782]]

fiscal year in which it submits an application under this
subpart shall not be eligible for a grant under this subpart
unless the chief executive officer of such unit of local
government certifies and provides an explanation to the
Director that the unit of local government considered or will
consider using funding received under the block grant program
for any or all of the costs relating to the purchase of
bullet-resistant equipment, but did not, or does not expect
to use such funds for such purpose.

``SEC. 2513. DEFINITIONS.

``In this subpart--
``(1) the term `equipment' means windshield glass, car
panels, shields, and protective gear;
``(2) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands;
``(3) the term `unit of local government' means a county,
municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, or
other unit of general government below the State level;
``(4) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)); and
``(5) the term `law enforcement officer' means any officer,
agent, or employee of a State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe authorized by law or by a government agency to
engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or
investigation of any violation of criminal law, or authorized
by law to supervise sentenced criminal offenders.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (23) and
inserting the following:
``(23) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part Y--
``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2004 for grants under subpart A of that part; and
``(B) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2004 for grants under subpart B of that part.''.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

In the case of any equipment or products that may be
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
Act, it is the sense of Congress that entities receiving the
assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only
American-made equipment and products.

SEC. 5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

Section 202 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3722) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Bullet-Resistant Technology Development.--
``(1) In general.--The Institute is authorized to--
``(A) conduct research and otherwise work to develop new
bullet-resistant technologies (i.e., acrylic, polymers,
aluminized material, and transparent ceramics) for use in
police equipment (including windshield glass, car panels,
shields, and protective gear);
``(B) inventory bullet-resistant technologies used in the
private sector, in surplus military property, and by foreign
countries; and
``(C) promulgate relevant standards for, and conduct
technical and operational testing and evaluation of, bullet-
resistant technology and equipment, and otherwise facilitate
the use of that technology in police equipment.
``(2) Priority.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Institute shall give priority in testing and engineering
surveys to law enforcement partnerships developed in
coordination with high-intensity drug trafficking areas.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $3,000,000
for fiscal years 2002 through 2004.''.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELl (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Stevens):
S. 441. A bill to provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of law
enforcement officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty; to
the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing today
is the ``Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial
Act of 2001.''
I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators McConnell,
Feingold, Inouye, Levin, Dayton, Stevens, and Lugar who are original
cosponsors.
This bill would help honor the sacrifice of the men and women who
lost their lives in the line of duty by providing Capitol-flown flags
to the families of deceased law enforcement officers and firefighters.
Under this legislation, the family of a deceased law enforcement
officer can request from the Attorney General a flag flown over the
U.S. Capitol in honor of the slain officer. The Department of Justice
shall pay the cost of the flags, including shipping, out of
discretionary grant funds, and provide them to the victim's family.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know firsthand the risks which law
enforcement officers face everyday on the front lines protecting our
communities. I also have great appreciation, as the Co-Chair of the
Congressional Fire Caucus, for the service that our nation's
firefighters provide, day in and day out, and that all too often, they
end up sacrificing their lives while saving others.
I believe providing a Capitol-flown flag is a fitting way to show our
appreciation for fallen officers and firefighters who make the ultimate
sacrifice. It also lets their families know that Congress and the
nation are grateful for their loved ones' service.
I ask unanimous consent that the Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and
Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 441

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 ``Fallen Law Enforcement
Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CAPITOL-FLOWN FLAGS FOR FAMILIES OF DECEASED LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The family of a deceased law enforcement
officer may request, and the Attorney General shall provide
to such family, a Capitol-flown flag, which shall be supplied
to the Attorney General by the Architect of the Capitol. The
Department of Justice shall pay the cost of such flag,
including shipping, out of discretionary grant funds.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the
date on which the Attorney General establishes the procedure
required by subsection (b).
(b) Procedure.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a
procedure (including any appropriate forms) by which the
family of a deceased law enforcement officer may request, and
provide sufficient information to determine such officer's
eligibility for, a Capitol-flown flag.
(c) Applicability.--This Act shall only apply to a deceased
law enforcement officer who died on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Definitions.--In this Act--
(1) the term ``Capitol-flown flag'' means a United States
flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of the
deceased law enforcement officer for whom such flag is
requested; and
(2) the term ``deceased law enforcement officer'' means a
person who was charged with protecting public safety, who was
authorized to make arrests by a Federal, State, Tribal,
county, or local law enforcement agency, and who died while
acting in the line of duty.

SEC. 3. CAPITOL-FLOWN FLAGS FOR FAMILIES OF DECEASED
FIREFIGHTERS.

(a) Authority.--The family of a paid or volunteer
firefighter who dies in the line of duty may request, and the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
provide to such family, a capitol-flown flag, which shall be
supplied to the Director by the Architect of the Capitol. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall pay the cost of
such flag, including shipping, out of discretionary grant
funds.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date on which the Attorney General establishes the procedure
required by section 2(b).
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 442. A bill to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement
officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms
and to allow States to enter into compacts to recognize other States'
concealed weapons permits; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the third bill I am introducing today is
a bill to authorize states to recognize each other's concealed weapons
laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers
from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This
legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to
facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement
officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property.
The language of this bill is based on S. 727, which I introduced in
the 106th Congress. Specifically, this bill allows States to enter into
agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons
laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a

[[Page S1783]]

Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested
in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions
which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law
enforcement personnel.
Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in
those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in
this body have always worked to protect the interests of States and
communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their
affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every
day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill
would allow States to decide for themselves.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 442

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 ``Law Enforcement Protection
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS
PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the
following:

``SEC. 926B. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED
CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law
of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an
individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual
is--
``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified
former law enforcement officer; and
``(2) carrying appropriate written identification.
``(b) Effect on Other Laws.--
``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49--
``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet
the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or
``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer.
``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation
prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any
Federal property, installation, building, base, or park.
``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are
broader than the rights granted under this section;
``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(4) Definitions.--In this section:
``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term
`appropriate written identification' means, with respect to
an individual, a document that--
``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency
with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law
enforcement officer; and
``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current
or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.
``(B) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that
has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or
foreign commerce.
``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term
`qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an
individual who is--
``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than
for reasons of mental disability;
``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified
law enforcement officer with that public agency;
``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency;
``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency
due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the
carrying of a firearm;
``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in
which the individual resides with respect to--

``(I) training in the use of firearms; and
``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and

``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
``(D) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term
`qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any
violation of criminal law;
``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in
the course of duty;
``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency
with respect to firearms; and
``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the
agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 926A the following:

``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former
law enforcement officers.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS.

(a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2
or more States--
(1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative
effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as
dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the
weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon;
and
(2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may
determine to be appropriate for making effective such
agreements and compacts.
(b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or
repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 443. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving
stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the fourth bill I am introducing today
is the ``Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 2001'' which would
increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun
laws.
Many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The
extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and
news reports which indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen
each year.
This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice
Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50
percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang
members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun.
Specifically, this bill would increase the maximum penalty for
violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the
U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen
firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive,
possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm
or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these
provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or
both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years.
Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding
gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the
illegal use of firearms.
The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 2001 will send a strong
signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I
urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.
Mr. Preisent, I ask unanimous consent that the Stolen Gun Penalty
Enhancement Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 443

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of
section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 15 years, or both.'';
(2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``15 years''; and
(3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``15 years''.
(b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing
Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 444. A bill to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to support teacher corps programs, and for other
purposes; to

[[Page S1784]]

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree
on in education, it is that quality teachers are absolutely critical to
how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst
teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing
class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement
age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers
over the next decade.
The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics,
science, special education and bilingual education, all important
subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it
competitive in the world marketplace.
Teacher shortages are also greatest in specific geographical areas
such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most
educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are
under-served. If there is one action we can take that is guaranteed to
help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and
school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified
teacher in every class room.
My bill, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my
colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought
to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of
America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are
based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective
mechanisms for meeting that need.
Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education
agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher
education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students
and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as
teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of
greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and
universities would work together to recruit only candidates who have an
academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in
the subject in which they will teach.
The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative
route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching
internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and
advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other
areas.
After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer
individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years
of full time teaching.
Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring
within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low
income schools for 3 years.
A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through
caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open
their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota,
I am in awe of teachers' work. When a skilled, energetic teacher
creates an invigorating learning environment for his or her students it
is truly a magical thing. In my travels to schools around Minnesota and
the country I see a great deal of that magic happening.
That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children
that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that
many people interested in teaching are either not entering the
profession or are not staying there once they have qualified.
Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low
income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as
math, science, bilingual and special education.
It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental
parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality
training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals
who want to teach in high need areas.
The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may
need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to
ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall
quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific
geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are
teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing
acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers
lacks proper credentials. Fifty-eight percent of new hires in Los
Angeles are not certified.
There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math,
science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of
Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong
candidates in at least one curriculum area. Fifty-four percent of the
mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the
science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject
of their primary assignment.
The report recently released by the Commission chaired by our former
colleague John Glenn highlights this problem in the area of math and
science teaching. The Glenn Commission--in its report ominously, but
accurately, titled ``Before It's Too Late''--called on all the
decision-makers in our country to establish an ongoing system to
improve the quality of mathematics and science teaching in our
elementary and secondary schools and to improve the quality of those
teachers' preparation for the classroom.
Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train
thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific
teaching needs of local school districts.
It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career
professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter
the teaching profession.

More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted
to join the profession in the past 30 years. In the surveys of incoming
college students that UCLA conducts each fall, in recent years over 10
percent of all freshman consistently have said they want to teach in
elementary and secondary schools.
Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local
school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who
meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained.
If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual,
math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps would
train people with only those skills. In setting up collaboratives in
this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in
areas where they are not needed.
Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high-need rural, inner
suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter
where they are needed most.
However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high-need schools
and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is
one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to
prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children
so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with
our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little
support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major
causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change
professions before retirement. Seventy-three percent of Minnesota
teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than
retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field
within five years of when they start teaching.
To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give
teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors, need
mentoring and support during the first years of their professional
life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, mentoring and
support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes
methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers
stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were
laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in
1996. Effective programs organize professional development around
standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service
internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills;
offer stable, high quality professional development.

[[Page S1785]]

Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program.
Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying
for their training. Through this financial and professional support,
Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching.
But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality
must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important
predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the
teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the proportion of
students of color and students from low-income families increases in
schools, the test scores of teachers decline.
This is wrong. We are denying children from low income areas,
children from racial minorities, children with limited English
proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown
that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers
at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between
poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts
would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase
of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-third
reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores.
We cannot turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must
give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the
same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now.
The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers
where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by
using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide
high quality training, professional development, mentoring and
evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven
to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of
the students they teach.
Further, by creating strong connections between universities and
districts and by implementing effective professional development
projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to
benefit all teachers and students.
We have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who
need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on
children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children
have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to
learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities
this country provides.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 445. A bill to provide for local family information centers, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation
that will go a long way to increase the accountability of our schools
and to help parents become more involved in their children's education.
We all know that families are crucial to improving our nation's
schools. To ensure that schools and students meet challenging
educational goals, families must be involved. Parents must insist that
their children get the best education. They must understand, shape and
support the reforms in their schools; and, they must work with schools
to help all children meet their goals.
We know that when families are fully engaged in the educational
process, students have: higher grades and test scores; better
attendance and more homework done; fewer placements in special
education; more positive attitudes and behavior; higher graduation
rates; and greater enrollment in post-secondary education.
For school reforms to help all children, we must move to ensure that
all parents are involved in their children's education. For many
parents, this is not an easy task. Parents, particularly those who have
limited English proficiency, those who are homeless, or those who have
a troubled history with the school system, often need outside help to
get the information, support, and training they need to help their
children navigate through the school system.
Parent involvement is more important now than ever before. As we move
in the direction of increased accountability, high stakes testing and
expanded public school choice, it is critical that parents know
everything that is required of them and their children. They need to be
sure that they have access to every aspect of their child's schooling,
or their child could easily be left behind.
Current provisions in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act provide for excellent and important ways for parents to
get involved in their children's education. However, in some cases,
parent involvement of the type envisioned by Title I remains a distant
goal. Many Title I schools, though not all, have failed to fully bring
parents into the development of parent involvement policies, school-
parent compacts, and into planning and improvement for the school as
provided for in Title I. Therefore, it is essential for families to
have an independent source of information and support that they
understand and trust so that they can participate in an informed and
effective manner and help move the schools toward the goal of full
parental participation.
To achieve this critical end, this legislation would provide
competitive grants to community-based organizations to establish Local
Family Information Centers. These centers, made up of community members
as well as professionals from the Title I schools in the area, should
have a track record of effective outreach and work with low income
communities. They, in consultation with the school district, would
develop a plan to provide parents with the full support that they need
to be partners in their children's education. For example, they would
help parents understand standards, tests, and accountability systems;
support activities that are likely to improve student achievement in
Title I schools; understand and analyze data that schools, districts,
and states must provide under reporting requirements of ESEA and other
laws; understand and participate in the implementation of parent
involvement requirements of ESEA, including; understand school choice
options; and, communicate effectively with school personnel.
This legislation is essential because it would reach and assist
parents most isolated from participation by poverty, race, limited
English proficiency and other factors. It is essential because
ultimately, it should be parents that are the greatest lever for strong
accountability in schools. It is essential because of what we know
about how children learn--that children who are the farthest behind
make the greatest gains when their parents are part of their school
life.
Many schools do a very good job of involving parents in education
reform. This bill does nothing but ensure that parents have the option
of an independent voice in districts where schools do not do such a
good job. If we are to educate our children, we must also educate and
empower their parents. This legislation provides one necessary means to
do so.
______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 446. A bill to preserve the authority of States over water within
their boundaries, to delegate to States the authority of Congress to
regulate water, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water
Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the
States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority
of the Congress to the States to regular water, and for other purposes.
Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the
authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The
Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the
States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran
amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal
Water claims in State water courts.
However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply
concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the
Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory
provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy
Management Act, and

[[Page S1786]]

wilderness designations have all been vehicles used to erode State
sovereignty over it water.
It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and
control of their water and water systems. All rights to water or
reservations of rights for any purpose in States should be subject to
the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal
Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State
Water Sovereignty Protection Act.
The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provide that whenever the
United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it
will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act
further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and
that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over
water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative
or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant
to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs
and fees to the same extend as costs and fees may be imposed on a
private party.
______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Craig and Mr. Helms):
S. 447. A bill to subject the United States to imposition of fees and
costs in proceedings relating to State water rights adjudications; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication
Fee Fairness Act of 2001. This bill would require the federal
government to pay the same filing fees and costs associated with state
water rights' adjudications as is currently required of states and
private parties.
To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of
many states, particularly in the west--states must conduct lengthy,
complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications.
In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring
federal claims to be adjudicated in these state proceedings by adopting
the McCarran amendment. The McCarran amendment waives the sovereign
immunity of the United States and requires the federal government to
submit to state court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in
state general adjudication proceedings.
These federal claims are typically among the most complicated and
largest of claims in state adjudications, and federal agencies are
often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states
officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992,
the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S.
need not pay fees for processing federal claims.
When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the
costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the
proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays
completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary
to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the
inability to protect private and public property interests or determine
how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important
environmental and economic development priorities.
Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like
other water users in the adjudication, federal agencies can file
questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of
their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel
playing field favoring the federal agencies and places a further
financial and resources burden on the system.
For example, in the Snake River Basin adjudication, which is in Idaho
and is probably the largest water adjudication proceeding in the
country, the United States Forest Service filed more than 3,700 federal
claims. The Idaho Department of Water Resources expended thousands of
dollars giving notice to all other claimants, additionally the State of
Idaho and private claimants spent over $800,000 preparing objections to
the Federal Service's claims. On the eve of the objection deadline, the
US withdrew all but 71 of the claims--the Department of Justice's
explanation: litigation strategy.
This example is not an isolated incident. At best, the taxpayers and
states should not be forced to incur these costs simply because the
agency does not take the time to seriously evaluate its claims. At
worst, the taxpayers should not bear the brunt of the federal
government's Machiavellian tactics.
I recognize that the federal government has a legitimate right to
some reserved water rights; however, the federal government should play
by the same rules as the states and other private users. The Water
Adjudication Fee Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this
situation by subjecting the United States, when party to a general
adjudication, to the same fees and costs as state and private users in
water rights adjudications.
This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council
and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me
in supporting water users, taxpayers, the states, and welcome their co-
sponsorship.
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. 447

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Water Adjudication Fee
Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Generally, water allocation in the western United
States is based upon the doctrine of prior appropriation,
under which water users' rights are quantified under State
law. Appropriative rights carry designated priority dates
that establish the relative right of priority to use water
from a source. Most States in the West have developed
judicial and administrative proceedings, often called general
adjudications, to quantify and document these relative
rights, including the rights to water claimed by the United
States Government under either State or Federal law.
(2) State general adjudications are typically complicated,
expensive civil court and administrative actions that can
involve hundreds or even thousands of claimants. Such
adjudications give certainty to water rights, provide
direction for water administration, and reduce conflict over
water allocation and water usage. Those claiming and
establishing rights to water are the primary beneficiaries of
State general adjudication proceedings.
(3) The Congress has recognized the benefits of the State
general adjudication system, and by enactment of section 208
of the Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (43
U.S.C. 666; popularly known as the ``McCarran Amendment''),
required the United States to submit to State court
jurisdiction and to file claims in State general adjudication
proceedings.
(4) Water rights claims by Federal agencies under either
State or Federal law are often the largest or most complex
claims in State general adjudications. However, the United
States Supreme Court, in the case United States v. Idaho, 508
U.S. 1 (1992), determined that the McCarran Amendment does
not require the United States to pay some filing fees simply
because they were misconstrued or perceived to be the same as
costs taxed against all parties.
(5) Since Federal agency water rights claims are among the
most difficult to adjudicate, and since the United States is
not required to pay some fees and costs paid by non-Federal
claimants, the burden of funding adjudication proceedings
unfairly shifts to private water users and State taxpayers.
(6) The lack of Federal Government funding to support State
water rights adjudications in relation to the complexity of
the claims involved has produced significant delays in
completion of many State general adjudications. These delays
inhibit the ability of both the States and Federal agencies
to protect private and public property interests. Also,
failure to complete the final adjudication of claims to water
restricts the ability of resource managers to determine how
much unappropriated water is available to satisfy
environmental and economic development demands.

SEC. 3. LIABILITY OF UNITED STATES FOR FEES AND COSTS IN
WATER USE RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS.

(a) In General.--In any State administrative or judicial
proceeding for the adjudication or administration of rights
to the use of water in which the United States is a party,
the United States shall be subject to the imposition of fees
and costs on its claims to water rights under either State or
Federal law to the same extent as a private party to the
proceeding.
(b) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply to proceedings
pending on or initiated after the date of enactment of this
Act, including with respect to fees and costs imposed in such
a proceeding before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Report to Congress.--The head of any Federal agency
that files or has pending any

[[Page S1787]]

water rights claim shall prepare and submit to the Congress,
within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, a report
that identifies--
(1) each such claim filed by the agency that has not yet
been decreed;
(2) all fees and costs imposed on the United States for
each claim identified under paragraph (1);
(3) any portion of such fees and costs that has not been
paid; and
(4) the source of funds used to pay such fees and costs.
(d) Fees and Costs Defined.--In this section, the term
``fees and costs'' means any administrative fee,
administrative cost, claim fee, judicial fee, or judicial
cost imposed by a State on a party claiming a right to the
use of water under either State or Federal law in a State
proceeding referred to in subsection (a).
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 448. A bill to provide permanent appropriations to the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Trust Fund to make payments under the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note); to the Committee on
Appropriations.
S. 449. A bill to ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible
persons under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210);
to the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that
will provide full funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund.
One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid
development of its nuclear weapons programs was that many of those who
worked in the early uranium mines became afflicted with debilitating
and too often deadly diseases, including various cancers and
respiratory illnesses.
These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some
lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine
shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank
underground water that exposed them to radiation. The miners endured
long, uncomfortable days many feet underground.
One such miner was Paul Hicks, for whom this bill is named. Mr. Hicks
of Grants, NM was a uranium miner for twelve years in New Mexico. He
later worked as lead miner, a shift boss, and ended his career as a
mine foreman. Paul was the President of the New Mexico Uranium Miners
Council and he championed the fight on behalf of miners of the Najavo
Nation, Acoma Pueblo, Grants, NM, Dove Creek, and Grand Junction, CO.
Unfortunately, Paul passed away from bone cancer last year.
Although Paul is no longer with us, his voice on behalf of uranium
miners will forever be heard. As long as I'm in the United States
Senate I will carry his torch until justice for all uranium miners is
realized.
Paul was not alone in his suffering. Other New Mexico uranium miners
have been stricken by radiation-related diseases. Indeed, many of these
miners were Native Americans--primarily from the Najavo Nation. As many
as 1,500 Navajos worked in the uranium mines from 1947-1971.
To these Americans, the Federal government owes a special duty of
care. The government has a longstanding trust relationship with Native
Americans based on treaties and agreements. I regret to say that as for
the Najavo miners our government has failed miserably in protecting
this trust relationship.

After all, these Native American miners and all uranium miners helped
build our nuclear arsenal--the arsenal that is, at least in part,
responsible for ending the Cold War. Our nation owes them a debt of
gratitude. Yet, despite their enormous sacrifice, the federal
government failed to protect their health. The government had adequate
warning about the radiation hazards associated with uranium mining.
Nonetheless, prior to federal regulations in 1971, the miners were sent
into poorly ventilated mines with almost no warnings about the dangers
of radiation.
After a 13-year fight we finally passed legislation to rectify this
injustice in 1990. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was intended
to provide fair and swift compensation for those miners, federal
workers, and downwinders who had contracted certain radiation-related
illnesses.
Since 1990, more than 3500 claims have been paid by the federal
government under RECA. However, by mid-2000 the fund had run dry.
The bottom line is that there is not enough money for the RECA trust
fund. In fact, the Justice Department, who administers this program,
has been sending IOU's to individuals who have already been approved
for benefits.
Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our
nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be
compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is
unacceptable.
Senator Hatch and I propose a bill seeking $84 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations to pay those claims that have already been
approved as well as the projected number of approved claims for FY
2001. We are also introducing legislation to make all future payments
for approved claims mandatory.
With this legislation, we will ensure that those who gave so much for
our nation will at least receive their deserved benefits. We must never
again let their sacrifice go unanswered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Department of Justice
IOU letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Department of Justice,

Civil Division,

Washington, DC.
Re RECA Claim No. 201
Claimant: ------ ------
Dear Mr. ------ ------. I am pleased to inform you that
your claim for compensation under the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act has been approved. Regretfully, because the
money available to pay claims has been exhausted, we are
unable to send a compensation payment to you at this time.
When Congress provides additional funds, we will contact you
to commence the payment process.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,

Gerard W. Fischer,

Assistant Director,
Torts Branch, Civil Division.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am joining with my esteemed
colleague and chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in
introducing two pieces of legislation that will ensure the full funding
of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, Trust Fund.
As the original sponsor of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of
1990 and the subsequent amendments to the Act, S. 1515 which was
enacted last year, I am pleased that this program has provided much
needed compassionate compensation to thousands of individuals. And,
although many RECA eligible individuals have received compensation, it
is now apparent that a funding shortfall exists within the program
resulting in hundreds of individuals not receiving their payments.
The legislation Senator Domenici and I are introducing today is
designed to meet the funding shortfall so that all eligible individuals
who are approved for compensation will receive their payment and not an
``IOU'' from the Justice Department.
The first bill ensures the timely payment of benefits to eligible
persons by providing $84 million to the RECA Trust Fund for fiscal year
2001. The money will be available to the Justice Department to fund the
existing claims that have already been processed as well as anticipated
claims of the remainder of this fiscal year.
The second bill provides for a permanent appropriation to the RECA
Trust Fund beginning in fiscal year 2002, and thereafter, such sums as
may be necessary to meet the financial obligations of approved claims.
Both of these bills are needed in order to pay those individuals who
have qualified under the original 1990 Act and the RECA 2000
amendments, as signed into law last July 10, 2000, but who have not
received their payment because the fund is currently depleted.
Moreover, as a result of the passage of RECA 2000, we have extended
compensation to additional deserving citizens who have suffered
mightily as a result of the cold war atomic testing programs.
In addition, the legislation we are introducing today provides that
funding for the RECA trust fund be made through a permanent
appropriation. This provision will provide certainty and stability in
financing the trust fund and, thereby, ensure eligible individuals
receive their compensation.
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his commitment to

[[Page S1788]]

resolving this very difficult problem that many individuals are now
facing. It is simply unfair for the federal government to promise
compensation to harmed individuals and then tell these same people that
there are no federal dollars to pay their claims. This situation is
completely unacceptable.
I would also like to add, in this context, that within the next few
weeks I will be introducing additional legislation that will not only
complement the bills introduced today but also provide for necessary
refinements and technical changes to improve the administration of the
RECA program. I will have more to say about this legislation when it is
introduced within the next several weeks.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important
measures.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 450. A bill to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide for
enhanced protection of nonpublic personal information, including health
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
S. 451. A bill to establish civil and criminal penalties for the sale
or purchase of a social security number; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my
grave concern about the administration's decision that apparently
favors the interests of big insurance companies over the health privacy
rights of Americans.
I was dismayed to learn on Tuesday that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services prevented new medical privacy rules from coming into
effect. In essence, these rules would have prevented doctors and
insurers from sharing private medical information about their patients.
The delay ostensibly is to allow further discussion. But it makes no
sense. The rules have been debated in Washington for nearly 10 years.
The Secretary's decision was unfortunate. There are no acceptable
excuses for their delay. Consumers deserve to have their personally
identifiable information protected from prying eyes.
I promised the people of my State in the course of the last 6 to 8
months of the discussion in the course of the campaign that I would
make protecting their privacy one of my top priorities, because too
often these days, personally identifiable medical and financial
information is being shared, bought, or sold, and it is being done
without the consent of the consumer. This practice must stop. It is our
job to pass legislation that will stop it.
Today, I am going to be introducing two bills that begin to address
aspects of the privacy crisis. Both bills build upon the undeniable
principle that information gathered for one purpose should never be
disclosed, made available, or otherwise used for another purpose
without the consumer's consent.
Clearly, we should be able to share information with our doctor that
we don't want revealed to other people, particularly an employer or a
money lender. I am going to work hard to try to pass these privacy
protections for every American.
The first bill prohibits banks and financial institutions from
selling or sharing private customer information. I strongly believe
that financial institutions should not be allowed to pass along
confidential customer, financial, or medical information to affiliates,
business partners, or others who wish to turn a profit from an
individual's personal data.
I have a little bit of background in this because 6 years ago, when I
had the privilege of being the elected insurance commissioner of the
State of Florida, there was a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
entitled Barnett Banks v. Bill Nelson, in my capacity as insurance
commissioner. The issue was on a technical question of a 1916 Federal
law as to whether or not banks could sell insurance. The Court ruled,
on the basis of that law, that it pertained to the business of
insurance, the upshot of which was that banks could sell insurance. In
our argument, we noted that if that occurred, there was always the
possibility that you had to protect against coercion and protect
against privacy rights being invaded.
As a result of that unanimous Supreme Court decision, Congress then,
in 1999, enacted the Financial Services Modernization Act. In the 11th
hour of the closing of the session in October, the promise was made
that, if you can pass this bill now, we will come back next year--the
year 2000--and enact the privacy protections. That promise was not
fulfilled in the year 2000.

For under the present condition of the law, there is a gaping
loophole on privacy protection. In an era of mergers, under the new
law, banks can now join with insurance companies and then evaluate the
medical information of their affiliates' policyholders before deciding
whether or not to issue a loan.
What my legislation will do is require the express written consent of
the consumer before any personally identifiable medical information can
be shared or sold, and the express consent of the consumer before any
personally identifiable financial information can be shared or sold.
For the consumer, privacy should always be the assumption. To prevent
coercion, this legislation I am introducing prohibits banks and
financial companies from denying service to customers who refuse to
consent to the sale of their personally identifiable financial and
medical information. To make sure financial institutions take this law
seriously, under the legislation, officers of the company can incur
personal liability for failing to comply.
This is a serious problem: the invasion of our privacy under the
current condition of the law. It demands a serious remedy. I am going
to be encouraging all of our colleagues to join with me and fulfill the
promise that the Congress made in 1999 in the enactment of the
Financial Services Modernization Act by plugging this gaping loophole
where there is no privacy protection.
There is a second bill that I am introducing today. It makes the
selling or purchasing of an individual's Social Security number a
Federal crime. Social Security numbers are often the key to unlocking
vast stores of personal information, both in the private sector and the
Federal Government. If there is any personal identification number, it
is the Social Security number. We look all around us and we see that
identity theft has grown at an alarming rate during the past decade--in
many cases, through the Social Security number abuse.
My goodness, we have heard of credit cards being established in
somebody else's name by the theft of their Social Security number and
running up huge bills. We have heard these stories over and over, and
even the confusion caused by identity theft, where crimes are reported
to be attributed to an individual who does not have anything to do with
it.
When a Social Security number falls into the wrong hands, tremendous
financial and personal damage can be incurred. To tackle this terrible
problem, this legislation that I am introducing today establishes
criminal and monetary penalties. The bill creates both prison terms and
fines of up to $100,000 for buying or selling Social Security numbers.
I hope in this field of privacy protection that the Senate is going
to ultimately fulfill the promise that it made 2 years ago and move
quickly in this session to protect the privacy of our American
citizens.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 450

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 ``Financial Institution
Privacy Protection Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE HEALTH INFORMATION.

Section 509(4) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C.
6809(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) The term `nonpublic personal information' includes
health information, defined as any information, including
genetic information, demographic information, and tissue
samples collected from an individual, whether oral or
recorded in any form or medium--
``(i) that is created or received by a health care
provider, health researcher, health plan, health oversight
agency, public health authority, employer, health or life
insurer, school or university; and
``(ii) that --
``(I) relates to the past, present, or future physical or
mental health or condition of an individual (including
individual cells and their components), the provision of
health

[[Page S1789]]

care to an individual, or the past, present, or future
payment for the provision of health care to an individual;
and
``(II) that identifies an individual, or with respect to
which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the
information can be used to identify an individual.''.

SEC. 3. OPT-IN FOR SHARING OF INFORMATION.

Section 502 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6802)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``any affiliate or'' before ``a
nonaffiliated'';
(B) by striking ``unless such'' and inserting the
following: ``unless--
``(1) the institution provides''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``; and
``(2) the consumer to whom the information pertains--
``(A) has affirmatively consented (in writing, in the case
of health information, as defined in section 509(4)(D)), in
accordance with rules prescribed under section 504, to the
disclosure of such information; and
``(B) has not withdrawn such consent.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Denial of Service Prohibited.--A financial
institution may not deny a financial product or a financial
service to any consumer based on the refusal by the consumer
to grant the consent required by this section.''.

SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE OFFICERS.

Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Compliance Officers.--Each financial institution
shall designate a privacy compliance officer, who shall be
responsible for ensuring compliance by the institution with
the requirements of this title and the privacy policies of
the institution.''.

SEC. 5. LIABILITY.

Section 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6805)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Civil Penalties.--The Attorney General of the United
States may bring a civil action in the appropriate district
court of the United States against any financial institution
that engages in conduct constituting a violation of this
title, and, upon proof of such violation--
``(1) the financial institution shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $100,000 for each such violation;
and
``(2) the officers and directors of the financial
institution shall be subject to, and shall be personally
liable for, a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each
such violation.''.
____

S. 451

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 ``Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Purchase.--The term ``purchase'' means providing
directly or indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a
social security number.
(2) Sale.--The term ``sale'' means obtaining, directly or
indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a social
security number.
(3) Social security number.--The term ``social security
number'' has the meaning given that term in section 208(c) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408(c)), and includes a
social security account number (as defined in such section)
and any identifying portion or derivative of such a number.
(b) Prohibition of the Sale or Purchase of a Social
Security Number.--No person may sell or purchase a social
security number.
(c) Civil Money Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Any person who the Attorney General
determines has violated subsection (b) shall be subject, in
addition to any other penalties that may be prescribed by
law, to a civil money penalty of not more than--
(A) in the case of an individual, $10,000 for each such
violation; and
(B) in the case of any other person, $100,000 for each such
violation.
(2) Enforcement procedures.--The provisions of section
1128A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a) (other
than subsections (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), and (m), and
the first sentence of subsection (c)), and the provisions of
subsections (d) and (e) of section 205 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 405), shall apply to a civil money penalty
imposed under this subsection in the same manner as such
provisions apply, respectively, to a penalty or proceeding
under section 1128A(a) of that Act or to a hearing,
investigation, or other proceeding authorized or directed
under title II of that Act, except that, for purposes of this
paragraph, any reference in section 1128A of that Act to
``the Secretary'' and any reference in section 205 of that
Act to ``the Commissioner of Social Security'' shall be
deemed to be a reference to the ``Attorney General''.
(d) Criminal Sanctions.--Section 208(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
``(9) knowingly and willfully sells or purchases (as such
terms are defined in section 2(a) of the Social Security
Number Protection Act of 2001) a social security number (as
defined in subsection (c));''.
______

By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bond, and Mr.
Hutchinson):
S.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution providing for congressional
disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, relating to ergonomics; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

S.J. Res. 6

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor
relating to ergonomics (published at 65 Fed. Reg. 68261
(2000)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

____________________