[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1973-S2011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Murkowski, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 472. A bill to ensure that nuclear energy continues to contribute
to the supply of electricity in the United States; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I joined with Senator Murkowski last
week when he introduced the National Energy Strategy Act. His Bill
addresses the broad range of issues that must underpin a credible
approach to our nation's energy needs. It had key provisions for each
major source of energy, including nuclear energy.
I rise today to introduce the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance
Act of 2001, which expands and builds on the National Energy Strategy
in the specific area of nuclear energy. It provides a comprehensive
framework for insuring that nuclear energy remains a strong option to
meet our future needs. It accomplishes for nuclear energy what Senator
Byrd's National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act does for
clean coal technologies, which I also support.
There is no single ``silver bullet'' that will address our nation's
thirst for clean, reliable, reasonably priced, energy sources. That's
why the National Energy Strategy Act carefully reinforced the
importance of many energy options. Energy is far too important to our
economic and military strength to rely on any small subset of the
available options.
Both nuclear energy and coal are now major producers of our
electricity. In fact, between them they provide over 70 percent. In
both cases, their continued use presents significant risks They
illustrate a fundamental point, that absolutely every source of energy
presents both benefits and risks. It's our responsibility to ensure
that citizens are presented with accurate information on benefits and
risks, information that is free from any political biases. And where
risk areas are noted, it's our responsibility to devise programs that
mitigate or avoid the risks. Senator Byrd's bill does this for coal
technology, my bill does this for nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy now provides about 22 percent of our electricity from
103 nuclear reactors. The operating costs of nuclear energy are among
the lowest of any source. The Utility Data Institute recently reported
production costs for nuclear at 1.83 cents per kw-hr, with coal at 2.08
cents per kw-hr.
Through careful optimization of operating efficiencies, the output of
nuclear plants has risen dramatically since the 1980's; nuclear plants
operated with an amazing 87 percent capacity factor in 2000. Since
1990, with no new nuclear plants, the output of our plants has still
increased by over 20 percent. That's equivalent to gaining the output
of about 20 new nuclear plants without building any.
Safety has been a vital focus, as evidenced by a constant decrease in
the number of emergency shutdowns, or ``scrams,'' in our domestic
plants. In 1985, there were 2.4 scrams per reactor, last year there
were just 0.03. While some use the Three Mile Island accident to
highlight their concerns the fact remains that our safety systems
worked at Three Mile Island and no members of the public were harmed.
Another example of the exemplary safety of nuclear reactors, when
properly designed and managed, lies with our nuclear navy. They now
operate about 90 nuclear powered ships, and over the years, they've
operated about 250 reactors in all. In that time, they've accumulated
5,400 reactor-years of operation, over twice the number of reactor-
years in our civilian sector. In all that time, they have never had a
significant incident with their reactors. They are welcomed into over
150 major foreign ports in over 50 countries.
Interest in our nuclear plants is increasing along with dramatically
increased confidence in their ability to contribute to our energy
needs. Interest in re-licensing plants, to extend their lifetime beyond
the originally planned 40 years, has greatly expanded. The NRC has now
approved re-licensing for 5 reactors, and over 30 other reactors have
begun the renewal process. Industry experts now expect virtually all
operating plants to apply for license extension.
Nuclear energy is essentially emission free. We avoided the emission
of 167 million tons of carbon last year or more than 2 billion tons
since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of
the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal
voluntary reporting program. The inescapable fact is that nuclear
energy is making an immense contribution to the environmental health of
our nation.
But unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear energy, we're living on
our past global leadership. Most of the technologies that drive the
world's nuclear energy systems originated here. Much of our early
leadership derived from our requirements for a nuclear navy; that work
enabled many of the civilian aspects of nuclear power.
Our reactor designs are found around the world. The reprocessing
technology used in some countries originated here. The fuel designs in
use around the world largely were developed here. This nation provided
the global leadership to start the age of nuclear energy.
Now, our leadership is seriously at risk. No nuclear plant has been
ordered in the United States in over 20 years. To some extent, this was
driven by decreases in energy demand following the early oil price
shocks and from public fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But
we also have allowed complex environmental reviews and regulatory
stalemates to extend approval and construction times and to seriously
undercut prospects for any additional plants.
As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the nuclear energy option until
we are ready to specify with confidence how we are going to replace 22
percent of our electricity with some other source offering comparable
safety, reliability, low cost, and environmental attributes. We risk
our nation's future prosperity if we lose the nuclear option through
inaction. Instead, we need concrete action to secure the nuclear option
for future generations. We must not subject the nation to the risk of
inadequate energy supplies.
My bill is squarely aimed at avoiding this risk. I appreciate that my
co-sponsors: Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Landrieu, Craig, Graham, Kyl,
Crapo, Thompson, Voinovich and Hagel share these concerns and support
this bill to address them.
There are five broad aspects of this bill. First, it initiates
programs to ensure that the operations of our current nuclear plants
remain adequately supported. It authorizes expanded research and
educational programs to ensure that we have a qualified workforce
supporting nuclear issues. It sets up incentives for companies to
increase the efficiency of existing plants. And it
[[Page S1974]]
assures that the industries supporting our domestic nuclear fuel
supplies remain viable.
Second, it encourages construction of new plants, especially
Generation IV plants. Technology to build these plants is close at
hand. This bill not only supports research and development on these
plants, it also supports development of the regulatory framework within
the NRC that must be in place before they can be licensed.
Generation IV plants would
be cost competitive with natural gas, have significantly
improved safety features with the goal of passive safety
systems that would be immune to human errors, have reduced
generation of spent fuel and nuclear waste, and have improved
resistance to any possible proliferation.
In the U.S., Exelon Corporation has invested in design of a plant in
South Africa that has many of these attributes.
Third, this bill has provisions to secure a level playing field for
evaluation of nuclear energy relative to other energy sources. It seeks
to avoid any scientifically inaccurate stigmas that have been placed on
nuclear energy.
Fourth, this bill seeks to create improved solutions for managing
nuclear waste. Our current national policy simply requires that we find
a permanent repository for spent fuel. But spent fuel has immense
residual energy. Our present plan simply assumes that future
generations will be so energy-rich that they would have no interest in
this major energy source.
I'm not at all sure that view serves our nation and those future
generations very well. I've favored study of alternative strategies for
spent fuel. As a minimum we should be doing research now to enable
future generations to decide if spent fuel should still be treated as
waste, or if it should be treated as a precious energy resource.
Advanced technologies for recycling spent fuel and regaining some of
its energy value would also allow us to consider approaches to render
the final waste form far less toxic then spent fuel. These approaches
require transmutation of the long-lived radioactive species into either
short-lived or stable species. This bill includes funding for a
research project, based on modern accelerators, to study the economics
and engineering aspects of transmutation. There is substantial interest
in other countries in joining us in collaborative study of this option.
This accelerator project, almost as an added bonus, can also provide
a backup source of the tritium required to maintain our nuclear
stockpile. The bill provides for this application. The accelerator
program, called Advanced Accelerator Applications or AAA, would also
produce radioisotopes for medical purposes and would provide a great
test bed for study of many nuclear engineering questions.
Before leaving the part of the bill dealing with spent fuel, let me
emphasize how very compact these wastes are already and how much more
compact they could be. For example, all the spent fuel rods from the
last 40 years of our nation's nuclear energy production would only fill
one football field to a depth of around 4 yards.
If we had encouraged reprocessing of spent fuel in this country, we
would have dramatically less high level waste. In France, they
reprocess spent fuel, both to reuse some of the residual energy and to
extract some of the more inert components. Through their efforts, a
container, smaller than two rolls of film, represents the final high
level waste for a French family of four for twenty years.
And finally, the fifth and last part of this bill provides
streamlining for a number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission procedures
and outdated statutory restrictions.
For example, in a global energy market it makes sense to allow
foreign ownership of power and research reactors located in the United
States. At the same time, this amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act
retains U.S. security precautions in the original law.
Another amendment eliminates time-consuming and unnecessary antitrust
review requirements. This section of the bill would also simplify the
hearing requirements in a proceeding involving an amendment to an
existing operating license or the transfer of an existing license.
Further, another provision gives the NRC the authority to establish
requirements to ensure that non-licensees fully comply with their
obligations to fund nuclear plant decommissioning.
These and other changes to the 1954 Act will assist the NRC in its
pursuit of more effective and responsive regulation of our domestic
nuclear plants. These changes to the Atomic Energy Act have the support
of the leadership of the NRC Chairman.
Mr. President, this bill enables nuclear energy to continue to be
treated as a viable option for our nation's electricity needs. It would
help ensure that future generations continue to enjoy clean, safe,
reliable electricity and the many benefits that this energy source will
provide.
Mr. President, I am privileged to take a little bit of the Senate's
time to talk about something I think is very important. I have been
working on this for a long time, but it just wasn't opportune to bring
it up and give serious consideration to this issue. With the energy
crisis in the United States, people are going to be able to understand
that we truly have a shortage in the capacity to produce electricity,
which takes care of our homes, feeds our industry, and provides a
substantial portion of America's economic prosperity and growth.
So today I am going to talk about a bill I am introducing, with
bipartisan support, which essentially tries to bring back to a level
playing field for consideration nuclear energy and new nuclear
powerplants.
This bill I am introducing is on my behalf and also for Senators
Lincoln, Graham, Thompson, Voinovich, Hagel, Murkowski, Landrieu,
Craig, Kyl, and Crapo, I believe I will have another 10 to 12
cosponsors soon, all of whom see the importance of the United States of
America making sure we are taking care of all energy, looking out for
and moving in the direction of every energy source we have that is safe
and at the right level of risk, and that we proceed to develop those
for America's future.
One of those that can't be left out, in my opinion, is the entire
field of nuclear energy and what is needed to bring America back to a
leading role in the world in terms of nuclear power and future
generations of nuclear powerplants.
As a precursor to a few remarks, I want to indicate to the Senate,
and those interested, that every American ought to be concerned about
the fact that America doesn't have enough energy being produced to keep
ourselves going at our current rate, much less at the natural growth
rate that everybody expects.
My first little exhibit here is a very interesting evaluation and
analysis of America's current sources of electricity at the end of
1999. (We don't have a more current one, but it hasn't changed much.)
Everybody should know that in the United States coal-burning
powerplants produce 51.4 percent of our electricity. Somehow or
another, even though coal provides 51 percent, we aren't building very
many coal powerplants because we have not moved fast enough with new
technology, and there are many who don't want to build any more coal-
burning plants, even if we can get their pollution down to a safe and
nonrisky rate.
Then if we look at the next big source of electricity, it is nuclear
energy, 19.8 percent. Might I say that while this power crisis has come
about, the nuclear powerplants in the United States have been producing
at a higher rate. They have produced far more electricity without
adding any new plants because the regulatory schemes have become
reasonable instead of unreasonable and generating capacity has risen.
Capacity used to be 70 percent; it is now up to 90. Incidentally, if we
had time, we would show you that even during that period of time, the
safety record has become better rather than worse. We have a very
interesting chart that would show that.
Let's move on. Natural gas, which we are now rapidly building,
everywhere I turn and look, people are building a new powerplant with
natural gas. A little bit of electricity comes from oil, 3.1 percent.
And then hydroelectricity is 8.3 percent. Others sources are in yellow
on the chart--and I am telling it like it is. That yellow represents
2.3 percent, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. Of that
yellow, I believe solar and wind are about a half a percent of the 2.3
percent. So there are those who say we can solve our energy problem
with those items that are
[[Page S1975]]
in yellow here. I say, good luck. Let's proceed as rapidly as we can.
But I have a hunch that to increase those latter sources to a larger
ratio within our energy sources, we will have a long way to go.
We would have to produce these wind fields with windmills on them
beyond anything Americans expect. They expect this should not be the
case if we have another way.
Understand that hydroelectricity is a small amount, but it is pretty
important. Even in the last administration, they were talking about
knocking down some dams so we would have less of this. Actually, that
is pretty risky for America's future.
For those who are wondering where we are in terms of cost, I want to
show them something. This is the electricity production costs. My good
friend occupying the Chair is from Oklahoma. He produces gas and oil in
his State. The best we could do is get information for the end of 1999.
The distinguished Senator and those in attendance know that the natural
gas price has gone up substantially since 1999. I could not bring more
recent cost data because we do not have anything more current.
Since the only thing we want to use is natural gas, we have put an
enormous demand on natural gas while those who supply it are struggling
to keep pace. So the price of natural gas has gone up in a rather
extraordinary manner. I think everybody in this Senate would agree with
that. That is because the market is taking hold of a very small portion
that is free to be traded and those who own it are saying: What will
you pay for it?
That is going up, but even in 1999, here is what it cost Americans.
The green line is nuclear power. We see that it is the lowest. In 1999,
it is beginning to get even lower than coal-burning powerplants. This
next line is oil. One can see it is below natural gas. These are the
numbers: Nuclear, 1.83; coal, 2.07; oil, 3.18; and gas, 3.52 cents per
kilowatt-hour.
Of course, just because energy is more expensive, it does not mean we
should not use it, but I believe the American people over the next 10
to 25 years ought to have a mix so there is a market balance and there
is some competition for these various sources of energy. I believe that
is why so many Senators have joined in this bill.
I want to quickly tell you what it does. It supports nuclear energy,
and it does that in many ways. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative,
called NERI, which is being funded--we are going to authorize it to
make sure it continues.
Nuclear energy plant optimization is a few million dollars. This
helps certification of these plants for an extended licensure period.
Incidentally, that is happening. We are relicensing them. Those who
are doing that are sure they are safe. I wish I had time. I would show
you relicensing versus closing them down, which some people would like.
This will add an enormous amount of energy over the next 20 to 30
years. I have a chart showing that, but I will not use your time on
that.
We also have nuclear energy education support. America used to be not
only the leading producer of nuclear power, but we were the leader in
all of the science and technology. We moved from the atom bomb to
peaceful uses. The great scientists converted it and made nuclear
powerplants. These plants are getting more and more modern in the
world, yet America is letting our technology and our science sit still.
We want to move that ahead in our universities where more people who
want to choose engineering and science are given an opportunity to get
into the nuclear field because it is important to America's future.
We encourage new plant construction. That will not come overnight,
but it is interesting that while the United States debates an issue of
what we do with the waste that comes out of the nuclear powerplants--
and I am sure the occupant of the chair and most Senators if they study
it carefully will clearly come down on the side that this is not a
difficult problem--people who do not want nuclear power at all make it
a problem. But technically, scientifically, and safetywise, it is not a
problem. It is now a problem because the State of Nevada does not want
it, so they are using every political means. That is their prerogative.
But somehow, somewhere, America will be moving in the direction of
getting that problem solved. We are working on a long-term solution.
Incidentally, in this bill we suggest and create waste solutions. We
create an Office for Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Department. If you have
a Department of Energy for the greatest nation on Earth, you surely
ought to have within it, on its domestic side of achievements and
activities, an office for research on spent nuclear fuel. Which great
country would not have that except us? But we went through 15 years
when we threw almost everything nuclear out of the Department of
Energy, as if it were not an energy source, as if it would go away.
The spirit and energy of coming back and doing something significant
is prompted because the world in the future wants to be free and wants
to have production of wealth. People want to be part of a world in
which the poor countries should get richer over the next 10, 20, 30
years, not poorer, and America wants to be part of that. We all have to
worry about energy supplies.
In South Africa, they are moving ahead with the next generation of a
nuclear powerplant that is going to be completely different from the
powerplants we have today. We are sending a few people there to help
with licensure and regulation, but America should be leading the way.
We should be there with the scientists, engineers, and American
companies moving to the next generation.
There is a next generation. It is not cooled necessarily by water.
There are other ways to cool it. Incidentally, it will have passive
safety features so it cannot melt down. That is the one issue everybody
puts up when they say do not touch nuclear power because they want to
scare us to death--it might have a meltdown. But this new powerplant
cannot do that, as a matter of fundamental design parameters.
In this bill, we are going to create waste solutions. We are looking
at an advanced accelerator, called AAA. We are also looking at advanced
fuel recycling. Ultimately we may have a whole new way to change the
quality of high-level waste through a process called transmutation. The
end product will mostly no longer be high-level waste; they will be
able to dispose of the products from transmutation in a very easy way.
I was talking about waste. I was going to show the Senate a container
we received as a demonstration. This holds the waste from a family of
four in France for 20 years--a family of four, year round for 20 years.
That is the total waste they generate because they have 80 percent
nuclear power. But here we are making nuclear waste the most enormous
problem in the world, and letting it stop our pursuit of the cleanest,
most environmentally friendly source of energy around. If we are
looking at balancing environmental needs with energy, nothing beats
nuclear.
We also encourage new plant construction in this bill. That means
evaluation of options to complete some unfinished powerplants and
Generation Four Reactors. These are the next generation. We are funding
them to try to catch up.
We are also going to assure a level playing field for nuclear power.
By that I mean it has not been entitled to some of the luxuries of
credits in terms of clean air and the like that other forms of energy
have. That is going to change.
Last, we are going to improve the NRC regulations.
I close by saying the United States has 103 nuclear powerplants
producing 20 percent of our energy.
Let me state how safe nuclear power is. First, we have about 90 ships
at sea that have as part of their structure one or two nuclear
powerplants. I want to make sure those who are interested know about
these ships sailing the seas with nuclear powerplants. I am talking
about nuclear powerplants that are just like the nuclear powerplants
that exist in America on this chart. They might be smaller, but they
are the same and produce the same kind of power.
In 1954, we put the first one in the ocean. Today, we have them
sailing everywhere with that reactor and nuclear fuel on board. Yet
they are permitted to dock all around the world except
[[Page S1976]]
New Zealand. Does anybody believe they could dock all over the world if
they were unsafe? There would be an outcry to put them 80 miles out,
but they are right in the docks. They are welcome because they are
absolutely safe. There has never been a nuclear accident since 1954 in
the entire nuclear Navy history.
In the end, one of the issues will be what risks we take. Overall, we
take fewer risks by using nuclear power than by almost any other source
because we produce dramatic environmental consequences on the plus side
with nuclear power.
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. 472
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear
Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Subtitle A--Price-Anderson Amendments
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Indemnification authority.
Sec. 103. Maximum assessment.
Sec. 104. Department of Energy liability limit.
Sec. 105. Incidents outside the United States.
Sec. 106. Reports.
Sec. 107. Inflation adjustment.
Sec. 108. Civil penalties.
Sec. 109. Applicability.
Subtitle B--Leadership of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology and the Office of Science
Sec. 111. Assistant Secretaries.
Subtitle C--Funding of Certain Department of Energy Programs
Sec. 121. Establishment of programs.
Sec. 122. Nuclear energy research initiative.
Sec. 123. Nuclear energy plant optimization program.
Sec. 124. Uprating of nuclear plant operations.
Sec. 125. University programs.
Sec. 126. Prohibition of commercial sales of uranium and conversion
held by the Department of Energy until 2006.
Sec. 127. Cooperative research and development and special
demonstration projects for the uranium mining industry.
Sec. 128. Maintenance of a viable domestic uranium conversion industry.
Sec. 129. Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant.
Sec. 130. Nuclear generation report.
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR PLANTS
Sec. 201. Establishment of programs.
Sec. 202. Nuclear plant completion initiative.
Sec. 203. Early site permit demonstration program.
Sec. 204. Nuclear energy technology study for Generation IV Reactors.
Sec. 205. Research supporting regulatory processes for new reactor
technologies and designs.
TITLE III--EVALUATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Sec. 301. Environmentally preferable purchasing.
Sec. 302. Emission-free control measures under a State implementation
plan.
Sec. 303. Prohibition of discrimination against emission-free
electricity projects in international development
programs.
TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STRATEGY
Sec. 401. Findings.
Sec. 402. Office of spent nuclear fuel research.
Sec. 403. Advanced fuel recycling technology development program.
TITLE V--NATIONAL ACCELERATOR SITE
Sec. 501. Findings.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Advanced Accelerator Applications Program.
TITLE VI--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFORM
Sec. 601. Definitions.
Sec. 602. Office location.
Sec. 603. License period.
Sec. 604. Elimination of foreign ownership restrictions.
Sec. 605. Elimination of duplicative antitrust review.
Sec. 606. Gift acceptance authority.
Sec. 607. Authority over former licensees for decommissioning funding.
Sec. 608. Carrying of firearms by licensee employees.
Sec. 609. Cost recovery from Government agencies.
Sec. 610. Hearing procedures.
Sec. 611. Unauthorized introduction of dangerous weapons.
Sec. 612. Sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel.
Sec. 613. Nuclear decommissioning obligations of nonlicensees.
Sec. 614. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the standard of living for citizens of the United
States is linked to the availability of reliable, low-cost,
energy supplies;
(2) personal use patterns, manufacturing processes, and
advanced cyber information all fuel increases in the demand
for electricity;
(3) demand-side management, while important, is not likely
to halt the increase in energy demand;
(4)(A) nuclear power is the largest producer of essentially
emission-free electricity;
(B) nuclear energy is one of the few energy sources that
controls all pollutants;
(C) nuclear plants are demonstrating excellent reliability
as the plants produce power at low cost with a superb safety
record; and
(D) the generation costs of nuclear power are not subject
to price fluctuations of fossil fuels because nuclear fuels
can be mined domestically or purchased from reliable trading
partners;
(5) requirements for new highly reliable baseload
generation capacity coupled with increasing environmental
concerns and limited long-term availability of fossil fuels
require that the United States preserve the nuclear energy
option into the future;
(6) to ensure the reliability of electricity supply and
delivery, the United States needs programs to encourage the
extended or more efficient operation of currently existing
nuclear plants and the construction of new nuclear plants;
(7) a qualified workforce is a prerequisite to continued
safe operation of--
(A) nuclear plants;
(B) the nuclear navy;
(C) programs dealing with high-level or low-level waste
from civilian or defense facilities; and
(D) research and medical uses of nuclear technologies;
(8) uncertainty surrounding the costs associated with
regulatory approval for siting, constructing, and operating
nuclear plants confuses the economics for new plant
investments;
(9) to ensure the long-term reliability of supplies of
nuclear fuel, the United States must ensure that the domestic
uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment service industries
remain viable;
(10)(A) technology developed in the United States and
worldwide, broadly labeled as the Generation IV Reactor, is
demonstrating that new designs of nuclear reactors are
feasible;
(B) plants using the new designs would have improved
safety, minimized proliferation risks, reduced spent fuel,
and much lower costs; and
(C)(i) the nuclear facility infrastructure needed to
conduct nuclear energy research and development in the United
States has been allowed to erode over the past decade; and
(ii) that infrastructure must be restored to support
development of Generation IV nuclear energy systems;
(11)(A) to ensure the long-term viability of nuclear power,
the public must be confident that final waste forms resulting
from spent fuel are controlled so as to have negligible
impact on the environment; and
(B) continued research on repositories, and on approaches
to mitigate the toxicity of materials entering any future
repository, would serve that public interest; and
(12)(A) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must continue its
stewardship of the safety of our nuclear industry;
(B) at the same time, the Commission must streamline
processes wherever possible to provide timely responses to a
wide range of safety, upgrade, and licensing issues;
(C) the Commission should conduct research on new reactor
technologies to support future regulatory decisions; and
(D) a revision of certain Commission procedures would
assist in more timely processing of license applications and
other requests for regulatory action.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
(2) Early site permit.--The term ``Early Site Permit''
means a permit for a site to be a future location for a
nuclear plant under subpart A of part 52 of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(3) Nuclear plant.--The term ``nuclear plant'' means a
nuclear energy facility that generates electricity.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
TITLE I--SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Subtitle A--Price-Anderson Amendments
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson
Amendments Act of 2001''.
SEC. 102. INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.
(a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensees.--Section 170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
[[Page S1977]]
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and
inserting ``Licensees''; and
(2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears
and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.
(b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
Section 170d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``, until August
1, 2002,''.
(c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational
Institutions.--Section 170k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 2002''
each place it appears and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.
SEC. 103. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT.
Section 170b.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2210(b)(1)) is amended in the second proviso of the
third sentence by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$20,000,000''.
SEC. 104. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.
(a) Aggregate Liability Limit.--Section 170d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Liability limit.--In an agreement of indemnification
entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary--
``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain
the financial protection of such a type and in such amounts
as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the
contractual activity; and
``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such
claims above the amount of the financial protection required,
in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to adjustment for
inflation under subsection t.), in the aggregate, for all
persons indemnified in connection with the contract and for
each nuclear incident, including such legal costs of the
contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''.
(b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Contract amendments.--All agreements of
indemnification under which the Department of Energy (or its
predecessor agencies) may be required to indemnify any
person, shall be deemed to be amended, on the date of
enactment of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2001, to
reflect the amount of indemnity for public liability and any
applicable financial protection required of the contractor
under this subsection on that date.''.
SEC. 105. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170d.(5) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended
by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
(b) Liability Limit.--Section 170e.(4) of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by striking
``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
SEC. 106. REPORTS.
Section 170p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and
inserting ``August 1, 2008''.
SEC. 107. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.
Section 170t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(t)) is amended--
(1) by designating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amount of
indemnification provided under an agreement of
indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during
each 5-year period following the date of enactment of the
Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2001, in accordance with the
aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
since--
``(A) that date of enactment, in the case of the first
adjustment under this subsection; or
``(B) the previous adjustment under this subsection.''.
SEC. 108. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234Ab.(2) of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Limitation for Nonprofit Institutions.--Section 234A of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a) is amended by
striking subsection d. and inserting the following:
``d. Notwithstanding subsection a., no contractor,
subcontractor, or supplier of the Department of Energy that
is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of the Code shall be subject to a civil
penalty under this section in any fiscal year in excess of
the amount of any performance fee paid by the Secretary
during that fiscal year to the contractor, subcontractor, or
supplier under the contract under which a violation
occurs.''.
SEC. 109. APPLICABILITY.
(a) Indemnification Provisions.--The amendments made by
sections 103, 104, and 105 do not apply to a nuclear incident
that occurs before the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Civil Penalty Provisions.--The amendments made by
section 108(b) do not apply to a violation that occurs under
a contract entered into before the date of enactment of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Leadership of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology and the Office of Science
SEC. 111. ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.
(a) In General.--Section 203(a) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``eight'' and inserting
``ten''.
(b) Functions.--On appointment of the 2 additional
Assistant Secretaries of Energy under the amendment made by
subsection (a), the Secretary shall assign--
(1) to one of the Assistant Secretaries, the functions
performed by the Director of the Office of Science as of the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the other, the functions performed by the Director
of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology as
of that date.
Subtitle C--Funding of Certain Department of Energy Programs
SEC. 121. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS.
The Secretary shall establish or continue programs
administered by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology to--
(1) support the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, the
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program, and the Nuclear
Energy Technology Program;
(2) encourage investments to increase the electricity
capacity at commercial nuclear plants in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act;
(3) ensure continued viability of a domestic capability for
uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries; and
(4) support university nuclear engineering education
research and infrastructure programs, including closely
related specialties such as health physics, actinide
chemistry, and material sciences.
SEC. 122. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary, for a Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative to be managed by the Director of the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology for grants
to be competitively awarded and subject to peer review for
research relating to nuclear energy--
(1) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003
through 2006.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate an annual report on the activities of the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative.
SEC. 123. NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary for a Nuclear Energy
Plant Optimization Program to be managed by the Director of
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology for a
joint program with industry cost-shared by at least 50
percent and subject to annual review by the Secretary of
Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee--
(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003
through 2006.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate an annual report on the activities of the Nuclear
Energy Plant Optimization Program.
SEC. 124. UPRATING OF NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, to the extent funds are
available, shall reimburse costs incurred by a licensee of a
nuclear plant as provided in this section.
(b) Payment of Commission User Fees.--In carrying out
subsection (a), the Secretary shall reimburse all user fees
incurred by a licensee of a nuclear plant for obtaining the
approval of the Commission to achieve a permanent increase in
the rated electricity capacity of the licensee's nuclear
plant if the licensee achieves the increased capacity before
December 31, 2004.
(c) Preference.--Preference shall be given by the Secretary
to projects in which a single uprating operation can benefit
multiple domestic nuclear power reactors.
(d) Incentive Payments.--
(1) In general.--In addition to payments made under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall offer an incentive
payment equal to 10 percent of the capital improvement cost
resulting in a permanent increase of at least 5 percent in
the rated electricity capacity of the licensee's nuclear
plant if the licensee achieves the increased capacity rating
before December 31, 2004.
(2) Limitation.--No incentive payment under paragraph (1)
associated with any single nuclear unit shall exceed
$1,000,000.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
SEC. 125. UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may, as provided in this
section, provide grants and other forms of payment to further
the national goal of producing well-educated graduates in
nuclear engineering and closely related specialties that
support nuclear energy
[[Page S1978]]
programs such as health physics, actinide chemistry, and
material sciences.
(b) Support for University Research Reactors.--The
Secretary may provide grants and other forms of payments for
plant upgrading to universities in the United States that
operate and maintain nuclear research reactors.
(c) Support for University Research and Development.--The
Secretary may provide grants and other forms of payment for
research and development work by faculty, staff, and students
associated with nuclear engineering programs and closely
related specialties at universities in the United States.
(d) Support for Nuclear Engineering Students and Faculty.--
The Secretary may provide fellowships, scholarships, and
other support to students and to departments of nuclear
engineering and closely related specialties at universities
in the United States.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $34,200,000 for fiscal year 2002, of which--
(A) $13,000,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(b);
(B) $10,200,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(c) of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be available to
support health physics programs; and
(C) $11,000,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(d) of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be available to
support health physics programs; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for subsequent fiscal years.
SEC. 126. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL SALES OF URANIUM AND
CONVERSION HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
UNTIL 2006.
Section 3112(b) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C.
2297h-10(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Sale of uranium hexafluoride.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) sell and receive payment for the uranium hexafluoride
transferred to the Secretary under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) refrain from sales of its surplus natural uranium
and conversion services through 2006 (except sales or
transfers to the Tennessee Valley Authority in relation to
the Department's HEU or Tritium programs, minor quantities
associated with site cleanup projects, or the Department of
Energy research reactor sales program).
``(B) Requirements.--Under subparagraph (A)(i), uranium
hexafluoride shall be sold--
``(i) in 1995 and 1996 to the Russian Executive Agent at
the purchase price for use in matched sales pursuant to the
Suspension Agreement; or
``(ii) in 2006 for consumption by end users in the United
States not before January 1, 2007, and in subsequent years,
in volumes not to exceed 3,000,000 pounds
U3O8 equivalent per year.''.
SEC. 127. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR THE URANIUM MINING
INDUSTRY.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004
for--
(1) cooperative, cost-shared, agreements between the
Department and the domestic uranium mining industry to
identify, test, and develop improved in-situ leaching mining
technologies, including low-cost environmental restoration
technologies that may be applied to sites after completion of
in-situ leaching operations; and
(2) funding for competitively selected demonstration
projects with the domestic uranium mining industry relating
to--
(A) enhanced production with minimal environmental impact;
(B) restoration of well fields; and
(C) decommissioning and decontamination activities.
SEC. 128. MAINTENANCE OF A VIABLE DOMESTIC URANIUM CONVERSION
INDUSTRY.
(a) In General.--For Department of Energy expenses
necessary in providing to Converdyn Incorporated a payment
for losses associated with providing conversion services for
the production of low-enriched uranium (excluding imports
related to actions taken under the United States/Russia HEU
Agreement), there is authorized to be appropriated $8,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
(b) Rate.--The payment shall be at a rate, determined by
the Secretary, that--
(1)(A) is based on the difference between Converdyn's costs
and its sale price for providing conversion services for the
production of low-enriched uranium fuel; but
(B) does not exceed the amount appropriated under
subsection (a); and
(2) shall be based contingent on submission to the
Secretary of a financial statement satisfactory to the
Secretary that is certified by an independent auditor for
each year.
(c) Timing.--A payment under subsection (a) shall be
provided as soon as practicable after receipt and
verification of the financial statement submitted under
subsection (b).
SEC. 129. PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may proceed with actions
required to place the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant into
cold standby condition for a period of 5 years.
(b) Plant Condition.--In the cold standby condition, the
plant shall be in a condition that--
(1) would allow its restart, for production of 3,000,000
separative work units per year, to meet domestic demand for
enrichment services; and
(2) will facilitate the future decontamination and
decommissioning of the plant.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003, 2004,
and 2005.
SEC. 130. NUCLEAR GENERATION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the state of nuclear power generation in
the United States.
(b) Contents.--The report shall--
(1) provide current and historical detail regarding--
(A) the number of commercial nuclear plants and the amount
of electricity generated; and
(B) the safety record of commercial nuclear plants;
(2) review the status of the relicensing process for
commercial nuclear plants, including--
(A) current and anticipated applications; and
(B) for each current and anticipated application--
(i) the anticipated length of time for a license renewal
application to be processed; and
(ii) the current and anticipated costs of each license
renewal;
(3) assess the capability of the Commission to evaluate
licenses for new advanced reactor designs and discuss the
confirmatory and anticipatory research activities needed to
support that capability;
(4) detail the efforts of the Commission to prepare for
potential new commercial nuclear plants, including evaluation
of any new plant design and the licensing process for nuclear
plants;
(5) state the anticipated length of time for a new plant
license to be processed and the anticipated cost of such a
process; and
(6) include recommendations for improvements in each of the
processes reviewed.
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR PLANTS
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS.
(a) Secretary.--The Secretary shall establish a program
within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology
to--
(1) demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Early
Site Permit process;
(2) evaluate opportunities for completion of partially
constructed nuclear plants; and
(3) develop a report assessing opportunities for Generation
IV reactors.
(b) Commission.--The Commission shall develop a research
program to support regulatory actions relating to new nuclear
plant technologies.
SEC. 202. NUCLEAR PLANT COMPLETION INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall solicit information on
United States nuclear plants requiring additional capital
investment before becoming operational or being returned to
operation to determine which, if any, should be included in a
study of the feasibility of completing and operating some or
all of the nuclear plants by December 31, 2004, considering
technical and economic factors.
(b) Identification of Unfinished Nuclear Plants.--The
Secretary shall convene a panel of experts to--
(1) review information obtained under subsection (a); and
(2) identify which unfinished nuclear plants should be
included in a feasibility study.
(c) Technical and Economic Completion Assessment.--On
completion of the identification of candidate nuclear plants
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall commence a detailed
technical and economic completion assessment that includes,
on a unit-specific basis, all technical and economic
information necessary to permit a decision on the feasibility
of completing work on any or all of the nuclear plants
identified under subsection (b).
(d) Solicitation of Proposals.--After making the results of
the feasibility study under subsection (c) available to the
public, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for completing
construction on any or all of the nuclear plants assessed
under subsection (c).
(e) Selection of Proposals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reconvene the panel of
experts designated under subsection (b) to review and select
the nuclear plants to be pursued, taking into consideration
any or all of the following factors:
(A) Location of the nuclear plant and the regional need for
expanded power capability.
(B) Time to completion.
(C) Economic and technical viability for completion of the
nuclear plant.
(D) Financial capability of the offeror.
(E) Extent of support from regional and State officials.
(F) Experience and past performance of the members of the
offeror in siting, constructing, or operating nuclear
generating facilities.
(G) Lowest cost to the Government.
(2) Regional and state support.--No proposal shall be
accepted without endorsement by the State Governor and by the
elected governing bodies of--
(A) each political subdivision in which the nuclear plant
is located; and
(B) each other political subdivision that the Secretary
determines has a substantial
[[Page S1979]]
interest in the completion of the nuclear plant.
(f) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2002, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the reactors
identified for completion under subsection (e).
(2) Contents.--The report shall--
(A) detail the findings under each of the criteria
specified in subsection (e); and
(B) include recommendations for action by Congress to
authorize actions that may be initiated in fiscal year 2003
to expedite completion of the reactors.
(3) Considerations.--In making recommendations under
paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall consider--
(A) the advisability of authorizing payment by the
Government of Commission user fees (including consideration
of the estimated cost to the Government of paying such fees);
and
(B) other appropriate considerations.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 203. EARLY SITE PERMIT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall initiate a program of
Government/private partnership demonstration projects to
encourage private sector applications to the Commission for
approval of sites that are potentially suitable to be used
for the construction of future nuclear power generating
facilities.
(b) Projects.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a
solicitation of offers for proposals from private sector
entities to enter into partnerships with the Secretary to--
(1) demonstrate the Early Site Permit process; and
(2) create a bank of approved sites by December 31, 2003.
(c) Criteria for Proposals.--A proposal submitted under
subsection (b) shall--
(1) identify a site owned by the offeror that is suitable
for the construction and operation of a new nuclear plant;
and
(2) state the agreement of the offeror to pay not less than
\1/2\ of the costs of--
(A) preparation of an application to the Commission for an
Early Site Permit for the site identified under paragraph
(1); and
(B) review of the application by the Commission.
(d) Selection of Proposals.--The Secretary shall establish
a competitive process to review and select the projects to be
pursued, taking into consideration the following:
(1) Time to prepare the application.
(2) Site qualities or characteristics that could affect the
duration of application review.
(3) The financial capability of the offeror.
(4) The experience of the offeror in siting, constructing,
or operating nuclear plants.
(5) The support of regional and State officials.
(6) The need for new electricity supply in the vicinity of
the site, or proximity to suitable transmission lines.
(7) Lowest cost to the Government.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with up to 3 offerors selected through
the competitive process to pay not more than \1/2\ of the
costs incurred by the parties to the agreements for--
(1) preparation of an application to the Commission for an
Early Site Permit for the site; and
(2) review of the application by the Commission.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, to remain available until
expended.
SEC. 204. NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY STUDY FOR GENERATION IV
REACTORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of
Generation IV nuclear energy systems, including development
of a technology roadmap and performance of research and
development necessary to make an informed technical decision
regarding the most promising candidates for commercial
deployment.
(b) Upgrades and Additions.--The Secretary may make
upgrades or additions to the nuclear energy research facility
infrastructure as needed to carry out the study under
subsection (a).
(c) Reactor Characteristics.--To the extent practicable, in
conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall study nuclear energy systems that offer the highest
probability of achieving the goals for Generation IV nuclear
energy systems established by the Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee, including--
(1) economics competitive with natural gas-fueled
generators;
(2) enhanced safety features or passive safety features;
(3) substantially reduced production of high-level waste,
as compared with the quantity of waste produced by reactors
in operation on the date of enactment of this Act;
(4) highly proliferation resistant fuel and waste;
(5) sustainable energy generation including optimized fuel
utilization; and
(6) substantially improved thermal efficiency, as compared
with the thermal efficiency of reactors in operation on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall consult with--
(1) the Commission, with respect to evaluation of
regulatory issues; and
(2) the International Atomic Energy Agency, with respect to
international safeguards.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing the
results of the roadmap and plans for research and development
leading to a public/private cooperative demonstration of one
or more Generation IV nuclear energy systems.
(2) Contents.--The report shall contain--
(A) an assessment of all available technologies;
(B) a summary of actions needed for the most promising
candidates to be considered as viable commercial options
within the five to ten years after the date of the report
with consideration of regulatory, economic, and technical
issues;
(C) a recommendation of not more than three promising
Generation IV nuclear energy system concepts for further
development;
(D) an evaluation of opportunities for public/private
partnerships;
(E) a recommendation for structure of a public/private
partnership to share in development and construction costs;
(F) a plan leading to the selection and conceptual design,
by September 30, 2004, of at least one Generation IV nuclear
energy system for demonstration through a public/private
partnership; and
(G) a recommendation for appropriate involvement of the
Commission.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003
through 2006.
SEC. 205. RESEARCH SUPPORTING REGULATORY PROCESSES FOR NEW
REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES AND DESIGNS.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall develop a
comprehensive research program to support resolution of
potential licensing issues associated with new reactor
concepts and new technologies that may be incorporated into
new or current designs of nuclear plants.
(b) Identification of Candidate Designs.--The Commission
shall work with the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology and the nuclear industry to identify candidate
designs to be addressed by the program.
(c) Activities To Be Included.--The research shall
include--
(1) modeling, analyses, tests, and experiments as required
to provide input into total system behavior and response to
hypothesized accidents; and
(2) consideration of new reactor technologies that may
affect--
(A) risk-informed licensing of new plants;
(B) behavior of advanced fuels;
(C) evolving environmental considerations relative to spent
fuel management and health effect standards;
(D) new technologies (such as advanced sensors, digital
instrumentation, and control) and human factors that affect
the application of new technology to current plants; and
(E) other emerging technical issues.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for subsequent fiscal years.
TITLE III--EVALUATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
SEC. 301. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING.
(a) Acquisition.--For the purposes of Executive Order No.
13101 (3 C.F.R. 210 (1998)) and policies established by the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy or other executive
branch offices for the acquisition or use of environmentally
preferable products (as defined in section 201 of the
Executive order), electricity generated by a nuclear plant
shall be considered to be an environmentally preferable
product.
(b) Procurement.--No Federal procurement policy or program
may--
(1) discriminate against or exclude nuclear generated
electricity in making purchasing decisions; or
(2) subscribe to product certification programs or
recommend product purchases that exclude nuclear electricity.
SEC. 302. EMISSION-FREE CONTROL MEASURES UNDER A STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Criteria air pollutant.--The term ``criteria air
pollutant'' means a pollutant listed under section 108(a) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)).
(2) Emission-free electricity source.-- The term
``emission-free electricity source'' means--
(A) a facility that generates electricity without emitting
criteria pollutants, hazardous pollutants, or greenhouse
gases as a result of onsite operations of the facility; and
(B) a facility that generates electricity using nuclear
fuel that meets all applicable standards for radiological
emissions under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7412).
(3) Greenhouse gas.--The term ``greenhouse gas'' means a
natural or anthropogenic gaseous constituent of the
atmosphere that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation.
[[Page S1980]]
(4) Hazardous pollutant.--The term ``hazardous pollutant''
has the meaning given the term in section 112(a) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(a)).
(5) Improvement in availability.--The term ``improvement in
availability'' means an increase in the amount of electricity
produced by an emission-free electricity source that provides
a commensurate reduction in output from emitting sources.
(6) Increased emission-free capacity project.--The term
``increased emission-free capacity project'' means a project
to construct an emission-free electricity source or increase
the rated capacity of an existing emission-free electricity
source.
(b) Treatment of Certain State Actions as Control
Measures.--An action taken by a State to support the
continued operation of an emission-free electricity source or
to support an improvement in availability or an increased
emission-free capacity project shall be considered to be a
control measure for the purposes of section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)).
(c) Economic Incentive Programs.--
(1) Criteria air pollutants and hazardous pollutants.--
Emissions of criteria air pollutants or hazardous pollutants
prevented or avoided by an improvement in availability or the
operation of increased emission-free capacity shall be
eligible for, and may not be excluded from, incentive
programs used as control measures, including programs
authorizing emission trades, revolving loan funds, tax
benefits, and special financing programs.
(2) Greenhouse gases.--Emissions of greenhouse gases
prevented or avoided by an improvement in availability or the
operation of increased emission-free capacity shall be
eligible for, and may not be excluded from, incentive
programs used as control measures on the national, regional
State, or local level.
SEC. 304. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMISSION-FREE
ELECTRICITY PROJECTS IN INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds shall be used to support
a domestic or international organization engaged in the
financing, development, insuring, or underwriting of
electricity production facilities if the activities fail to
include emission-free electricity production facility
projects that use nuclear fuel.
(b) Request for Policies.--The Secretary of Energy shall
request copies of all written policies regarding the
eligibility of emission-free nuclear electricity production
facilities for funding or support from international or
domestic organizations engaged in the financing, development,
insuring, or underwriting of electricity production
facilities, including--
(1) the Agency for International Development;
(2) the World Bank;
(3) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
(4) the International Monetary Fund; and
(5) the Export-Import Bank.
TITLE IV--DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STRATEGY
SEC. 401. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) before the Federal Government takes any irreversible
action relating to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel,
Congress must determine whether the spent fuel should be
treated as waste subject to permanent burial or should be
considered to be an energy resource that is needed to meet
future energy requirements; and
(2) national policy on spent nuclear fuel may evolve with
time as improved technologies for spent fuel are developed or
as national energy needs evolve.
SEC. 402. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Associate director.--The term ``Associate Director''
means the Associate Director of the Office.
(2) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research established by subsection (b).
(b) Establishment.--There is established an Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
(c) Head of Office.--The Office shall be headed by the
Associate Director, who shall be a member of the Senior
Executive Service appointed by the Director of the Office of
Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and compensated at a
rate determined by applicable law.
(d) Duties of the Associate Director.--
(1) In general.--The Associate Director shall be
responsible for carrying out an integrated research,
development, and demonstration program on technologies for
treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the
general supervision of the Secretary.
(2) Participation.--The Associate Director shall coordinate
the participation of national laboratories, universities, the
commercial nuclear industry, and other organizations in the
investigation of technologies for the treatment, recycling,
and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
(3) Activities.--The Associate Director shall--
(A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by
2015;
(B) identify promising technologies for the treatment,
recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste;
(C) conduct research and development activities for
promising technologies;
(D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives
minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to health of
the general public or site workers, as well as development of
cost-effective technologies;
(E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based
transmutation systems;
(F) require research on advanced processing and
separations;
(G) include participation of international collaborators in
research efforts, and provide funding to a collaborator that
brings unique capabilities not available in the United States
if the country in which the collaborator is located is unable
to provide support; and
(H) ensure that research efforts are coordinated with
research on advanced fuel cycles and reactors conducted by
the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology.
(e) Grant and Contract Authority.--The Secretary may make
grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the
research projects and activities described in subsection
(d)(3).
(f) Report.--The Associate Director shall annually submit
to Congress a report on the activities and expenditures of
the Office that describes the progress being made in
achieving the objectives of this section.
SEC. 403. ADVANCED FUEL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology,
shall conduct an advanced fuel recycling technology research
and development program to further the availability of
electrometallurgical technology as a proliferation-resistant
alternative to aqueous reprocessing in support of evaluation
of alternative national strategies for spent nuclear fuel and
the Generation IV advanced reactor concepts, subject to
annual review by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
an annual report on the activities of the advanced fuel
recycling technology development program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2003
through 2006.
TITLE V--NATIONAL ACCELERATOR SITE
SEC. 501. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1)(A) high-current proton accelerators are capable of
producing significant quantities of neutrons through the
spallation process without using a critical assembly; and
(B) the availability of high-neutron fluences enables a
wide range of missions of major national importance to be
conducted;
(2)(A) public acceptance of repositories, whether for spent
fuel or for final waste products from spent fuel, can be
enhanced if the radio-toxicity of the materials in the
repository can be reduced;
(B) transmutation of long-lived radioactive species by an
intense neutron source provides an approach to such a
reduction in toxicity; and
(C) research and development in this area (which, when the
source of neutrons is derived from an accelerator, is called
``accelerator transmutation of waste'') should be an
important part of a national spent fuel strategy;
(3)(A) nuclear weapons require a reliable source of
tritium;
(B) the Department of Energy has identified production of
tritium in a commercial light water reactor as the first
option to be pursued;
(C) the importance of tritium supply is of sufficient
magnitude that a backup technology should be demonstrated and
available for rapid scale-up to full requirements;
(D) evaluation of tritium production by a high-current
accelerator has been underway; and
(E) accelerator production of tritium should be
demonstrated, so that the capability can be scaled up to
levels required for the weapons stockpile if difficulties
arise with the reactor approach;
(4)(A) radioisotopes are required in many medical
procedures;
(B) research on new medical procedures is adversely
affected by the limited availability of production facilities
for certain radioisotopes; and
(C) high-current accelerators are an important source of
radioisotopes, and are best suited for production of proton-
rich isotopes; and
(5)(A) a spallation source provides a continuum of neutron
energies; and
(B) the energy spectrum of neutrons can be altered and
tailored to allow a wide range of experiments in support of
nuclear engineering studies of alternative reactor
configurations, including studies of materials that may be
used in future fission or fusion systems.
SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
[[Page S1981]]
(1) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology of the Department of
Energy.
(2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Advanced
Accelerator Applications Program established under section
503.
(3) Proposal.--The term ``proposal'' means the proposal for
a location supporting the missions identified for the program
developed under section 503.
SEC. 503. ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to be known as the ``Advanced Accelerator
Applications Program''.
(b) Mission.--The mission of the program shall include
conducting scientific or engineering research, development,
and demonstrations on--
(1) accelerator production of tritium as a backup
technology;
(2) transmutation of spent nuclear fuel and waste;
(3) production of radioisotopes;
(4) advanced nuclear engineering concepts, including
material science issues; and
(5) other applications that may be identified.
(c) Administration.--The program shall be administered by
the Office--
(1) in consultation with the National Nuclear Security
Administration, for all activities related to tritium
production; and
(2) in consultation with the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, for all activities relating to the impact
of waste transmutation on repository requirements.
(d) Participation.--The Office shall encourage
participation of international collaborators, industrial
partners, national laboratories, and, through support for new
graduate engineering and science students and professors,
universities.
(e) Proposal of Location.--
(1) In general.--The Office shall develop a detailed
proposal for a location supporting the missions identified
for the program.
(2) Contents.--The proposal shall--
(A) recommend capabilities for the accelerator and for each
major research or production effort;
(B) include development of a comprehensive site plan
supporting those capabilities;
(C) specify a detailed time line for construction and
operation of all activities;
(D) identify opportunities for involvement of the private
sector in production and use of radioisotopes;
(E) contain a recommendation for funding required to
accomplish the proposal in future fiscal years; and
(F) identify required site characteristics.
(3) Preliminary environmental impact assessment.--As part
of the process of identification of required site
characteristics, the Secretary shall undertake a preliminary
environmental impact assessment of a range of sites.
(4) Submission to congress.--Not later than March 31, 2002,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
describing the proposal.
(f) Competition.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the proposal to
conduct a nationwide competition among potential sites.
(2) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
and Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives a report that contains an
evaluation of competing proposals and a recommendation of a
final site and for funding requirements to proceed with
construction in future fiscal years.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Proposal.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
development of the proposal $20,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 and 2003.
(2) Research, development, and demonstration activities.--
There are authorized to be appropriated for research,
development, and demonstration activities of the program--
(A) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(B) such sums as are necessary for subsequent fiscal years.
TITLE VI--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFORM
SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.
Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014) is amended--
(1) in subsection f., by striking ``Atomic Energy
Commission'' and inserting ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission'';
(2) by redesignating subsection jj. as subsection ll.; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``jj. Federal nuclear obligation.--The term `Federal
nuclear obligation' means--
``(1) a nuclear decommissioning obligation;
``(2) a fee required to be paid to the Federal Government
by a licensee for the storage, transportation, or disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,
including a fee required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.); and
``(3) an assessment by the Federal Government to fund the
cost of decontamination and decommissioning of uranium
enrichment facilities, including an assessment required under
chapter 28 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
2297g).
``kk. Nuclear decommissioning obligation.--The term
`nuclear decommissioning obligation' means an expense
incurred to ensure the continued protection of the public
from the dangers of any residual radioactivity or other
hazards present at a facility at the time the facility is
decommissioned, including all costs of actions required under
rules, regulations and orders of the Commission for--
``(1) entombing, dismantling and decommissioning a
facility; and
``(2) administrative, preparatory, security and radiation
monitoring expenses associated with entombing, dismantling,
and decommissioning a facility.''.
SEC. 602. OFFICE LOCATION.
Section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2033) is amended by striking ``; however, the Commission
shall maintain an office for the service of process and
papers within the District of Columbia''.
SEC. 603. LICENSE PERIOD.
Section 103c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2133(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the
following:
``c. License Period.--
``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined
construction and operating license issued under section
185(b), the initial duration of the license may not exceed 40
years from the date on which the Commission finds, before
operation of the facility, that the acceptance criteria
required by section 185(b) are met.''.
SEC. 604. ELIMINATION OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Commercial Licenses.--Section 103d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133(d)) is amended by striking
the second sentence.
(b) Medical Therapy and Research and Development.--Section
104d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2134(d)) is
amended by striking the second sentence.
SEC. 605. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE ANTITRUST REVIEW.
Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2135) is amended by striking subsection c. and inserting the
following:
``c. Conditions.--
``(1) In general.--A condition for a grant of a license
imposed by the Commission under this section in effect on the
date of enactment of the Nuclear Assets Restructuring Reform
Act of 2001 shall remain in effect until the condition is
modified or removed by the Commission.
``(2) Modification.--If a person that is licensed to
construct or operate a utilization or production facility
applies for reconsideration under this section of a condition
imposed in the person's license, the Commission shall conduct
a proceeding, on an expedited basis, to determine whether the
license condition--
``(A) is necessary to ensure compliance with section 105a.;
or
``(B) should be modified or removed.''.
SEC. 606. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Section 161g. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201(g)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
(2) by striking ``this Act;'' and inserting ``this Act;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) accept, hold, utilize, and administer gifts of real
and personal property (not including money) for the purpose
of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission.''.
(b) Criteria for Acceptance of Gifts.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 170C. CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS.
``(a) In General.--The Commission shall establish written
criteria for determining whether to accept gifts under
section 161g.(2).
``(b) Considerations.--The criteria under subsection (a)
shall take into consideration whether the acceptance of a
gift would compromise the integrity of, or the appearance of
the integrity of, the Commission or any officer or employee
of the Commission.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to chapter 14 the
following:
``Sec. 170C. Criteria for acceptance of gifts.''.
SEC. 607. AUTHORITY OVER FORMER LICENSEES FOR DECOMMISSIONING
FUNDING.
Section 161i. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (4) to ensure that sufficient funds will
be available for the decommissioning of any production or
utilization facility licensed under section 103 or 104b.,
including standards and restrictions governing the control,
maintenance, use, and disbursement by any former licensee
under this Act that has control over any fund for the
decommissioning of the facility''.
SEC. 608. CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) (as amended by section
606(b)) is amended--
[[Page S1982]]
(1) in section 161, by striking subsection k. and inserting
the following:
``k. authorize to carry a firearm in the performance of
official duties such of its members, officers, and employees,
such of the employees of its contractors and subcontractors
(at any tier) engaged in the protection of property under the
jurisdiction of the United States located at facilities owned
by or contracted to the United States or being transported to
or from such facilities, and such of the employees of persons
licensed or certified by the Commission (including employees
of contractors of licensees or certificate holders) engaged
in the protection of facilities owned or operated by a
Commission licensee or certificate holder that are designated
by the Commission or in the protection of property of
significance to the common defense and security located at
facilities owned or operated by a Commission licensee or
certificate holder or being transported to or from such
facilities, as the Commission considers necessary in the
interest of the common defense and security;'' and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 170D. CARRYING OF FIREARMS.
``(a) Authority To Make Arrest.--
``(1) In general.--A person authorized under section 161k.
to carry a firearm may, while in the performance of, and in
connection with, official duties, arrest an individual
without a warrant for any offense against the United States
committed in the presence of the person or for any felony
under the laws of the United States if the person has a
reasonable ground to believe that the individual has
committed or is committing such a felony.
``(2) Limitation.--An employee of a contractor or
subcontractor or of a Commission licensee or certificate
holder (or a contractor of a licensee or certificate holder)
authorized to make an arrest under paragraph (1) may make an
arrest only--
``(A) when the individual is within, or is in flight
directly from, the area in which the offense was committed;
and
``(B) in the enforcement of--
``(i) a law regarding the property of the United States in
the custody of the Department of Energy, the Commission, or a
contractor of the Department of Energy or Commission or a
licensee or certificate holder of the Commission;
``(ii) a law applicable to facilities owned or operated by
a Commission licensee or certificate holder that are
designated by the Commission under section 161k.;
``(iii) a law applicable to property of significance to the
common defense and security that is in the custody of a
licensee or certificate holder or a contractor of a licensee
or certificate holder of the Commission; or
``(iv) any provision of this Act that subjects an offender
to a fine, imprisonment, or both.
``(3) Other authority.--The arrest authority conferred by
this section is in addition to any arrest authority under
other law.
``(4) Guidelines.--The Secretary and the Commission, with
the approval of the Attorney General, shall issue guidelines
to implement section 161k. and this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) (as amended
by section 7(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to chapter 14 the following:
``Sec. 170D. Carrying of firearms.''.
SEC. 609. COST RECOVERY FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201(w)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or which operates any facility
regulated or certified under section 1701 or 1702,'';
(2) by striking ``483a of title 31 of the United States
Code'' and inserting ``9701 of title 31, United States
Code,''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and, commencing October 1, 2002, prescribe and
collect from any other Government agency any fee, charge, or
price that the Commission may require in accordance with
section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, or any other
law''.
SEC. 610. HEARING PROCEDURES.
Section 189a.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Hearings.--A hearing under this section shall be
conducted using informal adjudicatory procedures established
under sections 553 and 555 of title 5, United States Code,
unless the Commission determines that formal adjudicatory
procedures are necessary--
``(i) to develop a sufficient record; or
``(ii) to achieve fairness.''.
SEC. 611. UNAUTHORIZED INTRODUCTION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
Section 229a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2278a(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or
subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or to
certification by the Commission under this Act or any other
Act'' before the period at the end.
SEC. 612. SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL.
Section 236a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2284(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``storage facility'' and
inserting ``storage, treatment, or disposal facility'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``such a utilization facility'' and
inserting ``a utilization facility licensed under this Act'';
and
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``facility licensed'' and inserting ``or
nuclear fuel fabrication facility licensed or certified'';
and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) any production, utilization, waste storage, waste
treatment, waste disposal, uranium enrichment, or nuclear
fuel fabrication facility subject to licensing or
certification under this Act during construction of the
facility, if the person knows or reasonably should know that
there is a significant possibility that the destruction or
damage caused or attempted to be caused could adversely
affect public health and safety during the operation of the
facility;''.
SEC. 613. NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING OBLIGATIONS OF
NONLICENSEES.
(a) In General.--The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended
by inserting after section 241 (42 U.S.C. 2015) the
following:
``SEC. 242. NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING OBLIGATIONS OF
NONLICENSEES.
``(a) Definition of Facility.--In this section, the term
`facility' means a commercial nuclear electric generating
facility for which a Federal nuclear obligation is incurred.
``(b) Decommissioning Obligations.--After public notice and
in accordance with section 181, the Commission shall
establish by rule, regulation, or order any requirement that
the Commission considers necessary to ensure that a person
that is not a licensee (including a former licensee) complies
fully with any nuclear decommissioning obligation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 241 the
following:
``Sec. 242. Nuclear decommissioning obligations of nonlicensees.''.
SEC. 614. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
title and the amendments made by this title take effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Recommissioning and License Removal.--The amendment
made by section 613 takes effect on the date that is 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Domenici in
introducing the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001.
Simply put, this bill is designed to ensure that nuclear energy remains
a viable energy source well into the future of this country.
The Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001 has many
important provisions and I will talk specifically about a couple of
them today.
We should pursue innovative technologies to reduce the amount of
nuclear waste that we will eventually have to store permanently in a
geologic repository. Technologies such as nuclear waste reprocessing
would allow us to recycle about 75 percent of the nuclear waste we have
today. And there are technologies such as transmutation that would
increase the percentage of recycled waste even further. This bill
establishes a new national strategy for nuclear waste by creating the
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research and beginning the Advanced Fuel
Recycling Technology Development Program within the Department of
Energy to study and focus on achievable nuclear fuel reprocessing
initiatives. A strong nuclear fuel reprocessing program is necessary to
ensure we can make nuclear fuel a truly renewable fuel source. It
simply makes sense.
In my home State of Arkansas, we have one nuclear powerplant located
just outside the small town of Dardanelle. This facility has provided
safe, clean, emission-free power to all Arkansans for many years, and I
aim to see that it remains for many more. This bill will help ensure
that this happens by providing incentive funding for utilities to
invest in increased efficiency and capacity of each nuclear powerplant.
This bill takes safe, legitimate steps toward bringing more nuclear
power online, providing incentives to increase nuclear power
efficiency, and strengthening the pursuit of needed reprocessing
technologies. I look forward to the debate on this bill and providing
this Nation with a safe, economical, and environmentally safe energy
supply.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senator
Domenici on the introduction of his very fine bill regarding nuclear
energy in this country. He has been a strong advocate of strengthening
and reassessing the US approach to nuclear technologies and this bill
goes a long
[[Page S1983]]
way toward attaining these goals. Senator Domenici has been an active
participant in all aspects of nuclear production, nonproliferation and
our nation's security and has been very helpful to me in my role as
Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has always
been supportive of efforts to deal with our nation's nuclear waste and
recently co-sponsored my ``National Energy Security Act of 2001,'' a
bipartisan approach to ensuring our nation's energy security.
Senator Domenici's bill is significant because it addresses both
short-term and long-term issues. Our bills share many provisions,
including: renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, authorizations for
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, NERI, Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization, NEPO, and Nuclear Energy Technology Programs, NETP,
encouraging nuclear energy efficiencies, and creation of an office of
spent nuclear fuel research.
Short-term goals of increasing efficiencies are especially important
in a time when this country is running short of generation capacity.
What is happening in California could happen elsewhere and we need to
ensure we get the most of existing generation. In 1999, U.S. nuclear
reactors achieved close to 90 percent efficiency. Total efficiency
increases during the 1990's at existing plants was the equivalent of
adding approximately twenty-three 1,000 megawatt power plants. And keep
in mind, that is all clean, non-emitting generation. Despite what
environmentalists want you to think, nuclear is clean. It is the
largest source of U.S. emission free generation, producing
approximately 70 percent of our nation's clean-burning generation in
1999.
In addition, Senator Domenici's bill encourages and funds long-term
progress in nuclear issues. If we are to have a viable nuclear industry
in the future, we must have properly educated and trained
professionals. To achieve that goal, Senator Domenici's bill encourages
education in the hard sciences by funding recommendations made by the
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee to support nuclear
engineering. Senator Domenici's bill also encourages developing waste
solutions, a problem that has bedeviled the industry since the first
fuel rods were removed from a commercial plant. The federal government
said it would take responsibility for this waste but has yet to do so.
Senator Domenici's ``Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research'' would
develop a national strategy for spent fuel, including the study of
reprocessing and transmutation. The bill also includes authorization
for advanced accelerator applications and advanced fuel recycling
technology development.
Unless this nation is able to address the nuclear waste issue, we are
in danger of losing the nuclear option. And in this time of increasing
demand for clean, stable, reliable sources of energy, we just can't
afford to lose nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is on the upswing. Four
or five years ago, who would have thought we would hear talk of buying
and selling plants and even building new plants. But it is happening!
In this deregulated environment, nuclear plants are becoming hot
commodities, if you will pardon the pun.
And US industry is actually putting its money where its mouth is. By
the end of 2001, Chicago-based Exelon Corporation will have invested
$15 million in a South African venture to build a pebble bed modular
reactor. Designed to be simpler, safer, and cheaper than current light-
water reactors, these pebble bed reactors have captured the attention
of several companies and the NRC and Senator Domenici's bill will help
to smooth the path for new reactor technologies.
If we ever hope to achieve energy security and energy independence in
this country, we cannot abandon the nuclear option. It is an important
and integral part of our energy mix. Our economy depends on nuclear
energy. Our national security depends on nuclear energy. Our
environment depends on nuclear energy. Our future depends on nuclear
energy.
If we do not create reasonable energy diversity with an increased
reliance on nuclear generation, we endanger ourselves, our future, and
our children's future.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise as an original co-sponsor
of the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. I
commend the senior Senator from New Mexico for his passion and
persistence on this issue.
The U.S. is currently experiencing unusually high and volatile energy
prices. Residents of my state of Louisiana as well as citizens across
the country are facing abnormally high gas prices this winter and
cannot pay their bills. While there are some steps we can take in the
short run to help, the situation is complex in nature and any attempt
at an overall solution will require a number of different remedies over
the long run focusing on both the supply and demand side of the
equation.
The need to increase our domestic supply of energy is apparent. One
of the great strengths of the electric supply system in this country is
the contribution that comes from a variety of fuels such as coal,
nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, oil and renewable energy. The
diversity of available fuels we have at our disposal should enable us
to balance cost, availability and environmental impacts to the best
advantage. Unfortunately, we have not made adequate use of this supply.
While most of the attention this winter has focused on the role of
natural gas, coal and nuclear energy actually both make a larger
contribution to the electricity supply system of the United States,
representing approximately 55 and 20 percent respectively of our
nation's electricity supply. Each of the above mentioned sources of
electricity has unique advantages and disadvantages. While it would not
be wise to rely too heavily on any single fuel for its electricity, we
must not allow our misconceptions to dissuade us from ignoring others
altogether.
One source of energy which I believe we are not making proper use of
is nuclear power. There are currently 103 nuclear power plants in this
country but no new plants have been ordered since 1978. Two of these
plants are located in my state of Louisiana where nuclear power
generates 15 percent of the electricity. We have witnessed firsthand
the numerous benefits of nuclear energy.
First, nuclear energy is efficient and cost effective due to low
operating costs and high plant performance. Also, nuclear energy is
reliable in that it is not subject to unreliable weather or climate
conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations or dependence on foreign
suppliers. Thirdly, contrary to popular perception, nuclear energy has
perhaps the lowest impact on the environment including air, land, water
and wildlife of any energy source because it emits no harmful gases
into the environment, isolates its waste from the environment and
requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other
sources. Finally, although many people associate the issue of nuclear
power with the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, its safety record
has been excellent, particularly in comparison with other major
commercial energy technologies.
The bill being introduced today will help provide nuclear power with
its proper place in the energy policy debate taking place in our
country. Three of the more important provisions contained in this
legislation are: the encouragement of new plant construction through
loan guarantees to complete unfinished plants; the assurance of a level
playing field for nuclear power by making it eligible for federal
``environmentally preferable'' purchasing programs and research
supporting regulations for new reactor designs with proper focus on
safety and efficiency.
Over the next several months the members of the United States Senate
will engage in a critical debate over the future of our nation's energy
policy. I look forward to participating in this discussion and
advocating for the important role of nuclear power. While development
of nuclear power alone will not take care of our energy needs, it
should be part of the answer.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to stand with my friend
and colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, as an original cosponsor of the
Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. Following on
the heels of the introduction of the comprehensive energy bill last
week, this bill takes a closer look at nuclear energy specifically and
lays out a concrete plan to secure the continued viability of nuclear
energy, our largest source of emissions, free electricity.
[[Page S1984]]
Let me also note that I am very pleased that this is a bipartisan
effort. I appreciate my colleagues from across the aisle who are
joining with us in acknowledging that it is vital to take steps now in
support nuclear energy and thereby, help to increase our energy
independence.
The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is a
package of measures which help our current energy situation by
supporting nuclear energy research and development, by encouraging new
plant construction, by assuring a level playing field for nuclear power
by acknowledging nuclear's clean air benefits, and by improving the
regulatory process. Although the bill does not explicitly address the
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the bill does create an
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research at the Department of Energy and
provides for research into advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies
such as those being studied at Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho.
If my colleagues are wondering why it is important that we address
the energy issue, they need look no further than the headlines.
However, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a study that
was recently released on the subject of energy. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, DC, recently
released its study entitled, ``The Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st
Century.'' Their findings are sobering and I want to take a moment to
highlight some of their conclusions. I do this to provide the global
context for our energy picture and to explain why it is so critical
that this nuclear energy bill and the comprehensive energy package
introduced last week receive our full attention.
This study on the geopolitics of energy found that during the next 20
years, energy demand is projected to expand more than 50 percent and
that electricity will continue to be the most rapidly growing sector of
energy demand. Energy supply, not simply reductions in demand, will
need to be expanded substantially to meet this demand growth and that
the choice of primary fuel used to supply power plants will have
important effects on the environment. Interestingly, this growth in
demand will not be fueled primarily by the United States, as some might
think. Developing economies in Asia and in Central and South America
will show the greatest increase in consumption.
The study points out that although the world drew some portion of its
energy supplies from unstable countries and regions throughout much of
the twentieth century, by the year 2020, fully 50 percent of estimated
total global oil demand will be met from countries that pose a high
risk of internal instability. Furthermore, the study concludes that a
crisis in one or more of the world's key energy-producing countries is
highly likely at some point between now and the year 2020.
Given these predictions, I am alarmed by our current dependence on
imported energy. I think it represents a very serious vulnerability in
our energy picture. This situation makes it critical that the Senate
act on energy legislation, to put in place the long term steps that
will help us climb out of the energy deficit we find ourselves in.
Problems, such as the current energy crisis, that have been years in
the making will not be remedied overnight, but we need to start taking
steps now to improve what we can.
Taking constructive steps to strengthen our energy picture is what
the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is about.
One of the first steps to be taken, is to recognize the tremendous
contribution that nuclear energy already is making to our domestic
energy picture. I think my colleagues might be surprised to hear that
the U.S. nuclear industry is considered the strongest in the world.
Measured in terms of output, the U.S. nuclear program is as large as
the programs of France and Japan combined. Nuclear energy recently
replaced coal as having the lowest electricity production cost,
approximately 1.83 cents.
The process for extending nuclear power plant licenses has been
successfully demonstrated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two
plants have been successfully relicensed and three more are in the
process now. Additionally, the nuclear industry continues to improve
the efficiency of its currently operating nuclear plants. During the
past 10 years, these gains in efficiency have added 23,000 megawatts to
the power grid. This is the equivalent of adding 23 additional 1,000
megawatt power plants. This additional power has satisfied
approximately 30 percent of the growth in U.S. electricity demand
during the 1990s.
What I have not mentioned in all this, is the important contribution
nuclear energy makes in meeting clean air goals. If this nuclear
generation were not in place, some other carbon-emitting source of
generation would probably be taking its place. In fact, if you look at
the portfolio of emission-free power generation in the U.S., nuclear
energy comprises about 69 percent of our emission-free power, with
hydroelectric power making up about 29 percent and the remaining less
than 2 percent is made up by geothermal, wind and solar.
The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 will
authorize the exploration of advanced nuclear reactor designs which
meet the goals of being economic, having enhanced safety features,
while also reducing the production of spent fuel. The development of
``Generation Four'' nuclear reactors is something I am really excited
about because much of the work done so far on Generation Four reactor
design has been done at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and at Argonne West National Laboratory in my
home state of Idaho. One of the reasons I am so optimistic about the
ability of this country to tackle these tough energy challenges is the
good work that I have seen coming out of our laboratories. When we
unleash our best minds on these issues, really wonderful ideas come
forth. That kind of creativity and initiative is what this bill is
attempting to harness.
I am excited to be a part of this bill and I thank Senator Domenici
for partnering with me early on in the development of this bill and
soliciting my input. I think we have a good product. As we move
forward, I am sure we will receive additional innovative ideas. That is
the challenge to all of us as we address our energy crisis--bringing
the best ideas to bear. This bill is a good start to that process.
______
By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 473. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to improve training for teachers in the use of technology; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Training
Teachers for Technology Act of 2001, a bill to allow states to provide
assistance to local educational agencies to develop innovative
professional development programs that train teachers to use technology
in the classroom.
As your know, education technology can significantly improve student
achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to
dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in
just the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
ESEA. Federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995,
to over $700 million just five years later. As we debate the upcoming
reauthorization of ESEA, I will be working to support legislation that
builds on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in
place in school districts in nearly every state.
But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We
need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate
evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly
that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional
development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in
the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate
educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the
skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in
professional development for our teachers is an investment in our
children and our future.
Specifically, the legislation I am introducing today would allow
local education agencies to apply once for all teacher training
technology programs within the National Challenge Grants for Technology
in Education, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and
[[Page S1985]]
Star Schools. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that there
are more than thirty federal programs, administered by five different
federal agencies, which provide funding for education technology to K-
12 schools. My measure would reduce the financial and paperwork burden
to primarily small, poor, rural districts that don't have the resources
to hire full time staff to handle grant writing for all of these
different programs. Instead, schools would be able to apply once for
federal technology assistance, and then combine their funds to develop
a comprehensive program that integrates technology directly into the
curriculum and provides professional development for teachers. My bill
adopts the principles of simplicity and flexibility. This is what
schools are asking for, so this is what we should give them.
My legislation helps those smaller schools that might ordinarily be
unfairly disadvantaged through traditional grant programs. Idaho's
public schools are excelling rapidly in their understanding of how
technology can enhance the teaching and learning environments in
Idaho's classrooms. I would like to extend this same empowerment to
public schools throughout the nation. Investing in technology training
for teachers will make a significant difference in the lives of our
children.
An opportunity has arisen where we, Members of the United States
Senate, are able to help many students who face unique challenges and
uncertain futures. I hope you agree that a strong technology component
for all students is necessary and essential in facilitating student
achievement, and that through proper professional development our
children will be provided an unparalleled opportunity for a better
education.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work for its
inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA.
______
By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 474. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to improve provisions relating to initial teaching experiences and
alternative routes to certification; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional
Development Enhancement Act to strengthen and improve professional
development opportunities for teachers.
Improving the quality of teaching in America's classrooms has been a
priority of mine since the day my oldest child walked through the door
of her public school. While I know that my five children were, and
still are, fortunate to have outstanding teachers, I am keenly aware
that others are not so fortunate. Nothing can replace qualified
teachers with high standards and a desire to teach. Coupled with
ongoing professional development opportunities, our teachers are
equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their
classroom. Teachers are the backbone of education. They are our most
important assets, therefore, we must continue to give them the support
and appreciation they deserve.
As Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus will shift to the recruitment
and retention of good teachers. That is why my legislation is so
essential. While using no new funds, the bill would strengthen existing
language by making recommendations on current mentoring programs. My
proposal outlines the principal components of mentoring programs that
would improve the experience of new teachers, as well as provide
incentives for alternative teacher certification and licensure
programs.
Mentoring is a concept that has been around for years, but only
recently have educators and administrators begun to talk about its real
benefits. We all know that good teachers are not created over night. It
is only after years of dedication and discipline that teachers
themselves admit that they truly feel comfortable in their classrooms.
Unfortunately, though, we see the highest level of turn-over among
beginning teachers, one-third of teachers leave the profession within 5
years. Our goal must be to work with new teachers to assure they are
confident in their roles and to secure their participation in the
teaching profession for years to come.
My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by
requiring that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject,
and activities are consistent with state standards. Under the
supervision and guidance of a senior colleague, teachers are more
likely to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The
confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the
quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student
achievement.
Attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task,
especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortage
and high turnover are commonplace in rural communities in almost every
state in the nation. In addition to retention, recruitment must also be
at the core of our efforts. My bill will provide incentives, and grant
states the flexibility to establish, expand, or improve alternative
teacher certification and licensure programs.
I do not expect this legislation to solve all the problems
confronting our schools today. But, I do see it as a practical way to
help make our schools stronger by providing teachers with the tools to
grow as professionals.
I urge my colleagues to support the Professional Development
Enhancement Act and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of
the ESEA.
______
By Mr. CRAPO.
S. 475. A bill to provide for rural education assistance, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural
Education Initiative Act, which makes Federal grant programs more
flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities.
Serving to compliment President George W. Bush's education proposal,
school districts participating in this initiative are expected to meet
high accountability standards.
Targeting only those school districts in rural communities with fewer
than 600 students, this proposal reaches out to small, rural districts
that are often disadvantaged through our current formula-driven grant
system. There is tremendous need in rural states like Idaho because
many of the traditional formula grants do not reach our small rural
schools. And what money does reach these schools is in amounts
insufficient for affecting true curriculum initiatives. In other works,
schools may not receive enough funding from any individual grant to
carry out meaningful activities.
My proposal addresses this problem by allowing districts to combine
funds from four independent programs to accomplish locally chosen
educational goals. Under this plan, districts would be able to use
their aggregate funds to support local or statewide education reform
efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary and secondary
school students. I am asking for an authorization of $125 million for
small rural and poor rural schools, a small price that could produce
large results.
Any school district participating in this initiative would have to
meet high accountability standards. It would have to show significant
statistical improvement in reading and math scores, based on state
assessment standards. Schools that fail to show demonstrable progress
will not be eligible for continued funding. In other words, this plan
rewards success, while injecting accountability and flexibility.
In reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA,
Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of
education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and
innovative reform proposals, like the one that I have introduced here
today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children
to develop an education system that is the best in the world. The Rural
Education Initiative moves us in the right direction and I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this measure. I urge the Senate
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to incorporate this
provision into the upcoming ESEA bill.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
[[Page S1986]]
Reed, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 476. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to provide for a National Teacher Corps and principal recruitment,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the Floor today to raise an
issue that appears to be a foreshadowing national crisis. Every year we
are losing more teachers than we can hire and many of our children are
left in classrooms without full-time permanent teachers to lead them in
the way that they need and deserve to learn.
The teacher shortage in the United States is projected to reach a
staggering 2.2 million teachers in the next ten years. And, these
shortages have already begun for communities across my state as well as
throughout the country. In New York, a third of upstate teachers and
half of New York City teachers could retire within the next five years
that's approximately 100,000 teachers across the State. In order to
deal with these shortages, far too many of our schools are forced to
hire emergency certified teachers or long-term substitutes to get
through the year. I remember one story about a little girl in Far
Rockaway, Queens who in March of last year had already had nine
teachers so many she couldn't remember all of their names. Her mother
was worried sick that her child was not getting the instruction she
needed, but her mother felt powerless to do anything about the
situation. And, at one school in Albany, the principal has to regularly
fill-in for absent teachers because there are no substitutes available.
The teacher shortage in New York State is only expected to get more
dire in the next few years as more teachers retire. Now, in New York
City, we know that many teachers decide to leave the City for better
working conditions and higher salaries in the surrounding areas.
Last week, we learned from the United Federation of Teachers in New
York City that 7,000 teachers are expected to retire this year alone
from the city's public schools. In Buffalo, 231 teachers retired last
year, compared with an average of 92 in each of the preceding eight
years. In addition, Buffalo lost 50 young teachers who moved on to
other jobs or other school districts.
Not only are we losing teachers, but principals are becoming more
scarce as well. Many of our schools in New York City opened their doors
this year without principals. In fact, New York City is expected to
lose 50 percent of their principals in the next five years. That is
just an unacceptable rate of attrition. We simply cannot afford to lose
people who provide instructional leadership and direction to help
teachers do their best every day.
Mr. President, that's why I have chosen to focus on this issue so
early in my term. And that is why I am proud to introduce the National
Teacher and Principal Recruitment Act. My legislation will create a
National Teacher Corps that can bring up to 75,000 talented teachers a
year into the schools that need them the most. The National Teacher
Corps can make the teaching profession more attractive to talented
people in our society in several ways. One is by providing bonuses for
mid-career professionals interested in becoming teachers. In this fast-
paced world, more and more people are changing career paths several
times during their working lives. A financial bonus plan can help
attract people from other professions.
The National Teacher Corps will also make more scholarships available
for college and graduate students, and create new career ladders for
teacher aides--to become fully certified teachers. And it will ensure
that new teachers get the support and professional development they
need both to become--and remain--effective teachers.
This bill will also create a national teacher recruitment campaign to
provide good information to prospective teachers about resources and
routes to teaching through a National Teacher Recruitment
Clearinghouse.
And, finally, the bill will create a National Principal Corps to help
bring more highly qualified individuals into our neediest schools. Like
the Teacher Corps, the Principal Corps will be focused on attracting
good candidates and providing them with the mentorship and professional
development they need to succeed.
I am introducing this bill to make sure that all teachers who step
into classrooms and all principals who step into leadership in their
schools have the expertise, the knowledge, and the support they need to
meet the highest possible standards for all of our children, who
deserve nothing less.
Now, if a community were running short of water, a state of emergency
would be declared and the National Guard would ship in supplies
overnight. If a community runs short of blood supplies, the Red Cross
stages emergency blood drives to ensure that patients have what they
need. Our communities are running short of good teachers and
principals, and they are as important to our children's future as any
other role that I can imagine. That's what makes it so important for us
to act now.
Providing good teachers and principals to schools is a local issue,
but it should be a national concern. And to have a partnership with our
governors and our mayors, our school superintendents and others is a
way that will really help us begin to address this crisis. I hope that
all of us on both sides of the aisle and in the public and private
sector will join together to make sure we have the supply of teachers
that we need. It certainly is the most important public activity any of
us can engage in, and it's important to our nation's values as well as
our individual aspirations for our children. And I hope that we will
find support for doing something to work with our states and localities
to meet this crisis.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 478. A bill to establish and expand programs relating to
engineering, science, technology and mathematics education, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today, even as I speak, the members of
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee are in the process
of marking up the BEST bill. The BEST bill is an acronym describing an
effort to try to put together the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
I think without question, in poll after poll taken in America, trying
to determine what the American citizenry is concerned about, every one
of the polls show the No. 1 issue of concern on the minds of American
citizens today is education.
Today I am very proud to announce I am joined by my colleagues,
Senator Bingaman and Senator Kennedy, and there will be other
cosponsors as well, but they are the original cosponsors in introducing
legislation I think without question addresses a very critical need
within the American educational system, and also in regard to our
national security, as well; that is, the need to improve math and
science education.
As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
I want to work with Members on both sides of the aisle. That is what we
are attempting to do in the markup this morning: to address the
immediate need to improve and enhance the
K-through-12 math and science educational level in the United States.
Simply put, the American educational system is not producing enough
students with specialized skills in engineering, science, technology,
and math to fill many of the jobs currently available that we need and
that are vital to the United States. Other countries are simply
outpacing us in the number of students in education in EMST,
engineering, math, science, and technology study. As a result of this
shortage of skilled workers, Congress had to increase the number of H-
1B visas by almost 300,000 from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2002.
Now, the United States will need to produce four times as many
scientists and engineers than we currently produce in order to meet our
future demand. The technology community alone will add 20 million jobs
in the next decade that require technical expertise. The U.S. has been
a leader in technology for decades and the new economy has created and
will continue to create an ample number of jobs that require this kind
of skilled workforce.
[[Page S1987]]
While increasing the number of visas will assist our American
economies with their current labor shortage in specialty and technical
areas, we need to focus on long-term solutions through the education of
our children.
Improving our students' knowledge of math and science and technology
is not only a concern of American companies to remain competitive but
should also be a concern of our U.S. national security. The
distinguished acting Presiding Officer, the Senator from Oklahoma, has
the privilege, along with me, to serve on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. He is the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. I am in
charge of a subcommittee called Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Guess what is now a real threat, not an emerging threat. According to
the latest reports on national security, the lack of engineering,
science, technology, and math education, beginning at the K-through-12
level, imposes a great security threat. We don't have the people to do
the job to protect our country in regard to cyber threats and the many
other threats that certainly threaten our national security.
The report issued by the U.S. Commission on National Security for the
21st century reports:
The base of American national security is the strength of
the American economy.
And our education system.
Therefore, the health of the U.S. economy depends not only
on citizens that can produce and direct innovation, but also
on a populace that can effectively assimilate the new tools
and the technologies. This is critical not just for the U.S.
economy in general but specifically for the defense industry,
which simultaneously develops and defends against the same
technologies.
This is not only true in regard to that commission report, what we
call the Hart-Rudman report, but it is true in regard to the reports by
the Bremer commission, by the Gilmore commission, and the CSIS study.
Commission report after commission report says we are lacking in regard
to this kind of expertise and this kind of skill.
The EMST bill builds on several goals outlined in the National
Commission on Mathematics and Science and Teaching of the 21st century.
That is the rather famous and well-read report now called the Glenn
report. These goals include:
First, establishing an ongoing system to improve science and math
education in K-12. The legislation we have introduced would accomplish
this through afterschool and day-care opportunities for more hands-on
learning and programming that is focused on math and science. It also
strives to make all middle school graduates technology literate through
a technology training program.
Second, it does increase the number of math and science teachers and
improve their preparation. EMST accomplishes this by several means,
including intensive summer development institutes, grants for teacher
technology training software and instructional materials, master
teacher programs that aid other teachers and bring expertise in math,
science, or technology. And finally, expansion of the Eisenhower
National Clearinghouse to allow access via the Internet to real
programs that effectively teach science and math.
Third, the bill makes teaching science and math more attractive for
teachers. The EMST bill provides mentoring for teachers to encourage
them to stay in their profession, in addition to educating our high
school students about the course of study to enter the science, math,
and the teaching field.
Mr. President, I encourage all my colleagues to support increasing
our K-through-12 teachers' ability to teach math, science, and
technology to our students and encourage these students to enter into
EMST fields by supporting this legislation.
I don't think it is an exaggeration to say our future depends on it.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 480. A bill to amend titles 10 and 18. United States Code, to
protect unborn victims of violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, on
behalf of unborn children who are the silent victims of violent crimes.
Today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hutchinson,
Hatch, Voinovich, Brownback, Ensign, Enzi, Hagel, Helms, Inhofe,
Nickles, and Santorum, I am introducing a bill called the ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001,'' which would create a separate
offense for criminals who injure or kill an unborn child.
Our bill, which is similar to legislation we sponsored in the 106th
Congress, would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or
killing a fetus while committing certain federal offenses. Therefore,
this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the
commission of certain existing federal crimes a separate crime under
federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-four
states already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn
victims during a crime. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act simply
acknowledges that violent acts against unborn babies are also criminal
when the assailant is committing a federal crime.
We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes, perhaps more often
than we realize, even unborn babies are the targets, intended or
otherwise, of violent acts. I'll give you some disturbing examples.
In 1996, Airman Gregory Robbins and his family were stationed in my
home state of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At
that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a
daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage,
Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife
by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately,
Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her
uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her
abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death.
Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for
Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor
the federal code makes criminal such an act which results in the death
or injury of an unborn child. The only available federal offense was
for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only
available federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors
bootstrapped the Ohio fetal homicide law to convict Airman Robbins of
Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower
court's ruling.
If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there
would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins
for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal
remedy to avoid having to bootstrap state laws to provide recourse when
a violent act occurs during the commission of a federal crime. A
federal remedy will ensure that crimes within federal jurisdiction
against unborn victims are punished.
Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of
Little Rock, Arkansas, was days away from giving birth. She was
thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did
not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die.
So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost
the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate
Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000: ``I
begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but they showed me
no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, `Your baby is dying tonight.' I
was choked, hit in the face with a gun, slapped, punched and kicked
repeatedly in the stomach. One of them even put a gun in my mouth and
threatened to shoot.''
In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious
attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the state
law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder
against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without
parole. He was also convicted of first degree battery for harm against
Shiwona.
In yet another example, this one in Columbus, 16-year-old Sean Steele
was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his
girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old
unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims
[[Page S1988]]
law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County,
Ohio, in which a victim was a fetus.
Look at one more example. In the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center
bombings, Federal prosecutors were able to charge the defendants with
the murders of or injuries to the mothers, but not to their unborn
babies. Again, federal law currently fails to criminalize these violent
acts. There are no federal provisions for the unborn victims of federal
crimes.
Our bill would make acts like this, acts of violence within federal
jurisdiction, Federal crimes. This is a very simple step, but one that
will have a dramatic effect.
The fact is that it's just plain wrong that our federal government
does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn
children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must
close this loophole.
As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes
against children, especially those waiting to be born. We must close
this loophole.
We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that,
our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a
woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any
action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our
legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the
mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally,
our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under
this Act.
It is time that we wrap the arms of justice around unborn children
and protect them against criminal assailants. Everyone agrees that
violent assailants of unborn babies are criminals. When acts of
violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we
must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who
cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best when she
testified at our hearing, ``The loss of any potential life should never
be in vain.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 481. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a 10-percent income tax rate bracket, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, with my colleague, I rise today to
introduce the Economic Insurance Tax Cut of 2001.
In his 1862 message to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln surveyed
our fractured national horizon and concluded that:
The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise
to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew
and act anew.
The same could be said about our current circumstances. The United
States has not experienced a recession since the one that occurred in
1990-1991. At that time, the old economic assumptions were shattered
and new ones born. Over the past 5 years, it seemed as if nothing could
stop the American economy from roaring on.
It was during this comparatively serene time that then-candidate
George W. Bush, in the debates leading up to the Iowa caucus in the
winter of 1999-2000, announced his plan to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion
over the next 10 years.
The landscape has shifted dramatically since the winter of 1999 to
the spring of 2001. That shift in the landscape did not just occur in
Seattle. Today's headlines are filled with ominous news. Economic
activity in the manufacturing sector declined in February for the
seventh consecutive month. DaimlerChrysler has laid off 26,000 workers.
Whirlpool has slashed the estimates of its earnings and plans 6,000 job
cuts. Gateway is dismissing 3,000 workers, 12.5 percent of its
workforce. Over the past 2 months, layoffs totaling more than 275,000
jobs have been announced.
This bad news has had, as would be expected, a negative effect on
consumers' confidence. Consumers' confidence has plunged 35 points from
an all-time high of 142.5 in September of 1999.
When their confidence is shaken, consumers stop spending. When
consumers stop spending, the economy gets worse. When the economy gets
worse, consumer confidence falls further. The cycle feeds on itself.
In an attempt to staunch the bleeding, the Federal Reserve has twice
lowered interest rates in January. Monetary policy, the adjustment of
short-term interest rates, is a trusted and often effective tool in
stimulating the economy. I am confident that the Federal Reserve will
continue to exercise wise judgment.
But there is a growing consensus that more must be done, that fiscal
policy can also play an important role in boosting the economy, if not
immediately then certainly in the second half of this year. In his
testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in January, Chairman Alan
Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board stated:
Should the current economic weakness spread beyond what now
appears likely, having a tax cut in place may in fact do
noticeable good.
On February 13, Treasury Secretary O'Neill told the House Ways and
Means Committee that he, too, supports the use of fiscal policy as a
tool to boost the economy. Mr. O'Neill said:
To the extent that getting it [the surplus] back to them
[the American people] sooner can help stave off a worsening
of the economic slowdown, we should move forward immediately.
Finally, during the President's speech to the Nation a week ago, he
stated:
Tax relief is right and tax relief is urgent. The long
economic expansion that began almost 10 years ago is
faltering. Lower interest rates will eventually help, but
we cannot assure that they will do the job all by themselves.
Senator Corzine and I agree. We think there are several perspectives
from which this issue must be viewed. The first is the contextual
perspective: How large a tax cut can the American economy and the
Federal fiscal system sustain? We share the belief that we are facing a
serious demographic challenge in the next 10 to 15 years, as large
numbers of persons born immediately after World War II will retire and
place unique strains on our Nation's Social Security and Medicare
system. That is but one example of the kinds of steps that we need to
be cognizant to take and prepare for which will utilize a portion of
our current surplus.
After we have determined how large a tax cut is prudent in the
context of these other responsibilities, the next step is crafting a
plan that can, in fact, be helpful in averting a prolonged economic
slowdown. According to economists, a tax cut aimed at stimulating the
economy should have four characteristics.
First, the tax relief should be simple enough to be enacted quickly.
One of the principal criticisms of the attempts to use fiscal policy to
stimulate the economy on a short-term basis is that, historically,
Congress and the President have been sufficiently slow in reaching
agreement for enactment of such tax cuts that by the time the tax
relief is available, the problem has passed. The longer Congress
deliberates, the less likely tax relief will get to the American public
in time to do some good. Therefore, a simple, straightforward approach
is absolutely essential to getting a bill passed quickly.
The more components this tax relief includes, the more debate,
discussion, deliberation, and the likelihood of procrastination.
The second characteristic is the tax relief must be significant
enough to have a measurable effect on the economy. The economists we
have consulted suggest that tax relief in the amount of $60 billion to
$65 billion would boost the gross domestic product by one-half to
three-quarters of a percentage point. At a time when the economy is at
virtually zero growth, that would be a welcome improvement.
Third, the tax relief must be conspicuous. The more transparent the
tax cut, the more positive effect it will have on consumer confidence.
Finally, the tax relief must be directed at those who will spend it.
Two-thirds of the Nation's economic output is based on consumer
spending. Recessions are largely a result of a letup in that consumer
demand. Common sense suggests that broad-based tax cuts, the bulk of
which are directed at low- and middle-income American families, are
much more likely to be the tax cuts that will stimulate consumption.
Any
[[Page S1989]]
tax cut that claims to provide an economic stimulus must be measured
against these four standards.
When scrutinized this way, both the President's proposal and the plan
which was reported last week by the House Ways and Means Committee, and
may, in fact, be voted on by the full House as early as tomorrow,
display significant weaknesses.
One, context: At $1.6 trillion, the Bush plan would consume nearly 75
percent of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus, when interest
costs are included. That leaves precious few resources for other
important initiatives like desperately needed prescription drugs for
our seniors, modernization of our armed forces, improving our schools.
No funds would be left to add to the debt reduction that can come
through the application of the surpluses coming into Social Security
and Medicaid. The Ways and Means proposal is a more expensive down-
payment of the Bush plan in that its implementation is pushed forward
by a year.
Two, simplicity: The President's tax cut plan contains several
complicated proposals that will require Congress to carefully consider
their ramifications. This deliberation is likely to delay enactment of
the President's plan until it is too late to stimulate the economy.
Three, sufficiency: The president's budget tallies the total tax
relief for 2001 at $183 million. For 2002, the total is $30 billion.
Tax relief at that low level will do little to boost the economy. The
President's tax relief is so small because it is phased in over a five-
year period. Phasing in tax relief is exactly the opposite policy to
adopt if your goal is economic stimulus. Even the Ways and Means
package, despite applying retroactively to 2001, falls far short of
injecting tax cuts into the economy during the second half of this
year. That plan provides only $10 billion of ``stimulus'' during this
period.
Four, propensity to Spend: Economic stimulus occurs when consumers
are encouraged to spend. Only one of the proposals in the President's
plan meets this standard. Eighty percent of all taxpayers are affected
by changes to the 15 percent tax bracket. Therefore, the President's
idea for creating a new 10 percent bracket--which has the effect of
lowering the 15 percent tax rate--will apply quite broadly across those
paying income taxes. In contrast, three-quarters of all taxpayers are
unaffected by changes to the remaining four tax brackets. Yet, nearly
60 percent of the total cost of both the President's and the Ways and
Means' tax cut packages are devoted to these upper rate cuts.
Earlier this year, noted economist Robert Samuelson wrote in the
Washington Post that the time had come for tax cuts whose purpose was
to stimulate the economy. He too, criticized the President's tax plan
as being poorly designed for this purpose. Specifically, he argued that
the President should make his tax cuts retroactive to the beginning of
this year and focus more toward the bottom income brackets.
Samuelson also argued that other proposals, whatever their merit--
marriage penalty relief, estate tax repeal, new incentives for
charitable giving--should wait their place in line; that the first
place in this line of America in the year 2001 should be economic
stimulation to keep this economy from falling into a deep ditch.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the columns by Robert
Samuelson be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Corzine and I have an alternative
that makes the improvements to the President's tax cut plan suggested
by Mr. Samuelson, and makes it consistent with the characterization
which I have outlined. Senator Corzine and I have an alternative that
builds upon a proposal included in the President's tax cut plan.
President Bush has proposed the creation of a new 10-percent rate
bracket. His proposal is that for incomes up to $6,000 for an
individual and $12,000 for a couple, that the first $6,000 or $12,000
would be taxed at 10 percent rather than the current 15 percent. The
problem with his proposal is that he proposes to implement this change
over 5 years. It is not until the year 2006 that this plan is fully in
place.
Senator Corzine and I propose to fully implement this 10-percent
bracket retroactive to January of this year. In addition, we suggest
the bracket needs to be expanded so the incomes on which it would apply
would be $9,500 for an individual, and $19,000 for a married couple.
There are several reasons why we believe their proposal makes sense.
First, it provides tax relief to a broad range of taxpayers. Every
American income tax payer would participate in this plan. All couples
with income tax liabilities would save $950 annually, or have their tax
liability eliminated entirely.
Second, our proposal provides significant tax relief to middle-income
families who are more likely to spend their additional money, and,
therefore, create demand within our economy.
Our plan would be more effective in stimulating our economy,
particularly at this time of concern about our economic future.
This proposal will lower taxes by $60 billion in both 2001 and 2002.
I point out this contrast with the President's plan with the lower
taxes in 2001 by less than $200 million, and the plan of the House Ways
and Means Committee which will lower taxes in 2001 by approximately $10
billion.
We believe this infusion of energy into the economy--$60 billion in
this and the next year--is the first portion of tax relief which will
be strong enough to be able to have a meaningful effect on the economy.
We would propose that a large portion of the first year's tax relief
be reflected in workers' paychecks during the second half of the year,
precisely the time that would be needed to forestall a prolonged
economic downturn.
The 10-year cost of this proposal is $693 billion. This is less than
half of the President's total plan, and it could be reduced further if
the Congress were to decide it wished to sunset any portion of this tax
cut before the end of the 10-year period.
Fourth, this proposal is simple. There is no reason this proposal
could not be enacted by July 4. The Treasury would be directed to
adjust its withholding tables as quickly as possible. Families could
expect to see an increase in their paychecks by a reduction in the
amount withheld for income tax in time for their August vacations.
Instead of staying home that week, they could take their children to
the beach or take themselves out to dinner. They could use the money to
fix the car and head for the mountains, or fix up the backyard and
celebrate with a barbecue.
In doing so, they could begin to reverse the cycle--to put money back
into the economy, to feed expansion, to stimulate growth, to create
jobs, to increase Americans' confidence in their economic future.
This tax cut would truly be the gift that keeps on giving.
There is one additional benefit to proceeding in the manner that
Senator Corzine and I are suggesting. Enacting this stimulative tax cut
first and waiting until later to address other tax matters will give
Congress time to evaluate the seriousness of the economic downturn and
to evaluate how effective this economic insurance policy has been in
putting a foundation under that downturn.
In particular, this time will give us a better idea of whether the
slowing economy will adversely affect the surplus projections on which
additional tax cuts are predicated.
Again, I return to President Lincoln's suggestion during one of the
most trying times of his service as President of the United States.
This is not the time for timidity and hand-wringing. This
is the time for swift, bold action. The occasion is piled
high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 2001]
Time for a Tax Cut
(By Robert J. Samuelson)
For some time, I have loudly and monotonously objected to
large federal tax cuts. The arguments against them seemed
overwhelming: The booming economy didn't need further
stimulating; the best use of rising budget surpluses was to
pay down the federal debt. But I regularly attached a large
asterisk to this opposition. A looming economic slowdown or
recession might justify a big tax cut. Well, the asterisk is
hereby activated.
By now, it's clear that most commentators missed the
economy's emerging weakness.
[[Page S1990]]
Indeed, a recession may already have started. Industrial
production has declined slightly since September. Christmas
retail sales were miserable; at Wal-Mart, same-store sales
were up a meager 0.3 percent from a year earlier. The story
is the same for autos; sales declined 8 percent in December.
Montgomery Ward is going out of business. Last week's
surprise interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve confirms
the large miscalculation.
A tax cut is now common sense. It would make it easier for
consumers to handle their heavy debts and, to some extent,
bolster their purchasing power. The fact that President-elect
George W. Bush supports a major tax cut is fortuitous. But
his proposal is poorly designed to combat recession. Although
the estimated costs--$1.3 trillion from 2001 to 2010--are
large, they are ``back-loaded.'' That is, the biggest tax
cuts occur in the later years. In 2002, the tax cut would
amount to $21 billion, a trivial 0.2 percent of gross
domestic product (national income). This would barely affect
the economy.
What Bush needs to do is accelerate the immediate benefits
(to resist a slump) while limiting the long-term costs (to
protect against new deficits). This would improve a tax
plan's economic impact and political appeal. The required
surgery is easier than it sounds:
Bush's across-the-board tax-rate cuts should be compressed
into two years--making them retroactive to Jan. 1, 2001--
instead of being phased in from 2002 to 2006. The idea is to
increase people's disposable incomes, quickly. (Under the
campaign proposal, today's rates of 39.6, 36, 31 and 28
percent would be reduced to 33 and 25 percent. The present 15
percent rate would remain, but a new 10 percent rate would be
created on the first $6,000 of taxable income for singles and
$12,000 for couples.) Similarly, the proposed increase in the
child tax-credit, from $500 to $1,000, should occur over two
years, not four.
The distribution of the tax cut should be tilted more
toward the bottom and less toward the top. One criticism of
the original plan is that it's skewed toward the richest
taxpayers, who pay most of the taxes. (In 1998 the 1.6
percent of tax returns with incomes above $200,000 paid 40
percent of the income tax.) The criticism could--and should--
be blunted by reducing the top rate to only 35 percent, while
expanding tax cuts for the lower brackets. This would
concentrate tax relief among middle-class families, whose
debt burdens are highest.
Bush should defer most other proposals: the gradual phase-
out of the estate tax, new tax breaks for charitable
contributions and tax relief from the so-called marriage
penalty. Together, these items would cost an estimated $400
billion from 2001 to 2010. They are the most politically
charged parts of the package and the least related to
stimulating the economy. Proposing them now would muddle what
ought to be Bush's central message: a middle-class tax cut to
help the economy.
The case for this tax cut rests on a critical assumption.
It is that the slowdown (or recession) could be long, deep or
both. If it's just a blip--as some economists think--the
economic argument for a tax cut disappears. The economy will
revive quickly, aided by the Fed's lower interest rates. Then
the debate over a tax cut should return to political
preferences. Do we want more spending, lower taxes or debt
reduction? My preference would remain debt reduction. But I
doubt that the economic outlook is so charmed.
Just as the boom--the longest in U.S. history--was
unprecedented, so may be its aftermath. The boom's great
propellant was a buying binge by consumers and businesses.
Both spent beyond their means. They went deep into debt. Put
another way, the private sector as a whole has been running
an ever-widening ``deficit,'' says Wynne Godley of the Jerome
Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. By his calculation,
the deficit began in 1997 and reached a record 8 percent of
disposable income in late 2000. Household debt hit 100
percent of personal disposable income, up from 82 percent in
1990.
What may loom is a protracted readjustment. ``An increase
in private debt relative to income can go on for a long time,
but it cannot go on forever,'' writes Godley. People and
companies reduce their debt burdens by borrowing less and
using some of their income to repay existing loans. The
private-sector ``deficit'' would shrink. But this process of
retrenchment would hurt consumer spending and business
investment, which constitute about 85 percent of the economy.
It's self-defeating for government to exert a further drag
through growing budget surpluses. Of course, government could
spend more. But politically, that isn't likely--and spending
increases take time to filter into the economy. A tax cut
could be enacted quickly and enables people to keep more of
what they've earned. Roughly speaking, the Bush tax cuts
could raise disposable incomes of middle-income households
(those between $35,000 and $75,000) by $1,000 to $2,500. This
would make it easier for consumers to manage their debts and
maintain spending. It's also an illusion to think that lower
interest rates (through Fed cuts and government-debt
repayment) can instantly and single-handedly stimulate
recovery.
``The danger of a severe and prolonged recession is being
seriously underestimated,'' writes Godley. If you believe
that--and I do--then a tax cut that made no sense six months
ago makes eminent sense now.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2001]
Who Deserves a Tax Cut?
(By Robert J. Samuelson)
The economic case for a tax cut seems compelling. The U.S.
economy is unwinding from an unstable boom. ``Animal
spirits''--the immortal phrase of economist John Maynard
Keynes--took hold. Consumers overborrowed or, dazzled by
rising stock prices, overspent. Businesses overinvested
thanks to strong profits and cheap capital. Both consumers
and businesses will now curb spending: consumers made
cautious by high debts, stagnant (or falling) stocks and
fewer new jobs; businesses deterred by surplus capacity and
scarcer capital. A tax cut would cushion the spending
slowdown.
Of course, we don't yet know the slump's seriousness. In
the final quarter of 2000, business investment dropped at an
annual rate of 1.5 percent; in the first quarter of 2000, it
rose at a rate of 21 percent. Consumer spending rose at a 2.9
percent rate in the last quarter, but within that, spending
on ``durables'' (cars, appliances, computers) dropped 3.4
percent, again at annual rates. These were both large
declines from earlier in the year. In the first quarter, the
gains had been 7.6 percent and 23.6 percent.
Consumer spending (68 percent of gross domestic product)
and business investment (14 percent) constitute four-fifths
of the economy. If they are in retreat, the economy is--
almost by definition--in trouble. (Housing, exports and
government represent the rest.) The case against a tax cut is
that the spending slowdown will be mild; it will be checked
by the Federal Reserve's cut in interest rates. Perhaps. But
I'm skeptical. If businesses have idle capacity and consumers
have excess debts, lower interest rates may not stimulate
much new borrowing.
Nor will large budget surpluses automatically preserve
prosperity. This argument is (to put it charitably) absurd.
The surpluses are the consequence--not the cause--of the
economic boom and stock market frenzy, which created a tidal
wave of new tax revenues. The big surpluses were a pleasant
dividend. But now they may depress the economy by removing
purchasing power.
This is easy to grasp. Suppose the budget surplus were a
huge sum: say, $1 trillion or about 10 percent of GDP. Would
anyone deny the drag on economic growth? Personal and
corporate income would be reduced by the amount of the
surplus. This drag could be offset only if the resulting drop
in interest rates and repayment of federal debt created an
equal stimulus. Though conceivable, this is hardly certain
and--in my view--unlikely. Today's surplus is only $200
billion to $300 billion, or about 2 to 3 percent of GDP. But
the same reasoning applies. The surplus doesn't mechanically
create demand or spending and, quite probably, does the
opposite.
A year ago, a tax cut would have been folly. Private
spending was booming. But a tax cut now is not an effort to
``fine tune'' the economy. It's the logical response to the
end of the private boom--an attempt to prevent a ``bust'' by
restoring some of people's incomes. Whose incomes? Who
deserves tax cuts? These (to me) are the harder questions.
President Bush's across-the-board rate cuts would give the
largest dollar tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, because
they pay most taxes. In 2000, the richest 10 percent of
Americans--whose incomes begin at about $100,000--paid 66
percent of the federal income tax and 50 percent of all
federal personal taxes (including payroll and excise taxes),
estimates the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
Within this group, the wealthiest one percent--with incomes
above $300,000--paid 34 percent of income taxes and 19
percent of all taxes. Over time, these shares have increased.
In 1977 the richest 10 percent paid 50 percent of income
taxes and 43 percent of all federal taxes. There are two
reasons for this trend: (a) the rich's incomes grew faster
than everyone else's; and (b) tax relief went more toward the
lower half of the income spectrum.
If you like income redistribution for its own sake, this is
wonderful. But the growing gap between those who pay for
government and those who receive its benefits creates a
dangerous temptation. It is to tax the few and distribute
to the many. Though politically expedient, expanded
government programs may have little to do with the broader
national interest. They may simply make more people and
institutions dependent on Washington and the political
process. Taxes must be fairly broad-based if the public is
to weigh the pleasure of new government programs against
the pain of higher taxes.
As originally proposed, Bush's plan was avowedly political.
It aimed to restrain government spending by depriving
government of some money to spend. But Bush is now selling
his program as an antidote to economic slump. Ironically,
this strengthens the case for skewing the tax cut toward
middle- and lower-income households. Almost certainly, their
debt burdens are higher than upscale America's. they may also
spend more of any tax cut than the rich, providing greater
support to the economy.
Finally, it's true that an excessive tax cut would invite
future deficits. How to balance these competing pressures is
what we will debate. My preference is to accelerate the
introduction of Bush's across-the-board rate cuts, with one
exception; I would cut the top rate of 39.6 percent to 35
percent, instead of Bush's 33 percent, and use the savings to
broaden tax cuts at lower income levels.
I would also accelerate the increase in the child tax
credit--from $500 to $1,000--but
[[Page S1991]]
defer Bush's other proposals (ending the estate tax, bigger
charitable deductions). This would raise the overall tax
cut's immediate economic impact and reduce the long-term
budget costs.
As we debate, we should not idealize budget surpluses. They
are simply paper projections, based on various assumptions,
including strong economic growth. If the growth doesn't
materialize, neither will the surpluses. A slavish effort to
preserve the surpluses could perversely destroy them.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 7, 2001]
Tax Cuts: The True Issue
(By Robert J. Samuelson)
The tax and budget debate is essentially a quarrel about
political philosophy. President Bush wants to limit the size
of government by depriving it of more money to spend. His
Democratic critics want government to keep as much in taxes
as possible, because they want to spend it. In fiscal 2000
federal taxes represented a post-World War II record of 20.6
percent of gross domestic product (national income). Over a
decade, Bush wants to nudge that below 19 percent of GDP,
while Democrats prefer to keep it above 20 percent. That's
the central issue between them--and they're trying to obscure
it.
We have diehard liberals preaching the virtues of reducing
the federal debt, not because they believe in smaller
government but because this makes them seem frugal, cautious
and even conservative. Meanwhile, President Bush flaunts his
proposed spending increases for education and Medicare, not
because he believes in bigger government but because they
make him seem humane, sensitive and even liberal. Both sides
are fleeing their traditional stereotypes: liberals as
extravagant spenders, conservatives as cruel cheapskates.
The result is calculated confusion. The antagonists
informally deemphasize their central dispute--the size of
government--and shift the debate to side issues (they hope)
will disarm their opponents. For example:
Does a faltering economy need a tax cut?
This is Bush's ace. Consumer confidence has dropped for
five straight months; in January existing-home sales fell 6.6
percent. The more the economy weakens, the harder it is for
Democrats to resist tax cuts. There's a certain common-sense
appeal to bolstering people's purchasing power by reducing
their taxes. A year ago President Clinton proposed only $350
billion in tax cuts over a decade. Now many Democrats talk in
the $700 billion to $1 trillion range--much closer to Bush's
$1.6 trillion.
Do Bush's budget numbers add up?
No, say critics. His budget skimps on paying down the
federal debt--all the Treasury bonds and bills issued to
cover past budget deficits. Worse, the tax cut might create
future deficits when combined with programs not in the
present budget: an anti-missile defense and private accounts
for Social Security, for instance. All this is possible,
especially if the surplus forecasts turn out (as they might)
to be too optimistic. Still, the critics' case is wildly
overstated.
Between 2002 and 2011, Bush projects budget surpluses of
$5.6 trillion. This is defensible; the Congressional Budget
Office made a similar estimate. The tax cut would reduce the
surplus by $1.6 trillion and require an extra $400 billion in
interest payments. This leaves a surplus of $3.6 trillion. Of
that, Bush would use $2 trillion for debt reduction. (From
2001 to 2011, the debt would drop from $3.2 trillion to $1.2
trillion. Interest payments would decline to below 3 percent
of federal spending, down from 15 percent in 1997.)
Now we're at $1.6 trillion. Bush proposes almost $200
billion in new spending--mainly for changes in Medicare,
including a drug benefit. Bush labels the remaining $1.4
trillion in surplus a ``reserve'' against faulty estimates,
further debt reduction or more spending. All the possible
claims on the reserve (the missile defense, private accounts
for Social Security) could exhaust it. But if you're trying
to make Congress set spending priorities--as Bush is--his
approach isn't unreasonable.
If there's a tax cut, who should get it?
Politically, this is Bush's Achilles' heel. He says that
taxes belong to the people who earned them--not the
government. Okay. The political problem is that most federal
taxes are paid by a small constituency of the well-to-do and
wealthy. In 2001 the richest 10 percent of Americans--
those with incomes above $107,000--will pay 68 percent of
the income tax and 52 percent of all federal taxes,
estimates the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
With its across-the-board rate reductions, Bush's plan
give them the largest dollar cuts. Citizens for Tax
Justice, a liberal advocacy group, estimates that the
richest one percent get 31 percent of the income-tax cuts
(slightly below their share of income taxes, 36 percent).
Democrats are aghast; they want smaller tax cuts to
concentrate benefits on households under $100,000.
To handicap the tax debate, watch these issues. If the
economy weakens further, pressure for tax relief will
intensify. But so will pressure to redirect the benefits down
the income ladder. My view--stated in earlier columns--is
that the economy needs a tax cut. I would accelerate Bush's
across-the-board rate cuts and the doubling of the child
credit (from $500 to $1,000). But I would cut today's top
rate of 39.6 percent only to 35 percent, not 33 percent, as
Bush proposes. All this would maximize the tax cut's
immediate effect on the economy.
Like Bush's critics, I think the long-term budget
projections are too uncertain to enact his full tax package
now; so I would defer action on his other proposals
(abolishing the estate tax, marriage-penalty relief, new
charitable deductions). But unlike his critics, I think Bush
is correct on the central issue of government's size. The
real choice now is not between cutting taxes and paying down
the debt. If immense surpluses emerge, Congress--Democrats
and Republicans--will spend them. Even last year's modest
surplus spurred Congress to a spending spree.
It's the wrong time for huge spending increases. The
retirement of the baby boom generation, beginning in a
decade, will expand government commitments. Retirement
benefits will inevitably increase, exerting pressure for
higher taxes. If we raise spending now, we will begin this
process from a higher base of spending and taxes--that will
ultimately have to be paid by today's children and young
adults. This would be a dubious legacy.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record the text of the bill.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 481
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic
Insurance Tax Cut of 2001''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act
shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of
section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 2. 10-PERCENT INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET FOR INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Rates for 2001.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is
amended by striking subsections (a) through (d) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and
Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of--
``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703)
who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under
section 6013, and
``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
The tax is:e income is:
10% of taxable income..................................................
$1,900, plus 15% of the excess over $19,000............................
$5,830, plus 28% of the excess over $45,200............................
$23,764, plus 31% of the excess over $109,250..........................
$41,511.50, plus 36% of the excess over $166,500.......................
$88,617.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $297,350.....................
``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in
section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the
following table:
The tax is:e income is:
10% of taxable income..................................................
$1,425, plus 15% of the excess over $14,250............................
$4,725, plus 28% of the excess over $36,250............................
$20,797, plus 31% of the excess over $93,650...........................
$38,777, plus 36% of the excess over $151,650..........................
$91,229, plus 39.6% of the excess over $297,350........................
``(c) Unmarried Individuals (Other Than Surviving Spouses
and Heads of Households).--There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving
spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household
as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual
(as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance
with the following table:
The tax is:e income is:
10% of taxable income..................................................
$950, plus 15% of the excess over $9,500...............................
$3,582.50, plus 28% of the excess over $27,050.........................
$14,362.50, plus 31% of the excess over $65,550........................
$36,434.50, plus 36% of the excess over $136,750.......................
$94,250.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $297,350.....................
``(d) Married Individuals Filing Separate Returns.--There
is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a
single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a
tax determined in accordance with the following table:
The tax is:e income is:
10% of taxable income..................................................
$950, plus 15% of the excess over $9,500...............................
$2,915, plus 28% of the excess over $22,600............................
$11,882, plus 31% of the excess over $54,625...........................
$20,755.75, plus 36% of the excess over $83,250........................
[[Page S1992]]
$44,308.75, plus 39.6% of the excess over $148,675.''..................
(b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for
2002.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended--
(1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``2001'',
(2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting
``2000'', and
(3) by striking paragraph (7).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``1992'' and inserting ``2000'' each place it appears:
(A) Section 25A(h).
(B) Section 32(j)(1)(B).
(C) Section 41(e)(5)(C).
(D) Section 42(h)(3)(H)(i)(II).
(E) Section 59(j)(2)(B).
(F) Section 63(c)(4)(B).
(G) Section 68(b)(2)(B).
(H) Section 132(f)(6)(A)(ii).
(I) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii).
(J) Section 146(d)(2)(B).
(K) Section 151(d)(4).
(L) Section 220(g)(2).
(M) Section 221(g)(1)(B).
(N) Section 512(d)(2)(B).
(O) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii).
(P) Section 685(c)(3)(B).
(Q) Section 877(a)(2).
(R) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II).
(S) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B).
(T) Section 2503(b)(2)(B).
(U) Section 2631(c)(2).
(V) Section 4001(e)(1)(B).
(W) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii).
(X) Section 6039F(d).
(Y) Section 6323(i)(4)(B).
(Z) Section 6334(g)(1)(B).
(AA) Section 6601(j)(3)(B).
(BB) Section 7430(c)(1).
(2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by
striking ``1987'' and inserting ``2000''.
(d) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1(g)(7)(B)(ii)(II) is amended by striking ``15
percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''.
(2) Section 1(h) is amended by striking paragraph (13).
(3) Section 3402(p)(1)(B) is amended by striking ``7, 15,
28, or 31 percent'' and inserting ``5, 10, 15, 28, or 31
percent''.
(4) Section 3402(p)(2) is amended by striking ``15
percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''.
(e) Determination of Withholding Tables.--Section 3402(a)
(relating to requirement of withholding) is amended by adding
at the following new paragraph:
``(3) Changes made by section 2 of the economic insurance
tax cut of 2001.--Notwithstanding the provisions of this
subsection, the Secretary shall modify the tables and
procedures under paragraph (1) through the reduction of the
amount of withholding required with respect to taxable years
beginning in calendar year 2001 to reflect the effective date
of the amendments made by section 2 of the Economic Insurance
Tax Cut of 2001, and such modification shall take effect on
the first day of the first month beginning after the date of
the enactment of such Act.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Amendments to withholding provisions.--The amendments
made by paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (d) shall apply
to amounts paid after December 31, 2000.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my
distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing
the legislation to establish a new 10-percent tax bracket.
This bill would provide a simple, fair, and fiscally responsible tax
cut that can be enacted quickly, and that can provide an important
insurance policy against the risk of an economic slowdown, a slowdown
that to most observers appears to be more real and potentially deeper
than perceived even as early as in January of this year.
To me, there is little question that our economy needs stimulus,
fiscally as well as monetarily, to return to a moderate growth path.
The question for policymakers is how to make that happen.
Some, including Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have questioned whether
Congress is capable of enacting a tax cut quickly enough to prevent a
recession or even help lift us out of one on a timely basis. I think we
can. In any case, as many other economists, Chairman Greenspan has
argued that tax cuts would be helpful once an economic downturn is upon
us, if a tax cut were implemented expeditiously.
To make any tax cut effective as an economic insurance policy,
Congress and the President need to reach agreement quickly. To
facilitate such an agreement, we are proposing that Congress defer
consideration of the long list of worthy, and maybe some less worthy,
tax cut proposals currently under debate, and, for now, adopt a very
straightforward, simple approach.
President Bush has already proposed the creation of a new 10-percent
rate bracket for income of up to $12,000 for couples who are currently
taxed at 15 percent. The corresponding level for single taxpayers,
under the President's proposal, would be $6,000. However, as originally
proposed, the Bush rate cut would not be fully effective until 2006.
Senator Graham and I are proposing to immediately--and retroactively
for this year--create a 10-percent rate bracket and increase the
threshold of that bracket to $19,000 for married taxpayers and $9,500
for individuals.
There are several reasons why this 10-percent compromise makes sense
to us. First, it provides equitable relief to taxpayers at all
different income levels. All couples with income tax liabilities would
save $950 annually or have their tax liability eliminated entirely.
Second, middle-class families are more likely to spend a tax cut than
the wealthier families favored under some aspects of the President's
plan. Our proposal would be more effective in boosting the economy now.
Third, our proposal would put roughly $60 billion of the annual non-
Social Security surplus into a retroactive tax cut. This is the amount
that economists tell us is needed to achieve a noticeable economic
impact this year. At this level, we would expect that tax cut to boost
GDP by one-half to three-quarters of a percentage point.
Fourth, because of its simplicity, the proposal could be debated,
enacted, and implemented very quickly. I think the latter is very
important. In fact, if the President and the bipartisan congressional
leadership were to come to an agreement, announce an agreement on this
package, business and consumer confidence in private spending could be
bolstered almost immediately. Later, once the proposal is signed into
law, withholding tables could be adjusted in a matter of weeks. That is
where the simplicity comes in. By contrast, many of the President's and
Congress's proposals are not only controversial and would draw lengthy
debate, but would take much longer to be able to be implemented into
law.
Finally, while providing a real economic stimulus up front, the cost
of our proposal is something that is doable within the current context
of our budget. The cost of our proposal is roughly $700 billion. This
would not preclude further debt reduction, tax cuts, or spending
priorities, such as improvements in education, as the President has
suggested, and prescription drug coverage, or increases in defense
spending.
By contrast, the President's original proposal provides very limited
stimulus up front--only $21 billion in 2001--yet threatens to starve
the Government of needed resources in later years, especially when our
obligations to Social Security and Medicare begin to grow
substantially.
Our 10-percent compromise asks both parties to temporarily give up
their favorite tax cut proposals in the interests of a quick compromise
which would benefit the country, which would apply the principle that a
rising tide lifts all boats. We do not accept the common wisdom that
Washington is incapable of acting quickly. There is a need. When it
really matters, we know we can keep things simple, and we can get
things done, and make them happen.
I congratulate Senator Graham. And I very much appreciate the
opportunity to introduce this legislation. We look forward to working
with the Congress to try to get a quick and stimulative and simple
proposal through the Congress.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 483 A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve the
disclosure of information to airline passengers and the enforceability
of airline passengers and the enforceability of airline passengers'
rights under airline customer service agreements, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
provide enforceable consumer protections for airline passengers. The
bill I introduce today is the result of a process that started over two
years ago, when I first introduced bipartisan passenger rights
[[Page S1993]]
legislation. Instead of enacting that legislation, Congress decided to
give the airlines a year-and-a-half to improve customer service through
voluntary plans. At the end of that time, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General was to report to Congress on the
airlines' progress.
The Inspector General released his report last month. It is a
carefully researched and balanced document, and it finds that, while
the airlines have made progress in some areas, there are also
significant continued shortcomings. In particular, in many cases
passengers are still not receiving reliable and timely communications
about flight delays, cancellations, and diversions. The report
recommends a number of specific, reasonable steps that could be taken
to improve the experience of the flying public.
I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator
McCain, and Senators Hollings and Hutchison, for the bill they have
introduced, which reflects the essence of the Inspector General's
report. My bill is intended to complement and further the discussion
that legislation has begun.
My legislation closely tracks the findings and recommendations of the
Inspector General's report. First, it features ``right-to-know''
provisions that require airlines to tell customers when a flight they
are about to book a ticket on is chronically delayed or canceled, and
to provide better information about overbooking, frequent flyer
programs, and lost baggage. The bill also contains provisions to
enhance and improve the enforcement of the airlines' customer service
commitments, such as requirement that each airline incorporate its
commitments into its binding contract of carriage. Finally, the bill
calls on the Secretary of Transportation to review existing regulations
to make sure airlines adhere to their commitments, and to encourage the
establishment of a baseline standard of service for all airlines.
The provisions of this bill are not radical, nor are they regulatory;
they are basic reasonable steps based directly on the specific findings
and recommendations of the Inspector General. Most importantly, they
would create meaningful, enforceable protections for consumers in the
areas where the Inspector General has identified ongoing problems.
I am hopeful that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in
supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 483
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 ``Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) United States airline traffic is increasing. The number
of domestic passengers carried by United States air carriers
has nearly tripled since 1978, to over 660 million annually.
The number is expected to grow to more than 1 billion by
2010. The number of domestic flights has been steadily
increasing as well.
(2) The Inspector General of the Department of
Transporation has found that with this growth in traffic have
come increases in delays, cancellations, and customer
dissatisfaction with air carrier service.
(A) The Federal Aviation Administration has reported that,
between 1995 and 2000, delays increased 90 percent and
cancellations increased 104 percent. In 2000, over 1 in 4
flights were delayed, canceled, or diverted, affecting
approximately 163 million passengers.
(B) At the 30 largest United States airports, the number of
flights with taxi-out times of 1 hour or more increased 165
percent between 1995 and 2000. The number of flights with
taxi-out times of 4 hours or more increased 341 percent
during the same period.
(C) Certain flights, particularly those scheduled during
peak periods at the nation's busiest airports, are subject to
chronic delays. In December, 2000, 626 regularly-scheduled
flights arrived late 70 percent of the time or more, as
reported by the Department of Transportation.
(D) Consumer complaints filed with the Department of
Transportation about airline travel have nearly quadrupled
since 1995. The Department of Transportation Inspector
General has estimated that air carriers receive between 100
and 400 complaints for every complaint filed with the
Department of Transportation.
(3) At the same time as the number of complaints about
airline travel has increased, the resources devoted to
Department of Transportation handling of such complaints have
declined sharply. The Department of Transportation Inspector
General has reported that the staffing of the Department of
Transportation office responsible for handling airline
customer service complaints declined from 40 in 1985 to just
17 in 2000.
(4) In June, 1999, the Air Transport Association and its
member airlines agreed to an Airline Customer Service
Commitment designed to address mounting consumer
dissatisfaction and improve customer service in the industry.
(5) The Department of Transportation Inspector General has
reviewed the airlines' implementation of the Airline Customer
Service Commitment. The Inspector General found that:
(A) The Airline Customer Service Commitment has prompted
air carriers to address consumer concerns in many areas,
resulting in positive changes in how air travelers are
treated.
(B) Despite this progress, there continue to be significant
shortfalls in reliable and timely communication with
passengers about flight delays and cancellations. Reports to
passengers about flight status are frequently untimely,
incomplete, or unreliable.
(C) Air carriers need to do more, in the areas under their
control, to reduce over-scheduling, the number of
chronically-late or canceled flights, and the amount of
checked baggage that does not show up with the passenger upon
arrival.
(D) A number of further steps could be taken to improve the
effectiveness and enforceability of the Airline Customer
Service Commitment and to improve the consumer protections
available to commercial air passengers.
SEC. 3. FAIR TREATMENT OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 41722. Airline passengers' right to know
``(a) Disclosure of On-time Performance.--Whenever any
person contacts an air carrier to make a reservation or to
purchase a ticket on a consistently-delayed or canceled
flight, the air carrier shall disclose (without being
requested), at the time the reservation or purchase is
requested, the on-time performance and cancellation rate for
that flight for the most recent month for which data is
available. For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`consistently-delayed or canceled flight' means a regularly-
scheduled flight--
``(1) that has failed to arrive on-time (as defined in
section 234.2 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) at
least 40 percent of the time during the most recent 3-month
period for which data are available; or
``(2) at least 20 percent of the departures of which have
been canceled during the most recent 3-month period for which
data are available.
``(b) On-time Performance Posted on Website.--An air
carrier that has a website on the Internet shall include in
the information posted about each flight operated by that air
carrier the flight's on-time performance (as defined in
section 234.2 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) for
the most recent month for which data is available.
``(c) Passenger Information Concerning Delays,
Cancellations, and Diversions.--
``(1) In general--Whenever a flight is delayed, canceled,
or diverted, the air carrier operating that flight shall
provide to customers at the airport and on board the
aircraft, in a timely, reasonable, and truthful manner, the
best available information regarding such delay,
cancellation, or diversion, including--
``(A) the cause of the delay, cancellation, or diversion;
and
``(B) in the case of a delayed flight, the carrier's best
estimate of the departure time.
``(2) Public information.--An air carrier that provides a
telephone number or website for the public to obtain flight
status information shall ensure that the information provided
via such telephone number or website will reflect the best
and most current information available concerning delays,
cancellations, and diversions.
``(d) Pre-departure Notification System.--Within 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act, each air carrier that is a reporting carrier
(as defined in section 234.2 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations) shall establish a reasonable system (taking into
account the size, financial condition, and cost structure of
the air carrier) for notifying passengers before their
arrival at the airport when the air carrier knows
sufficiently in advance of the check-in time for their flight
that the flight will be canceled or delayed by an hour or
more.
``(e) Coordination of Monitors; Current Information.--At
any airport at which the status of flights to or from that
airport is displayed to the public on flight status monitors
operated by the airport, each air carrier the flights of
which are displayed on the monitors shall work closely with
the airport to ensure that flight information shown on the
monitors reflects the best and most current information
available.
``(f) Frequent Flyer Program Information.--Within 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act, each air carrier that maintains a frequent
flyer program shall increase
[[Page S1994]]
the comprehensiveness and accessibility to the public of its
reporting of frequent flyer award redemption information. The
information reported shall include--
``(1) the percentage of successful redemptions of requested
frequent flyer awards for free tickets or class-of-service
upgrades for the air carrier;
``(2) the percentage of successful redemptions of requested
frequent flyer awards for free tickets or class-of-service
upgrades for each flight in the air carrier's top 100
origination and destination markets; and
``(3) the percentage of seats available for frequent flyer
awards on each flight in its top 100 origination and
destination markets.
``(g) Overbooking.--
``(1) Oversold flight disclosure.--An air carrier shall
inform a ticketed passenger, upon request, whether the flight
on which the passenger is ticketed is oversold.
``(2) Bumping compensation information.--An air carrier
shall inform passengers on a flight what the air carrier will
pay passengers involuntarily denied boarding before making
offers to passengers to induce them voluntarily to relinquish
seats.
``(3) Disclosure of bumping policy.--An air carrier shall
disclose, both on its Internet website, if any, and on its
ticket jackets, its criteria for determining which passengers
will be involuntarily denied boarding on an oversold flight
and its procedures for offering compensation to passengers
voluntarily or involuntarily denied boarding on an oversold
flight.
``(h) Mishandled Baggage Reporting.--Within 6 months after
the date of enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act, each air carrier shall revise its reporting
for mishandled baggage to show--
``(1) the percentage of checked baggage that is mishandled
during a reporting period;
``(2) the number of mishandled bags during a reporting
period; and
``(3) the average length of time between the receipt of a
passenger's claim for missing baggage and the delivery of the
bag to the passenger.
``(i) Small Air Carrier Exception.--This section does not
apply to an air carrier that operates no civil aircraft
designed to have a maximum passenger seating capacity of more
than 30 passengers.
``Sec. 41723. Enforcement and enhancement of airline
passenger service commitments
``(a) Adoption of Customer Service Plan.--Within 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act, an air carrier certificated under section
41102 that has not already done so shall--
``(1) develop and adopt a customer service plan designed to
implement the provisions of the Airline Customer Service
Commitment executed by the Air Transport Association and 14
of its member airlines on June 17, 1999;
``(2) incorporate its customer service plan in its contract
of carriage;
``(3) incorporate the provisions of that Commitment if, and
to the extent that those provisions are more specific than,
or relate to issues not covered by, its customer service
plan;
``(4) submit a copy of its customer service plan to the
Secretary of Transportation;
``(5) post a copy of its contract of carriage on its
Internet website, if any; and
``(6) notify all ticketed customers, either at the time a
ticket is purchased or on a printed itinerary provided to the
customer, that the contract of carriage is available upon
request or on the air carrier's website.
``(b) Modifications.--Any modification in any air carrier's
customer service plan shall be promptly incorporated in its
contract of carriage, submitted to the Secretary, and posted
on its website.
``(c) Quality Assurance and Performance Measurement
System.--
``(1) Air carriers.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline Passengers Act, an
air carrier certificated under section 41102, after
consultation with the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, shall--
``(A) establish a quality assurance and performance
measurement system for customer service; and
``(B) establish an internal audit process to measure
compliance with its customer service plan.
``(2) DOT approval required.--Each air carrier shall submit
the measurement system established under paragraph (1)(A) and
the audit process established under paragraph (1)(B) to the
Secretary of Transportation for review and approval.
``(d) Customer Service Plan Enhancements.--Within 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act, an air carrier certificated under section
41102 shall--
``(1) amend its customer service plan to specify that it
will offer to a customer purchasing a ticket at any of the
air carrier's ticket offices or airport ticket service
counters the lowest fare available for which that customer is
eligible; and
``(2) establish performance goals designed to minimize
incidents of mishandled baggage.
``(e) Small Air Carrier Exception.--This section does not
apply to an air carrier that operates no civil aircraft
designed to have a maximum passenger seating capacity of more
than 30 passengers.''.
(b) Civil Penalty.--Section 46301(a)(7) is amended by
striking ``40127 or 41712'' and inserting ``40127, 41712,
41722, or 41723''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 41721 the following:
``41722. Airline passengers' right to know
``41723. Enforcement and enhancement of airline passenger service
commitments''.
SEC. 4. REQUIRED ACTION BY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.
(a) Uniform Minimum Check-in Time; Baggage Statistics;
Bumping Compensation.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation
shall--
(1) establish a uniform check-in deadline and require air
carriers to disclose, both in their contracts of carriage and
on ticket jackets, their policies on how those deadlines
apply to passengers making connections;
(2) revise the Department of Transportation's method for
calculating and reporting the rate of mishandled baggage for
air carriers to reflect the reporting requirements of section
41722(h) of title 49, United States Code; and
(3) revise the Department of Transportation's Regulation
(14 C.F.R. 250.5) governing the amount of denied boarding
compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily to
increase the maximum amount thereof.
(b) Review of Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a thorough review
of the Department of Transportation's regulations that relate
to air carriers' treatment of customers, and make such
modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure
the enforceability of those regulations and the provisions of
this Act and of title 49, United States Code, that relate to
such treatment, or otherwise to promote the purposes of this
Act.
(2) Specific areas of review.--As part of such review and
modification, the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary or
appropriate--
(A) modify existing regulations to reflect this Act and
sections 41722 and 41723 of title 49, United States Code;
(B) modify existing regulations to the extent necessary to
ensure that they are sufficiently clear and specific to be
enforceable;
(C) establish minimum standards, compliance with which can
be measured quantitatively, of air carrier performance with
respect to customer service issues addressed by the
Department of Transportation regulations or the Airline
Customer Service Commitment executed by the Air Transport
Association and 14 of its member airlines on June 17, 1999;
(D) address the manner in which the Department of
Transportation regulations should treat customer service
commitments that relate to actions occurring prior to the
purchase of a ticket, such as the commitment to offer the
lowest available fare, and whether such the inclusion of such
commitments in the contract of carriage creates an
enforceable obligation prior to the purchase of a ticket;
(E) restrict the ability of air carriers to include
provisions in the contract of carriage restricting a
passenger's choice of forum in the event of a legal dispute;
and
(F) require each air carrier to report information to
Department of Transportation on complaints submitted to the
air carrier, and modify the reporting of complaints in the
Department of Transportation's monthly customer service
reports, so those reports will reflect complaints submitted
to air carriers as well as complaints submitted to the
Department.
(3) Expedited procedure.--Within 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete all
actions necessary to establish regulations to implement the
requirements of this subsection.
SEC. 5. IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT OF AIR PASSENGER RIGHTS.
(a) Use of Authorized Funds.--In utilizing the funds
authorized by section 223 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century for the
purpose of enforcing the rights of air travelers, the
Secretary of Transportation shall give priority to the areas
identified by the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation as needing improvement in Report No. AV-2001-
020, submitted to the Congress on February 12, 2001.
(b) Secretary Required To Consult the Secretary's Inspector
General.--The Secretary of Transportation, in carrying out
this Act and the provisions of section 41722 and 41723 of
title 49, United States Code, shall consult with the
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd,
Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 484. A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act
to create a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal,
State, and local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention and treatment agencies; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Child
Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act,
[[Page S1995]]
and I am pleased to be joined by my good friends, Senators Rockefeller,
DeWine, Dodd, collins, and Lincoln. Mr. President this bill is an
enormously important piece of legislation. It provides the means for
states to support some of our most vulnerable families, families who
are struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and the children who are
being raised in these homes.
It is obvious, both anecdotally and statistically, that child welfare
is significantly impacted by parental substance abuse. And it makes a
lot of sense to fund state programs to address these two issues in
tandem. The real question in designing and supporting child welfare
programs is how can we, public policy makers, government officials,
welfare agencies, honestly expect to improve child welfare without
appropriately and adequately addressing the root problems affecting
these children's lives?
We know that substance abuse is the primary ingredient in child abuse
and neglect. Most studies find that between one-third and two-thirds,
and some say as high as 80 percent to 90 percent, of children in the
child welfare system come from families where parental substance abuse
is a contributing factor.
The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act creates a new
five-year $1.9 billion state block grant program to address the
connection between substance abuse and child welfare. Payments would be
made to promote joint activities among federal, state, and local public
child welfare and alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies.
Our underlying belief, and the point of this bill, is to encourage
existing agencies to work together to keep children safe.
HHS will award grants to States and Indian tribes to encourage
programs for families who are known to the child welfare system and
have alcohol and drug abuse problems. These grants will forge new and
necessary partnerships between the child protection agencies and the
alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies so they can work
together to provide services fort this population. The program is
designed to increase the capacity of both the child welfare and alcohol
and drug systems to comprehensively address the needs of these families
to improve child safety, family stability, and permanence, and to
promote recovery from alcohol and drug problems.
Statistics paint an unhappy picture for children of substance abusing
parents: a 1998 report by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse
found that 36 states reported that parental substance abuse and poverty
are the top two problems exhibited by families reported for child
maltreatment. And a 1997 survey conducted by the Child Welfare League
of America found that at least 52 percent of placements into out-of-
home care were due in part to parental substance abuse.
Children whose parents abuse alcohol and drugs are almost three times
likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be neglected
than children of parents who are not substance abusers. Children in
alcohol-abusing families were nearly four times more likely to be
maltreated overall, almost five times more likely to be physically
neglected, and 10 times more likely to be emotionally neglected than
children in families without alcohol problems.
A 1994 study published in the American Journal of Public Health fund
that children prenatally exposed to substances have been found to be
two to three times more likely to be abused than non-exposed children.
And as many as 80 percent of prenatally drug exposed infants will come
to the attention of child welfare before their first birthday. Abused
and neglected children under age six face the risk of more severe
damage than older children because their brains and neurological
systems are still developing.
Unfortunately, child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of
the 67 percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention and
treatment services actually get help today.
This bill is about preventing problems. My colleagues and I know that
what is most important here is the safety and well-being of America's
children. We expect much of our youth because they are the future of
our nation. In turn, we must be willing to give them the support they
need to learn and grow, so that they can lead healthy and productive
lives.
In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, ASFA,
authored by the late Senator John Chafee. ASFA promotes safety,
stability, and permanence for all abused and neglected children and
requires timely decision-making in all proceedings to determine whether
children can safely return home, or whether they should be moved to
permanent, adoptive homes. Specifically, the law requires a State to
ensure that services are provided to the families of children who are
at risk, so that children can remain safely with their families or
return home after being in foster care.
The bill we are introducing today identifies a very specific area in
which families and children need services, substance abuse. And it will
ensure that states have the funding necessary to provide services as
required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
On March 23, 2000, Kristine Ragaglia, Commissioner of the Connecticut
Department of Children and Families, testified before the House
Subcommittee on Human Resources on this issue. She said simply that
``If substance abuse issues are left unaddressed, many of the system's
efforts to protect children and to promote positive change in families
will be wasted.'' This legislation aims to address this very gap in our
nation's child protection system.
I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; the American Academy of
Pediatrics; the American Prosecutors Research Institute; the American
Psychological Association; the American Public Human Services
Association; the Child Welfare League of America; the Children's
Defense Fund; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; the Maine Association of
Prevention Programs; the Maine Association of Substance Abuse Programs;
the Maine Children's Trust; Mainely Parents; the Massachusetts Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; the National Conference of
State Legislators; the New York State Office of Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse Services; and Prevent Child Abuse America.
I encourage my colleagues to take a look at our bill, to think
seriously about the future for kids in their states, and to work with
us in passing this very important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that a fact sheet and section-by-section description of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fact Sheet--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2001
The Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of
2001 is a bill to create a grant program to promote joint
activities among Federal, State, and local public child
welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment
agencies to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence for children in families with drug and alcohol
problems, as well as promote recovery from drug and alcohol
problems.
Child welfare agencies estimate that only a third of the 67
percent of the parents who need drug or alcohol prevention
and treatment services actually get help today. This bill
builds on the foundation of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 which requires states to focus on a child's need
for safety, health and permanence. The bill creates new
funding for alcohol and drug treatment and other activities
that will serve the special needs of these families to either
provide treatment for parents with alcohol and drug abuse
problems so that a child can safely return to their family or
to promote timely decisions and fulfill the requirement of
the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act to provide services
prior to adoption.
Grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug
partnerships
In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug
abuse problems. HHS will award grants to States and Indian
tribes to encourage programs for families who are known to
the child welfare system and have alcohol and drug abuse
problems. Such grants will forge new and necessary
partnerships between the child protection agencies and the
alcohol and drug prevention and treatment agencies in States
so they can together provide necessary services for this
unique population.
These grants will help build new partnerships to provide
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment services that
are timely, available, accessible, and appropriate and
include the following components:
(A) Preventive and early intervention services for the
children of families with alcohol and drug problems that
combine alcohol and drug prevention services with mental
health
[[Page S1996]]
and domestic violence services, and recognize the mental,
emotional, and developmental problems the children may
experience.
(B) Prevention and early intervention services for families
at risk of alcohol and drug problems.
(c) Comprehensive home-based, out-patient and residential
treatment options.
(D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in
recovery that promote child safety and family stability.
(E) Services and supports that promote positive parent-
child interaction.
Forging new partnerships
GAO and HHS studies indicate that the existing programs for
alcohol and drug treatment do not effectively service
families in the child protection system. Therefore, this new
grant program will help eliminate barriers to treatment and
to child safety and permanence by encouraging agencies to
build partnerships and conduct joint activities including:
(A) Promote appropriate screening and assessment of alcohol
and drug problems.
(B) Create effective engagement and retention strategies
that get families into timely treatment.
(C) Encourage joint training for staff of child welfare and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies, and
judges and other court personnel to increase understanding of
alcohol and drug problems related to child abuse and neglect
and to more accurately identify alcohol and drug abuse in
families. Such training increases staff knowledge of the
appropriate resources that are available in the communities,
and increases awareness of the importance of permanence for
children and the urgency for expedited time lines in making
these decisions.
(D) Improve data systems to monitor the progress of
families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and
determine which approaches are most effective.
(E) Evaluate strategies to identify the effectiveness of
treatment and those parts of the treatment that have the
greatest impact on families in different circumstances.
New, targeted investments
A total of $1.9 billion will be available to eligible
states with funding of $200 million in the first year
expanding to $575 million by the last year. The amount of
funding will be based on the State's number of children under
18, with a small state minimum to ensure that every state
gets a fair share. Indian tribes will have a 3-5 percent set
aside. State child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies
shall have a modest matching requirement for funding
beginning with a 15 percent match and gradually increasing to
25 percent. The Secretary has discretion to waive the State
match in cases of hardship.
Accountability and performance measurement
To ensure accountability, HHS and the related State
agencies must establish indicators within 12 months of the
enactment of this law which will be used to assess the
State's progress under this program. Annual reports by the
States must be submitted to HHS. Any state that fails to
submit its report will lose its funding for the next year,
until it comes into compliance. HHS must issue an annual
report to Congress on the progress of the Child Protection/
Alcohol and Drug Partnership grants.
____
Section-by-Section--Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act
of 2001
A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to create
a grant program to promote joint activities among Federal, State, and
Local public child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment agencies.
Grants to promote child protection/alcohol and drug
partnership for children
In an effort to improve child safety, family stability, and
permanence, as well as promote recovery from alcohol and drug
abuse problems, the Secretary may award grants to eligible
States and Indian tribes to foster programs for families who
are known to the child welfare system to have alcohol and
drug abuse problems. The Secretary shall notify States and
Indian tribes of approval or denial not later than 60 days
after submission.
State plan requirements
In order to meet the prevention and treatment needs of
families with alcohol and drug abuse problems in the child
welfare system and to promote child safety, permanence, and
family stability, State agencies will jointly work together,
creating a plan to identify the extent of the drug and
alcohol abuse problem.
Creation of plan--State agencies will provide data on
appropriate screening and assessment of cases, consultation
on cases involving alcohol and drug abuse, arrangements for
addressing confidentiality and sharing of information, cross
training of staff, co-location of services, support for
comprehensive treatment for parents and their children, and
priority of child welfare families for assessment or
treatment.
Identify activities--A description of the activities and
goals to be implemented under the five-year funding cycle
should be identified, such as: identify and assess alcohol
and drug treatment needs, identify risks to children's safety
and the need for permanency, enroll families in appropriate
services and treatment in their communities, and regularly
assess the progress of families receiving such treatment.
Implement prevention and treatment services--States and
Indian tribes should implement individualized alcohol and
drug abuse prevention and treatment services that are
available, accessible, and appropriate that include the
following components:
(A) Preventive and early intervention services for the
children of families with alcohol and drug abuse problems
that integrate alcohol and drug abuse prevention services
with mental health and domestic violence services, as well as
recognizing the mental, emotional, and developmental problems
the children may experience.
(B) Prevention and early intervention services for parents
at risk for alcohol and drug abuse problems.
(C) Comprehensive home-based, out-patient and residential
treatment options.
(D) Formal and informal after-care support for families in
recovery.
(E) Services and programs that promote parent-child
interaction.
Sharing information among agencies--Agencies should
eliminate existing barriers to treatment and to child safety
and permanence by sharing information among agencies and
learning from the various treatment protocols of other
agencies such as:
(A) Creating effective engagement and retention strategies.
(B) Encouraging joint training of child welfare staff and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention agencies, and judges and
court staff to increase awareness and understanding of drug
abuse and related child abuse and neglect and more accurately
identify abuse in families, increase staff knowledge of the
services and resources that are available in the communities,
and increase awareness of permanence for children and the
urgency for time lines in making these decisions.
(C) Improving data systems to monitor the progress of
families, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and
determine which approaches are most effective.
(D) Evaluation strategies to identify the effectiveness of
treatment that has the greatest impact on families in
different circumstances.
(E) Training and technical assistance to increase the
State's capacity to perform the above activities.
Plan descriptions and assurances--States and Indian tribes
should create a plan that includes the following descriptions
and assurances:
(A) A description of the jurisdictions in the State whether
urban, suburban, or rural, and the State's plan to expand
activities over the 5-year funding cycle to other parts of
the State.
(B) A description of the way in which the State agency will
measure progress, including how the agency will jointly
conduct an evaluation of the results of the activities.
(C) A description of the input obtained from staff of State
agencies, advocates, consumers of prevention and treatment
services, line staff from public and private child welfare
and drug abuse agencies, judges and court staff,
representatives of health, mental health, domestic violence,
housing and employment services, as well as representative
of the State agency in charge of administering the
temporary assistance to needy families program (TANF).
(D) An assurance of coordination with other services
provided under other Federal or federally assisted programs
including health, mental health, domestic violence, housing,
employment programs, TANF, and other child welfare and
alcohol and drug abuse programs and the courts.
(E) An assurance that not more than 10 percent of
expenditures under the State plan for any fiscal year shall
be for administrative costs. However, Indian tribes will be
exempt from this limitation and instead may use the indirect
cost rate agreement in effect for the tribe.
(F) An assurance from States that Federal funds provided
will not be used to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds for
services and activities provided as of the date of the
submission of the plan. However, Indian tribes will be exempt
from this provision.
Amendments--A State or Indian tribe may amend its plan, in
whole or in part at any time through a plan amendment. The
amendment should be submitted to the Secretary not later than
30 days after the date of any changes. Approval from the
Secretary shall be presumed unless, the State has been
notified of disapproval within 60 days after receipt.
Special application to Indian tribes--The Indian tribe must
submit a plan to the Secretary that describes the activities
it will undertake with both the child welfare and alcohol and
drug agencies that serve its children to address the needs of
families who come to the attention of the child welfare
agency who have alcohol and drug problems. The Indian tribe
must also meet other applicable requirements, unless the
Secretary determines that it would be inappropriate based on
the tribe's resources, needs, and other circumstances.
Appropriation of funds
Appropriations--A total of 1.9 billion dollars will be
appropriated to eligible States and Indian tribes at the
progression rate of:
[[Page S1997]]
(1) for fiscal year 2002, $200,000,000;
(2) for fiscal year 2003, $275,000,000;
(3) for fiscal year 2004, $375,000,000;
(4) for fiscal year 2005, $475,000,000; and
(5) for fiscal year 2006, $575,000,000.
Territories--The Secretary of HHS shall reserve 2 percent
of the amount appropriated each fiscal year for payments to
Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, the
Secretary shall reserve from 3 to 5 percent of the amount
appropriated for direct payment to Indian tribes.
Research and training--The Secretary shall reserve 1
percent of the appropriated amount for each fiscal year for
practice-based research on the effectiveness of various
approaches for screening, assessment, engagement, treatment,
retention, and monitoring of families and training of staff
in such areas. In addition, the Secretary will also ensure
that a portion of these funds are used for research on the
effectiveness of these approaches for Indian children and the
training of staff.
Determination of use of funds--Funds may only be used to
carry out a specific research agenda established by the
Secretary, together with the Assistant Secretary of the
Administration for Children and Families and the
Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration with input from public and private nonprofit
providers, consumers, representatives of Indian tribes and
advocates.
Payments to states
Amount of grant to States and territories--Each eligible
State will receive an amount based on the number of children
under the age of 18 that reside in that State. There will be
a small state minimum of .05 percent to ensure that all
States are eligible for sufficient funding to establish a
program.
Amount of grant to Indian tribes or tribal organizations--
Indian tribes shall be eligible for a set aside of 3 to 5
percent. This amount will be distributed based on the
population of children under 18 in the tribe.
State matching requirement--States shall provide, through
non-Federal contributions, the following applicable
percentages for a given fiscal year:
(A) for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 15 percent match;
(B) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 20 percent match; and
(C) for fiscal year 2006, 25 percent match.
Source of match--The non-Federal contributions required of
States may be in cash or in-kind including plant equipment or
services made directly from donations from public or private
entities. Amounts received from the Federal Government may
not be included in the applicable percentage of contributions
for a given fiscal year. However, Indian tribes may use three
Federal sources of matching funds: Indian Child Welfare Act
funds, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
Funds, and Community Block Grant funds.
Waiver--The Secretary may modify matching funds if it is
determined that extraordinary economic conditions in the
State justify the waiver. Indian tribes' matching funds may
also be modified if the Secretary determines that it would be
inappropriate based on the resources and needs of the
tribe.
Use of funds and deadline for request of payment--Funds may
only be used to carry out activities specified in the plan,
as approved by the Secretary. Each State or Indian tribe
shall apply to be paid funds not later than the beginning of
the fourth quarter of a fiscal year or they will be
reallotted.
Carryover and reallocation of funds--Funds paid to an
eligible State or Indian tribe may be used in that fiscal
year or the succeeding fiscal year. If a State does not apply
for funds allotted within the time provided, the funds will
be reallotted to one or more other eligible States on the
basis of the needs of that individual state. In the case of
Indian tribes, funds will be reallotted to remaining tribes
that are implementing approved plans.
Performance measurement
Establishment of indicators--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families, the Administrator of the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration within HHS,
and with state and local government, public officials
responsible for administering child welfare and alcohol and
drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, court staff,
consumers of the services, and advocates for these children
and parents will establish indicators within 12 months of the
enactment of this law which will be used to assess the
performance of States and Indian tribes. A State or Indian
tribe will be measured against itself, assessing progress
over time against a baseline established at the time the
grant activities were undertaken.
Illustrative examples--Indicators of activities to be
measured include:
(A) Improve screening and assessment of families.
(B) Increase availability of comprehensive individualized
treatment.
(C) Increase the number/proportion of families who enter
treatment promptly.
(D) Increase engagement and retention.
(E) Decrease the number of children who re-enter foster
care after being returned to families who had alcohol or drug
problems.
(F) Increase number/proportion of staff trained.
(G) Increase the proportion of parents who complete
treatment and show improvement in their employment status.
Reports--The child welfare and alcohol and drug abuse and
treatment agencies in each eligible state, and the Indian
tribes that receive funds shall submit no later than the end
of the first fiscal year, a report to the Secretary
describing activities carried out, and any changes in the use
of the funds planned for the succeeding fiscal year. After
the first report is submitted, a State or Indian tribe must
submit to the Secretary annually, by the end of the third
quarter in the fiscal year, a report on the application of
the indicators to its activities, an explanation of why these
indicators were chosen, and the results of the evaluation to
date. After the third year of the grant all of the States
must include indicators that address improvements in
treatment. A final report on evaluation and the progress made
must be submitted to the Secretary not later than the end of
each five year funding cycle of the grant.
Penalty--States or Indian tribes that fail to report on the
indicators will not be eligible for grant funds for the
fiscal year following the one in which it failed to report,
unless a plan for improving their ability to monitor and
evaluate their activities is submitted to the Secretary and
then approved in a timely manner.
Secretarial reports and evaluations--Beginning October 1,
2003, the Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant
Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families,
and the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Service Administration, shall report annually, to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of the
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on
the joint activities, indicators, and progress made with
families.
Evaluations--Not later than six months after the end of
each five year funding cycle, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the above committees, the results of the
evaluations as well as recommendations for further
legislative actions.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about our
Nation's most vulnerable children, innocent children who have been
abused or neglected by parents, many of whom have alcohol and drug
abuse problems. Over 500,000 children receive foster care services
nationwide, including 3,000 children in West Virginia. These numbers
belie our policy that every child deserves a safe, healthy, permanent
home, as specified in the fundamental guidelines set forth in the 1997
Adoption and Safe Families Act, ASFA.
National statistics tell us that a majority of families in the child
welfare system may struggle with alcohol and/or drug abuse. One recent
survey noted that 67 percent of parents involved in child abuse or
neglect cases required alcohol or drug treatment, but only one-third of
those parents received appropriate treatment or services to address
their addiction. In my own state of West Virginia, over half of the
children placed in the foster care system have families with substance
abusing behaviors. We are also aware of countless numbers of other
children who, while not receiving foster care services, are at risk of
neglect due their parents' addictions.
Another stunning, sad statistic is that children with open child
welfare cases whose parents have substance abuse problems are younger
than other children in the foster care system and are more likely to
suffer severe, chronic neglect from their parents. Once these children
are placed in the foster care system, they tend to stay in care longer
than other children.
It will be impossible to achieve the critical goal of safe, healthy,
and permanent homes for children in the child protection system if we
do not address the problems of parental alcohol and drug abuse.
Examining the effects of substance abuse involves complex and far-
reaching issues. As part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act,
the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, was directed to study
substance abuse as it relates to and within the framework of the child
protection system. Their important report, ``Blending Perspectives and
Building Common Ground,'' outlines many challenges. It concludes that
we lack the necessary array of appropriate substance abuse treatment
programs and services, and emphasizes the well-known lack of services
designed for women, especially for women and their children. In
addition, the report notes that the separate substance abuse and child
protection systems have no purposeful, planned partnership to address
the unique needs of abused and neglected children.
The report details the lack of a cooperative, inter-agency
relationship between the two systems whose staffs
[[Page S1998]]
work diligently to provide services under their own jurisdiction, but
have minimal communication, different goals, and divergent service
philosophies with regard to each other. For example, each system has
different definitions of the ``client served.'' While ASFA views the
child as ``the client'' and expects child protection agencies and
courts to consider termination, within a 22-month time frame, of
parental rights for children receiving foster care service for 15
months, substance abuse treatment providers often view the adult as the
client, with different time frames and expectations for recovery.
In order to meet the goals of ASFA, we must develop new ways to
encourage these two independent systems to work together on behalf of
parents with substance abuse problems and their children. The issues of
addiction and children receiving protection services cannot be
addressed in isolation. It is essential to consider the total picture:
The needs of the child, the needs of the parents, and cost-effective
services that meet adoption laws' goal to provide every child with a
safe, healthy, and permanent home.
The HHS report identifies significant priorities. First, it calls for
building collaborative working relationships between the child
protection and substance abuse agencies.
While substance abuse treatment is a challenge in and of itself, the
report explains that effective treatment is further complicated for
parents with children. The majority of substance abuse treatment
programs are not set up to serve both women and their children. While
our country in general lacks the comprehensive services needed for such
families, there are some models and promising practices on how to serve
both parents and children.
One model can be found in my State, the MOTHERS program in Beckley,
WV, which serves women and their children. The majority of these women
have either lost custody of their children or were under child
protection service investigation or mandate, are typically unemployed
and untrained for gainful employment, have few aspirations, and wrestle
with depression. This innovation program simultaneously addresses the
needs of both mothers and their children, through individual and joint
therapy, in such areas as recovery, mental health counseling,
employment, academic education, healthy living skills, parenting, and
family permanency. These services are provided using a residential
model where mothers and their children live in a therapeutic
environment and receive temporary housing, meal service, recreation
activities, and transportation to and from community Alcoholics
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The bill we are introducing
today would give other localities the opportunity to develop similar
programs or alternative models.
In addition, the HHS report recognizes the importance of research to
better understand the relationship between substance abuse and child
maltreatment.
Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, DeWine,
and Dodd, to introduce legislation to address the challenges of abused
and neglected children whose parents have alcohol and/or drug problems.
We have worked with state officials, child advocates, criminal justice
officials, and members of the substance abuse community to develop the
Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2001. This bill
builds on ASFA's fundamental goal of making a child's safety, health,
and permanency paramount.
To accomplish this bold purpose, we must invest in a partnership
designed to respond to the needs and priorities outlined in the HHS
report. I believe that a new program and a new approach are essential.
Existing substance abuse treatment programs such as those designed to
serve single males cannot respond to the needs of a mother and her
child.
To be effective, we must connect child protection and substance abuse
treatment staffs and support them to work in partnership to test and
identify best practices. Forging new partnerships take time--and it
takes money. That is why this bill invests $1.9 billion over 5 years to
combat the problems of substance abuse faced by families whose children
are sheltered by the child protection system. I understand this is a
large sum, but alcohol and drug abuse is an enormous problem in our
country and represents an overwhelming financial and human loss. Before
reacting to the bill expenditure alone, consider the costs we would
incur if we remain silent on this issue. If we do not invest in
substance abuse prevention and treatment for such families, we cannot
effectively combat the abuse and neglect of children.
Our bill is designed to tackle this tough issue and encourage child
protection and substance abuse agencies to work in partnership and
promote innovative approaches within both of their systems to support
women and their children. This bill can provide funding for outreach
services to families, screening and assessment to enhance prevention,
outpatient or residential treatment services, retention supports to aid
mothers to remain in treatment, and aftercare services to keep families
and children safe. This bill also addresses the importance of dual
training for the staffs of the child protection and substance abuse
treatment systems, to share effective strategies in order to meet the
goal of safe and permanent homes for children.
If we choose to invest in child protection and substance abuse
partnerships for families, we can achieve two things. For many
families, I hope that parents will achieve sobriety through treatment
and that their children will return to a safe and stable home. For
those who are unsuccessful, we will know that we have put forth a
reasonable, good faith effort and learned an important lesson--that
some children need alternate homes, and that we will still need to
pursue adoption for some children. Under the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, courts cannot move forward on adoption until appropriate services
have been provided to families. That is the law, and we need to follow
it.
Our bill will promote a responsible approach with a focus on
accountability. It requires annual progress reports that detail defined
outcomes, challenges, and proposed solutions. These reports will
evaluate parental treatment outcomes, the child's safety, and the
stability of the family.
Throughout the years, I have worked to address the needs of abused
and neglected children in a bipartisan matter. I am proud to continue
this bipartisan approach as we come to grips with such a controversial
and emotionally charged issue as protecting children who are abused and
neglected by their substance-abusing parents.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 485. A bill to amend Federal law regarding the tolling of the
Interstate Highway System; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to bring to your attention an
issue of great national concern. We all remember the great debate that
this chamber had last year during reauthorization of the federal
highway bill, TEA-21. We all negotiated to get more funds for our
states because we know that more investment in our highways means
better, safer, and more efficient transportation for those who reply on
roads for making deliveries, going to work or school, or just doing the
grocery shopping. Transportation is the linchpin for economic
development, and those states that have good, efficient transportation
systems attract business development, ultimately raising standards of
living. However, I think that we may have gone too far in authorizing
states additional means to raise revenue for highway improvements.
These means to raise revenue are not productive and hurt our system of
transportation.
Specifically, I am concerned that states have too much flexibility to
establish tolls on our Interstate highway system. For many states, the
large increases in TEA-21 funding have satisfied the need to invest in
infrastructure. Other states have found that they need to raise more
money, and so they have raised their state fuel taxes or taken other
actions to raise the needed revenue. These increases may be difficult
to implement politically, because frankly most people don't support any
tax increase. However, I believe that highway tolls are a non-
productive and overly intrusive means of raising revenue causing more
harm to commerce than can be justified.
[[Page S1999]]
Congress, mistakenly in my opinion, increased the authority of states
to put tolls on their Interstate highway in TEA-21. I am introducing
the interstate Tolls Relief Act of 2001 to restrict Interstate toll
authority. The debate over highway tolls goes back to the genesis of
our Republic, and contributed to our movement away from the Articles of
Confederation to a more uniform system of governance under the U.S.
Constitution. Toll roads were the bane of commerce, in the early years
of the Republic, as each state would attempt to toll the interstate
traveling public to finance state public improvements. Ultimately,
frustration with delay and uneven costs helped contribute to the
adoption of Commerce Clause powers to help facilitate interstate and
foreign trade. Those same concerns hold true today, and I think that we
in Congress must take a national perspective and promote interstate
commerce.
I think that if one were to ask the citizens of the United States
about tolls, they would ultimately conclude that Interstate tolls would
reduce by efficiency of our Interstate highways, increase shipping
costs, and make interstate travel more expensive and less convenient.
Not to mention the safety problems associated with erecting toll booths
and operating them to collect revenues.
Now, I recognize that tolls under certain circumstances may be a good
idea, and my bill does not prevent states from tolling non-Interstate
highways. My bill also does not affect tolls on highways where they are
already in use, and states will continue to be able to rely on existing
tolls for revenues. Furthermore, my bill recognizes that when funds
must be found for a major Interstate bridge or tunnel project, states
may have no other option but to use tolls to finance the project. They
may continue to do so under my bill. I believe this consistent with the
original intent of authority granted for Interstate tolls. What my bill
does is to prevent the proliferation of Interstate tolls, and restrict
tolling authority for major bridges and tunnels.
This bill is essential if we are to continue to have an Interstate
Highway System that is safe and facilitates the efficient movement of
Interstate commerce and personal travel. I urge the support of my
colleagues.
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. 485
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 ``Interstate Tolls Relief Act
of 2001''.
SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
PILOT PROGRAM REPEALED.
Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (112 Stat. 212-214; 23 U.S.C. 19 nt) is
repealed.
SEC. 3. TOLLS ON BRIDGES AND TUNNELS.
Section 129(a)(1)(C) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``toll-free bridge or tunnel'' and
inserting ``toll-free major bridge or toll-free tunnel''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF TOLL REVENUES.
Section 129(a)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) striking ``first'' in the first sentence and inserting
``only''; and
(2) striking ``If the State certifies annually that the
tolled facility is being adequately maintained, the State may
use any toll revenues in excess of amounts required under the
preceding sentence for any purpose for which Federal funds
may be obligated by a State under this title.''.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Akaka, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 486. A bill to reduce the risk that innocent persons may be
executed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a little over one year ago, I came to this
floor to draw attention to the growing crisis in the administration of
capital punishment. I noted the startling number of cases, 85, in which
death row inmates had been exonerated after long stays in prison. In
some of those cases, the inmate had come within days of being executed.
A lot has happened in a year. For one thing, a lot more death row
inmates have been exonerated. The number jumped in a single year from
85 all the way to 95. There are now 95 people in 22 States who have
been cleared of the crime that sent them to death row, according to the
Death Penalty Information Center. The appalling number of exonerations,
and the fact that they span so many States, a substantial majority of
the States that have the death penalty, makes it clearer than ever that
the crisis I spoke of last year is real, and that it is national in its
scope. This is not an ``Illinois problem'' or a ``Texas problem.'' Nor,
with Earl Washington's release last month from prison, is it a
``Virginia problem.'' There are death penalty problems across the
nation, and as a nation we need to pay attention to what is happening.
It seems like every time you pick up a paper these days, there is
another story about another person who was sentenced to death for a
crime that he did not commit. The most horrifying miscarriages of
justice are becoming commonplace: ``Yet Another Innocent Person Cleared
By DNA, Walks Off Death Row,'' story on page 10. We should never forget
that behind each of these headlines is a person whose life was
completely shattered and nearly extinguished by a wrongful conviction.
And those were the ``lucky'' ones. We simply do not know how many
innocent people remain on death row, and how many may already have been
executed.
People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of
the death penalty. I have always opposed it. I did when I was a
prosecutor, and I do today. But no matter what you believe about the
death penalty, no one wants to see innocent people sentenced to death.
It is completely unacceptable.
A year ago, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced the
Innocence Protection Act of 2000. I hoped this bill would stimulate a
national debate and begin work on national reforms on what is, as I
said, a national problem. A year later, the national debate is well
under way, but the need for real, concrete reforms is more urgent than
ever.
Today, my friend Gordon Smith and I are introducing the Innocence
Protection Act of 2001. We are joined by Senators from both sides of
the aisle, by some who support capital punishment and by others who
oppose it. On the Republican side, I want to thank Senators Susan
Collins and Lincoln Chafee, and my fellow Vermonter Jim Jeffords. On
the Democratic side, my thanks to Senators Levin, Feingold, Kennedy,
Akaka, Mikulski, Dodd, Lieberman, Torricelli, Wellstone, Boxer and
Corzine. I also want to thank our House sponsors William Delahunt, and
Ray LaHood, along with their 117 additional cosponsors, both Democratic
and Republican.
Over the last year we have turned the corner in showing that the
death process is broken. Now we will push forward to our goal of acting
on reforms that address these problems.
Here on Capitol Hill it is our job to represent the public. The
scores of legislators who have sponsored this legislation clearly do
represent the American public, both in their diversity and in their
readiness to work together in a bipartisan manner for common-sense
solutions.
Too often in this chamber, we find ourselves dividing along party or
ideological lines. The Innocence Protection Act is not about that, and
it is not about whether, in the abstract, you favor or disfavor the
death penalty. It is about what kind of society we want America to be
in the 21st Century.
The goal of our bill is simple, but profoundly important: to reduce
the risk of mistaken executions. The Innocence Protection Act proposes
basic, common-sense reforms to our criminal justice system that are
designed to protect the innocent and to ensure that if the death
penalty is imposed, it is the result of informed and reasoned
deliberation, not politics, luck, bias, or guesswork. We have listened
to a lot of good advice and made some refinements to the bill since the
last Congress, but it is still structured around
[[Page S2000]]
two principal reforms: improving the availability of DNA testing, and
ensuring reasonable minimum standards and funding for court-appointed
counsel.
The need to make DNA testing more available is obvious. DNA is the
fingerpint of the 21st Century. Prosecutors across the country use it,
and rightly so, to prove guilt. By the same token, it should be used to
do what it is equally scientifically reliable to do, prove innocence.
Our bill would provide broader access to DNA testing by convicted
offenders. It would also prevent the premature destruction of
biological evidence that could hold the key to clearing an innocent
person or identifying the real culprit.
I am gratified that our bill has served as a catalyst for reforms in
the States with respect to post-conviction DNA testing. In just one
year, several States have passed some form of DNA legislation. Others
have DNA bills under consideration. Much of this legislation is modeled
on the DNA provisions proposed in the Innocence Protection Act, and we
can be proud about this.
But there are still many States that have not moved on this issue,
even though it has been more than six years since New York passed the
Nation's first post-conviction DNA statute. And some of the States that
have acted have done so in ways that will leave the vast majority of
prisoners without access to DNA testing. Moreover, none of these new
laws addresses the larger and more urgent problem of ensuring that
people facing the death penalty have adequate legal representation. The
Innocence Protection Act does address this problem.
In our adversarial system of justice, effective assistance of counsel
is essential to the fair administration of justice. Unfortunately, the
manner in which defense lawyers are selected and compensated in death
penalty cases too often results in fundamental unfairness and
unreliable verdicts. More than two-thirds of all death sentences are
overturned on appeal or after post-conviction review because of errors
in the trial; such errors are minimized when the defendant has a
competent counsel.
It is a sobering fact that in some areas of the Nation it is often
better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. All too often,
lawyers defending people whose lives are at stake are inexperienced,
inept, or just plain incompetent. All too often, they fail to take the
time to review the evidence and understand the basic facts of the case
before the trial is under way.
The reasons for this inadequacy of representation are well know: lack
of standards for choosing defense counsel, and lack of funding for this
type of legal service. The Innocence Protection Act addresses these
problems head on. It calls for the creation of a temporary Commission
on Capital Representation, which would consist of distinguished
American legal experts who have experienced the criminal justice system
first hand, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. The Commission
would be tasked with formulating standards that specify the elements of
an effective system for providing adequate representation in capital
cases. The bill also authorizes more than $50,000,000 in grants to help
put the new standards into effect.
We have consulted a great many legal experts in the course of
formulating these provisions. They have all provided valuable insights,
but as a former prosecutor myself, I have been particularly pleased
with the encouragement and assistance we have received from prosecutors
across the nation.
Good prosecutors have two things in common. First, good prosecutors
want to convict the person, not to get a conviction that may be a
mistake, and that may leave the real culprit in the clear. Second, good
prosecutors want defendants to be represented by good defense lawyers.
Lawyers who investigate their client's cases thoroughly before trial,
and represent their clients vigorously in court, are essential in
getting at the truth in our adversarial system.
Given some leadership from the people's representatives in Congress,
some fair and objective standards, and some funding, America's
prosecutors will be ready, willing and able to help fix the system. We
owe them, and the American people, that leadership.
On August 3, 1995, more than five years ago, the Conference of Chief
Justices urged the judicial leadership in each State in which the death
penalty is authorized by law to ``establish standards and a process
that will assure the timely appointment of competent counsel, with
adequate resources, to represent defendants in capital cases at each
stage of such proceedings.'' The States' top jurists, the people who
run our justice system, called for reform. But not much came of their
initiative. Although a few States have established effective standards
and sound administrative systems for the appointment and compensation
of counsel in capital cases, most have not. The do-nothing politics of
gridlock got in the way of sensible, consensus-based reform.
We have made a commitment to the American people to do better than
that. At the end of the last Congress, members on both sides of the
aisle joined together to pass the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act and the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act.
I strongly supported both bills, which will give States the help they
desperately need to reduce the backlogs of untested DNA evidence in
their crime labs, and to improve the quality and capacity of these
facilities. Both bills passed unanimously in both houses. And in both
bills, all of us here in Congress committed ourselves to working with
the States to ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing in
appropriate cases, and to improve the quality of legal representation
in capital cases through the establishment of counsel standards.
Congress has already gone on record in recognizing what has to be done.
Now it is time to actually do it.
If we had a series of close calls in airline traffic, we would be
rushing to fix the problem. These close calls on death row should
concentrate our minds, and focus our will, to act.
This new Congress is, as our new President has said, a time for
leadership. It is a time for fulfilling the commitments we have made to
the American people. And it is a time for action. The Innocence
Protection Act is a bipartisan effort to move beyond the politics of
gridlock. By passing it, we can work cooperatively with the States to
ensure that defendants who are put on trial for their lives have
competent legal representation at every stage of their cases. By
passing it, we can send a message about the values of fundamental
justice that unite all Americans. And by passing it, we can
substantially reduce the risk of executing innocent people. We have had
a constructive debate, and we have made a noble commitment. It is now
time to act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of
the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 486
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Innocence
Protection Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING
Sec. 101. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 102. Post-conviction DNA testing in Federal criminal justice
system.
Sec. 103. Post-conviction DNA testing in State criminal justice
systems.
Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment.
Sec. 105. Grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.
TITLE II--ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES
Sec. 201. National Commission on Capital Representation.
Sec. 202. Capital defense incentive grants.
Sec. 203. Amendments to prison grant programs.
Sec. 204. Effect on procedural default rules.
Sec. 205. Capital defense resource grants.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Increased compensation in Federal cases.
Sec. 302. Compensation in State death penalty cases.
Sec. 303. Certification requirement in Federal death penalty
prosecutions.
Sec. 304. Alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of
release.
Sec. 305. Right to an informed jury.
Sec. 306. Annual reports.
Sec. 307. Sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile
offenders and the mentally retarded.
[[Page S2001]]
TITLE I--EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing
(referred to in this section as ``DNA testing'') has emerged
as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying
criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene.
(2) Because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can,
in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence
of a criminal defendant. In other cases, DNA testing may not
conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have
significant probative value to a finder of fact.
(3) While DNA testing is increasingly commonplace in
pretrial investigations today, it was not widely available in
cases tried prior to 1994. Moreover, new forensic DNA testing
procedures have made it possible to get results from minute
samples that could not previously be tested, and to obtain
more informative and accurate results than earlier forms of
forensic DNA testing could produce. Consequently, in some
cases convicted inmates have been exonerated by new DNA tests
after earlier tests had failed to produce definitive results.
(4) Since DNA testing is often feasible on relevant
biological material that is decades old, it can, in some
circumstances, prove that a conviction that predated the
development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual
findings. Uniquely, DNA evidence showing innocence, produced
decades after a conviction, provides a more reliable basis
for establishing a correct verdict than any evidence
proffered at the original trial. DNA testing, therefore, can
and has resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of
innocent men and women.
(5) In more than 80 cases in the United States, DNA
evidence has led to the exoneration of innocent men and women
who were wrongfully convicted. This number includes at least
10 individuals sentenced to death, some of whom came within
days of being executed.
(6) In more than a dozen cases, post-conviction DNA testing
that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced
public safety by providing evidence that led to the
identification of the actual perpetrator.
(7) Experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome
to make DNA testing available to inmates. The cost of that
testing is relatively modest and has decreased in recent
years. Moreover, the number of cases in which post-conviction
DNA testing is appropriate is small, and will decrease as
pretrial testing becomes more common.
(8) Under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to
obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits on
introducing newly discovered evidence. Under Federal law,
motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence
must be made within 3 years after conviction. In most States,
those motions must be made not later than 2 years after
conviction, and sometimes much sooner. The result is that
laws intended to prevent the use of evidence that has become
less reliable over time have been used to preclude the use of
DNA evidence that remains highly reliable even decades after
trial.
(9) The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,
a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice and
comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific
experts, has urged that post-conviction DNA testing be
permitted in the relatively small number of cases in which it
is appropriate, notwithstanding procedural rules that could
be invoked to preclude that testing, and notwithstanding the
inability of an inmate to pay for the testing.
(10) Since New York passed the Nation's first post-
conviction DNA statute in 1994, only a few States have
adopted post-conviction DNA testing procedures, and some of
these procedures are unduly restrictive. Moreover, only a
handful of States have passed legislation requiring that
biological evidence be adequately preserved.
(11) In 1994, Congress passed the DNA Identification Act,
which authorized the construction of the Combined DNA Index
System, a national database to facilitate law enforcement
exchange of DNA identification information, and authorized
funding to improve the quality and availability of DNA
testing for law enforcement identification purposes. In 2000,
Congress passed the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act and
the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, which
together authorized an additional $908,000,000 over 6 years
in DNA-related grants.
(12) Congress should continue to provide financial
assistance to the States to increase the capacity of State
and local laboratories to carry out DNA testing for law
enforcement identification purposes. At the same time,
Congress should insist that States which accept financial
assistance make DNA testing available to both sides of the
adversarial system in order to enhance the reliability and
integrity of that system.
(13) In Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), a majority
of the members of the Court suggested that a persuasive
showing of innocence made after trial would render the
execution of an inmate unconstitutional.
(14) It shocks the conscience and offends social standards
of fairness and decency to execute innocent persons or to
deny inmates the opportunity to present persuasive evidence
of their innocence.
(15) If biological material is not subjected to DNA testing
in appropriate cases, there is a significant risk that
persuasive evidence of innocence will not be detected and,
accordingly, that innocent persons will be unconstitutionally
executed.
(16) Given the irremediable constitutional harm that would
result from the execution of an innocent person and the
failure of many States to ensure that innocent persons are
not sentenced to death, a Federal statute assuring the
availability of DNA testing and a chance to present the
results of testing in court is a congruent and proportional
prophylactic measure to prevent constitutional injuries from
occurring.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) substantially implement the Recommendations of the
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence in the
Federal criminal justice system, by authorizing DNA testing
in appropriate cases;
(2) prevent the imposition of unconstitutional punishments
through the exercise of power granted by clause 1 of section
8 and clause 2 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution
of the United States and section 5 of the 14th amendment to
the Constitution of the United States; and
(3) ensure that wrongfully convicted persons have an
opportunity to establish their innocence through DNA testing,
by requiring the preservation of DNA evidence for a limited
period.
SEC. 102. POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Part VI of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after chapter 155 the following:
``CHAPTER 156--DNA TESTING
``Sec.
``2291. DNA testing.
``2292. Preservation of evidence.
``Sec. 2291. DNA testing
``(a) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a person convicted of a Federal crime may apply to the
appropriate Federal court for DNA testing to support a claim
that the person did not commit--
``(1) the Federal crime of which the person was convicted;
or
``(2) any other offense that a sentencing authority may
have relied upon when it sentenced the person with respect to
the Federal crime either to death or to an enhanced term of
imprisonment as a career offender or armed career criminal.
``(b) Notice to Government.--The court shall notify the
Government of an application made under subsection (a) and
shall afford the Government an opportunity to respond.
``(c) Preservation Order.--The court shall order that all
evidence secured in relation to the case that could be
subjected to DNA testing must be preserved during the
pendency of the proceeding. The court may impose appropriate
sanctions, including criminal contempt, for the intentional
destruction of evidence after such an order.
``(d) Order.--
``(1) In general.--The court shall order DNA testing
pursuant to an application made under subsection (a) upon a
determination that--
``(A) the evidence is still in existence, and in such a
condition that DNA testing may be conducted;
``(B) the evidence was never previously subjected to DNA
testing, or was not subject to the type of DNA testing that
is now requested and that may resolve an issue not resolved
by previous testing;
``(C) the proposed DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
technique; and
``(D) the proposed DNA testing has the scientific potential
to produce new, noncumulative evidence material to the claim
of the applicant that the applicant did not commit--
``(i) the Federal crime of which the applicant was
convicted; or
``(ii) any other offense that a sentencing authority may
have relied upon when it sentenced the applicant with respect
to the Federal crime either to death or to an enhanced term
of imprisonment as a career offender or armed career
criminal.
``(2) Limitation.--The court shall not order DNA testing
under paragraph (1) if the Government proves by a
preponderance of the evidence that the application for
testing was made to unreasonably delay the execution of
sentence or administration of justice, rather than to support
a claim described in paragraph (1)(D).
``(3) Testing procedures.--If the court orders DNA testing
under paragraph (1), the court shall impose reasonable
conditions on such testing designed to protect the integrity
of the evidence and the testing process and the reliability
of the test results.
``(e) Cost.--The cost of DNA testing ordered under
subsection (c) shall be borne by the Government or the
applicant, as the court may order in the interests of
justice, except that an applicant shall not be denied testing
because of an inability to pay the cost of testing.
``(f) Counsel.--The court may at any time appoint counsel
for an indigent applicant under this section pursuant to
section 3006A(a)(2)(B) of title 18.
``(g) Post-Testing Procedures.--
``(1) Inconclusive results.--If the results of DNA testing
conducted under this section
[[Page S2002]]
are inconclusive, the court may order such further testing as
may be appropriate or dismiss the application.
``(2) Results unfavorable to applicant.--If the results of
DNA testing conducted under this section inculpate the
applicant, the court shall--
``(A) dismiss the application;
``(B) assess the applicant for the cost of the testing; and
``(C) make such further orders as may be appropriate.
``(3) Results favorable to applicant.--If the results of
DNA testing conducted under this section are favorable to the
applicant, the court shall order a hearing and thereafter
make such further orders as may be appropriate under
applicable rules and statutes regarding post-conviction
proceedings, notwithstanding any provision of law that would
bar such hearing or orders as untimely.
``(h) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) Other post-conviction relief unaffected.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to limit the circumstances
under which a person may obtain DNA testing or other post-
conviction relief under any other provision of law.
``(2) Finality rule unaffected.--An application under this
section shall not be considered a motion under section 2255
for purposes of determining whether it or any other motion is
a second or successive motion under section 2255.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate Federal court.--The term `appropriate
Federal court' means--
``(A) the United States District Court which imposed the
sentence from which the applicant seeks relief; or
``(B) in relation to a crime under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the United States District Court having
jurisdiction over the place where the court martial was
convened that imposed the sentence from which the applicant
seeks relief, or the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, if no United States District Court has
jurisdiction over the place where the court martial was
convened.
``(2) Federal crime.--The term `Federal crime' includes a
crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
``Sec. 2292. Preservation of evidence
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to subsection (b), the Government shall
preserve all evidence that was secured in relation to the
investigation or prosecution of a Federal crime (as that term
is defined in section 2291(i)), and that could be subjected
to DNA testing, for not less than the period of time that any
person remains subject to incarceration in connection with
the investigation or prosecution.
``(b) Exceptions.--The Government may dispose of evidence
before the expiration of the period of time described in
subsection (a) if--
``(1) other than subsection (a), no statute, regulation,
court order, or other provision of law requires that the
evidence be preserved; and
``(2)(A)(i) the Government notifies any person who remains
incarcerated in connection with the investigation or
prosecution and any counsel of record for such person (or, if
there is no counsel of record, the public defender for the
judicial district in which the conviction for such person was
imposed), of the intention of the Government to dispose of
the evidence and the provisions of this chapter; and
``(ii) the Government affords such person not less than 180
days after such notification to make an application under
section 2291(a) for DNA testing of the evidence; or
``(B)(i) the evidence must be returned to its rightful
owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical character as
to render retention impracticable; and
``(ii) the Government takes reasonable measures to remove
and preserve portions of the material evidence sufficient to
permit future DNA testing.
``(c) Remedies for Noncompliance.--
``(1) General limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to give rise to a claim for damages against the
United States, or any employee of the United States, any
court official or officer of the court, or any entity
contracting with the United States.
``(2) Civil penalty.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an
individual who knowingly violates a provision of this section
or a regulation prescribed under this section shall be liable
to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $1,000 for the first violation and $5,000 for each
subsequent violation, except that the total amount imposed on
the individual for all such violations during a calendar year
may not exceed $25,000.
``(B) Procedures.--The provisions of section 405 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844a) (other than
subsections (a) through (d) and subsection (j)) shall apply
to the imposition of a civil penalty under subparagraph (A)
in the same manner as such provisions apply to the imposition
of a penalty under section 405.
``(C) Prior conviction.--A civil penalty may not be
assessed under subparagraph (A) with respect to an act if
that act previously resulted in a conviction under chapter 73
of title 18.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations to implement and enforce this section.
``(B) Contents.--The regulations shall include the
following:
``(i) Disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or
termination from employment, for employees of the Department
of Justice who knowingly or repeatedly violate a provision of
this section.
``(ii) An administrative procedure through which parties
can file formal complaints with the Department of Justice
alleging violations of this section.''.
(b) Criminal Penalty.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1519. Destruction or altering of DNA Evidence.
Whoever willfully or maliciously destroys, alters,
conceals, or tampers with evidence that is required to be
preserved under section 2292 of title 28, United States Code,
with intent to--
(1) impair the integrity of that evidence;
(2) prevent that evidence from being subjected to DNA
testing; or
(3) prevent the production or use of that evidence in an
official proceeding,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The analysis for part VI of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
chapter 155 the following:
``156. DNA testing..........................................2291''.....
(2) The table of contents for Chapter 73 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 1518 the following:
``1519. Destruction or altering of DNA Evidence.''.
SEC. 103. POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING IN STATE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEMS.
(a) Certification Regarding Post-Conviction Testing and
Preservation of DNA Evidence.--If any part of funds received
from a grant made under a program listed in subsection (b) is
to be used to develop or improve a DNA analysis capability in
a forensic laboratory, or to collect, analyze, or index DNA
samples for law enforcement identification purposes, the
State applying for that grant must certify that it will--
(1) make post-conviction DNA testing available to any
person convicted of a State crime in a manner consistent with
section 2291 of title 28, United States Code, and, if the
results of such testing are favorable to such person, allow
such person to apply for post-conviction relief,
notwithstanding any provision of law that would bar such
application as untimely; and
(2) preserve all evidence that was secured in relation to
the investigation or prosecution of a State crime, and that
could be subjected to DNA testing, for not less than the
period of time that such evidence would be required to be
preserved under section 2292 of title 28, United States Code,
if the evidence were related to a Federal crime.
(b) Programs Affected.--The certification requirement
established by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to
grants made under the following programs:
(1) DNA analysis backlog elimination grants.--Section 2 of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-546).
(2) Paul coverdell national forensic sciences improvement
grants.--Part BB of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as added by Public Law 106-561).
(3) DNA identification grants.--Part X of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796kk et seq.).
(4) Drug control and system improvement grants.--Subpart 1
of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751 et seq.).
(5) Public safety and community policing grants.--Part Q of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.).
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to any grant made on or after the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 104. PROHIBITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH
AMENDMENT.
(a) Application for DNA Testing.--No State shall deny an
application for DNA testing made by a prisoner in State
custody who is under sentence of death, if the proposed DNA
testing has the scientific potential to produce new,
noncumulative evidence material to the claim of the prisoner
that the prisoner did not commit--
(1) the offense for which the prisoner was sentenced to
death; or
(2) any other offense that a sentencing authority may have
relied upon when it sentenced the prisoner to death.
(b) Opportunity To Present Results of DNA Testing.--No
State shall rely upon a time limit or procedural default rule
to deny a prisoner in State custody who is under sentence of
death an opportunity to present in an appropriate State court
new, noncumulative DNA results that establish a reasonable
probability that the prisoner did not commit an offense
described in subsection (a).
(c) Remedy.--A prisoner in State custody who is under
sentence of death may enforce subsections (a) and (b) in a
civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed
either in a State court of general jurisdiction or in
[[Page S2003]]
a district court of the United States, naming an executive or
judicial officer of the State as defendant.
(d) Finality Rule Unaffected.--An application under this
section shall not be considered an application for a writ of
habeas corpus under section 2254 of title 28, United States
Code, for purposes of determining whether it or any other
application is a second or successive application under
section 2254.
SEC. 105. GRANTS TO PROSECUTORS FOR DNA TESTING PROGRAMS.
Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(b)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (25);
(2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (26) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) adding at the end the following:
``(27) prosecutor-initiated programs to conduct a
systematic review of convictions to identify cases in which
DNA testing is appropriate and to offer DNA testing to
inmates in such cases.''.
TITLE II--ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES
SEC. 201. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CAPITAL REPRESENTATION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Commission on Capital Representation (referred to in this
section as the ``Commission'').
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall--
(1) survey existing and proposed systems for appointing
counsel in capital cases, and the amounts actually paid by
governmental entities for capital defense services; and
(2) formulate standards specifying the elements of an
effective system for providing adequate representation,
including counsel and investigative, expert, and other
services necessary for adequate representation, to--
(A) indigents charged with offenses for which capital
punishment is sought;
(B) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek
appellate or collateral review in State court; and
(C) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek
certiorari review in the Supreme Court of the United States.
(c) Elements.--The elements of an effective system
described in subsection (b)(2) shall include--
(1) a centralized and independent appointing authority,
which shall--
(A) recruit attorneys who are qualified to be appointed in
the proceedings specified in subsection (b)(2);
(B) draft and annually publish a roster of qualified
attorneys;
(C) draft and annually publish qualifications and
performance standards that attorneys must satisfy to be
listed on the roster and procedures by which qualified
attorneys are identified;
(D) periodically review the roster, monitor the performance
of all attorneys appointed, provide a mechanism by which
members of the relevant State Bar may comment on the
performance of their peers, and delete the name of any
attorney who fails to satisfactorily complete regular
training programs on the representation of clients in capital
cases, fails to meet performance standards in a case to which
the attorney is appointed, or otherwise fails to demonstrate
continuing competence to represent clients in capital cases;
(E) conduct or sponsor specialized training programs for
attorneys representing clients in capital cases;
(F) appoint lead counsel and co-counsel from the roster to
represent a client in a capital case promptly upon receiving
notice of the need for an appointment from the relevant State
court; and
(G) report the appointment, or the failure of the client to
accept such appointment, to the court requesting the
appointment;
(2) adequate compensation of private attorneys for actual
time and service, computed on an hourly basis and at a
reasonable hourly rate in light of the qualifications and
experience of the attorney and the local market for legal
representation in cases reflecting the complexity and
responsibility of capital cases;
(3) reimbursement of private attorneys and public defender
organizations for attorney expenses reasonably incurred in
the representation of a client in a capital case; and
(4) reimbursement of private attorneys and public defender
organizations for the reasonable costs of law clerks,
paralegals, investigators, experts, scientific tests, and
other support services necessary in the representation of a
client in a capital case.
(d) Membership.--
(1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 9 members, as follows:
(A) Four members appointed by the President on the basis of
their expertise and eminence within the field of criminal
justice, 2 of whom have 10 years or more experience in
representing defendants in State capital proceedings,
including trial, direct appeal, or post-conviction
proceedings, and 2 of whom have 10 years or more experience
in prosecuting defendants in such proceedings.
(B) Two members appointed by the Conference of Chief
Justices, from among the members of the judiciaries of the
several States.
(C) Two members appointed by the Chief Justice of the
United States, from among the members of the Federal
Judiciary.
(D) The Chairman of the Committee on Defender Services of
the Judicial Conference of the United States, or a designee
of the Chairman.
(2) Ex officio member.--The Executive Director of the State
Justice Institute, or a designee of the Executive Director,
shall serve as an ex officio nonvoting member of the
Commission.
(3) Political affiliation.--Not more than 2 members
appointed under paragraph (1)(A) may be of the same political
party.
(4) Geographic distribution.--The appointment of
individuals under paragraph (1) shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be made so as to ensure that different
geographic areas of the United States are represented in the
membership of the Commission.
(5) Terms.--Members of the Commission appointed under
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission.
(6) Deadline for appointments.--All appointments to the
Commission shall be made not later than 45 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(7) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, and shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made.
(8) No compensation.--Members of the Commission shall serve
without compensation for their service.
(9) Travel expenses.--Members of the Commission shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(10) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(11) Initial meeting.--The initial meeting of the
Commission shall occur not later than 30 days after the date
on which all initial members of the Commission have been
appointed.
(12) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the
Commission, a majority of the members of the Commission
present and voting shall elect a Chairperson from among the
members of the Commission appointed under paragraph (1).
(e) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay
of such personnel as the Commission considers appropriate.
(2) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code.
(f) Powers.--
(1) Information-gathering activities.--The Commission may,
for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings,
receive public comment and testimony, initiate surveys, and
undertake such other activities to gather information as the
Commission may find advisable.
(2) Obtaining official information.--The Commission may
secure directly from any department or agency of the United
States such information as the Commission considers necessary
to carry out this section. Upon request of the chairperson of
the Commission, the head of that department or agency shall
provide such information, except to the extent prohibited by
law.
(3) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
(4) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the United States.
(g) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall submit a report to
the President and the Congress before the end of the 1-year
period beginning after the first meeting of all members of
the Commission.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall contain--
(A) a comparative analysis of existing and proposed systems
for appointing counsel in capital cases, and the amounts
actually paid by governmental entities for capital defense
services; and
(B) such standards as are formulated by the Commission
pursuant to subsection (b)(2), together with such commentary
and recommendations as the Commission considers appropriate.
(h) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 90 days
after submitting the report under subsection (g).
(i) Expenses of Commission.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to pay any expenses of the Commission such sums
as may be necessary not to exceed $1,000,000. Any sums
appropriated for such purposes are authorized to remain
available until expended, or until the termination of the
Commission pursuant to subsection (h), whichever occurs
first.
SEC. 202. CAPITAL DEFENSE INCENTIVE GRANTS.
The State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 207 the
following:
``SEC. 207A. CAPITAL DEFENSE INCENTIVE GRANTS.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The State Justice Institute
(referred to in this section as the `Institute') may make
grants to State agencies and organizations responsible for
the administration of standards of legal competence for
counsel in capital cases, for the purposes of--
[[Page S2004]]
``(1) implementing new mechanisms or supporting existing
mechanisms for providing representation in capital cases that
comply with the standards promulgated by the National
Commission on Capital Representation pursuant to section
201(b) of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001; and
``(2) otherwise improving the quality of legal
representation in capital cases.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under this
section may be used for any purpose that the Institute
determines is likely to achieve the purposes described in
subsection (a), including--
``(1) training and development of training capacity to
ensure that attorneys assigned to capital cases meet such
standards;
``(2) augmentation of attorney, paralegal, investigator,
expert witness, and other staff and services necessary for
capital defense; and
``(3) development of new mechanisms for addressing
complaints about attorney competence and performance in
capital cases.
``(c) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--No grant may be made under this section
unless an application has been submitted to, and approved by,
the Institute.
``(2) Application.--An application for a grant under this
section shall be submitted in such form, and contain such
information, as the Institute may prescribe by regulation or
guideline.
``(3) Contents.--In accordance with the regulations or
guidelines established by the Institute, each application for
a grant under this section shall--
``(A) include a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation program that reflects consultation with the
organized bar of the State, the highest court of the State,
and the Attorney General of the State, and reflects
consideration of a statewide strategy; and
``(B) specify plans for obtaining necessary support and
continuing the proposed program following the termination of
Federal support.
``(d) Rules and Regulations.--The Institute may issue
rules, regulations, guidelines, and instructions, as
necessary, to carry out the purposes of this section.
``(e) Technical Assistance and Training.--To assist and
measure the effectiveness and performance of programs funded
under this section, the Institute may provide technical
assistance and training, as required.
``(f) Grant Period.--A grant under this section shall be
made for a period not longer than 3 years, but may be renewed
on such terms as the Institute may require.
``(g) Limitations on Use of Funds.--
``(1) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available
under this section shall not be used to supplant State or
local funds, but shall be used to supplement the amount of
funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds received
under this section, be made available from States or local
sources.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant made
under this part may not exceed--
``(A) for the first fiscal year for which a program
receives assistance, 75 percent of the total costs of such
program; and
``(B) for subsequent fiscal years for which a program
receives assistance, 50 percent of the total costs of such
program.
``(3) Administrative costs.--A State agency or organization
may not use more than 5 percent of the funds it receives from
this section for administrative expenses, including expenses
incurred in preparing reports under subsection (h).
``(h) Report.--Each State agency or organization that
receives a grant under this section shall submit to the
Institute, at such times and in such format as the Institute
may require, a report that contains--
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of the effectiveness of such
activities in achieving ongoing compliance with the standards
formulated pursuant to section 201(b) of the Innocence
Protection Act of 2001 and improving the quality of
representation in capital cases; and
``(2) such other information as the Institute may require.
``(i) Report to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this
section, the Institute shall submit to Congress a report that
includes--
``(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this part
to each State agency or organization for such fiscal year;
``(2) a summary of the information provided in compliance
with subsection (h); and
``(3) an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the
programs that received funding under this section in
achieving ongoing compliance with the standards formulated
pursuant to section 201(b) of the Innocence Protection Act of
2001 and improving the quality of representation in capital
cases.
``(j) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `capital case'--
``(A) means any criminal case in which a defendant
prosecuted in a State court is subject to a sentence of death
or in which a death sentence has been imposed; and
``(B) includes all proceedings filed in connection with the
case, up to and including direct appellate review and post-
conviction review in State court; and
``(2) the term `representation' includes counsel and
investigative, expert, and other services necessary for
adequate representation.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section, in addition to other amounts
authorized by this Act, to remain available until expended,
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
``(2) Technical assistance and training.--Not more than 3
percent of the amount made available under paragraph (1) for
a fiscal year shall be available for technical assistance and
training activities by the Institute under subsection (e).
``(3) Evaluations.--Up to 5 percent of the amount
authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1) in any
fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses,
including expenses incurred in preparing reports under
subsection (i).''.
SEC. 203. AMENDMENTS TO PRISON GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title II of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 20110. STANDARDS FOR CAPITAL REPRESENTATION.
``(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance With Standards
for Capital Representation.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall withhold a
portion of any grant funds awarded to a State or unit of
local government under this subtitle on the first day of each
fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 2001, if such State, or the State to which such
unit of local government appertains--
``(A) prescribes, authorizes, or permits the penalty of
death for any offense, and sought, imposed, or administered
such penalty at any time during the preceding 5 fiscal years;
and
``(B) has not established or does not maintain an effective
system for providing adequate representation for indigent
persons in capital cases, in compliance with the standards
formulated by the National Commission on Capital
Representation pursuant to section 201(b) of the Innocence
Protection Act of 2001.
``(2) Withholding formula.--The amount to be withheld under
paragraph (1) shall be, in the first fiscal year that a State
is not in compliance, 10 percent of any grant funds awarded
under this subtitle to such State and any unit of local
government appertaining thereto, and shall increase by 10
percent for each year of noncompliance thereafter, up to a
maximum of 60 percent.
``(3) Disposition of withheld funds.--Funds withheld under
this subsection from apportionment to any State or unit of
local government shall be allotted by the Attorney General
and paid to the States and units of local government
receiving a grant under this subtitle, other than any State
referred to in paragraph (1), and any unit of local
government appertaining thereto, in a manner equivalent to
the manner in which the allotment under this subtitle was
determined.
``(b) Waiver of Withholding Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may waive in whole
or in part the application of the requirement of subsection
(a) for any 1-year period with respect to any State, where
immediately preceding such 1-year period the Attorney General
finds that such State has made and continues to make a good
faith effort to comply with the standards formulated by the
National Commission on Capital Representation pursuant to
section 201(b) of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001.
``(2) Limitation on waiver authority.--The Attorney General
may not grant a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to
any State for 2 consecutive 1-year periods.
``(3) Limitation on use of funds.--If the Attorney General
grants a waiver under paragraph (1), the State shall be
required to use the total amount of grant funds awarded to
such State or any unit of local government appertaining
thereto under this subtitle that would have been withheld
under subsection (a) but for the waiver to improve the
capability of such State to provide adequate representation
in capital cases.
``(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after
the end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under
this subtitle, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress
a report that includes, with respect to each State that
prescribes, authorizes, or permits the penalty of death for
any offense--
``(1) a detailed description of such State's system for
providing representation to indigent persons in capital
cases;
``(2) the amount of any grant funds withheld under
subsection (a) for such fiscal year from such State or any
unit of local government appertaining thereto, and an
explanation of why such funds were withheld; and
``(3) the amount of any grant funds released to such State
for such fiscal year pursuant to a waiver by the Attorney
General under subsection (b), and an explanation of why
waiver was granted.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 2 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 20109 the following:
``Sec. 20110. Standards for capital representation.''.
[[Page S2005]]
SEC. 204. EFFECT ON PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULES.
(a) In General.--Section 2254(e) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``In a proceeding'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), in a
proceeding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In a proceeding instituted by an applicant under
sentence of death, the court shall neither presume a finding
of fact made by a State court to be correct nor decline to
consider a claim on the ground that the applicant failed to
raise such claim in State court at the time and in the manner
prescribed by State law, if--
``(A) the applicant was financially unable to obtain
adequate representation at the stage of the State proceedings
at which the State court made the finding of fact or the
applicant failed to raise the claim, and the applicant did
not waive representation by counsel; and
``(B) the State did not provide representation to the
applicant under a State system for providing representation
that satisfied the standards formulated by the National
Commission on Capital Representation pursuant to section
201(b) of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001.''.
(b) No Retroactive Effect.--The amendments made by this
section shall not apply to any case in which the relevant
State court proceeding occurred before the end of the first
fiscal year following the formulation of standards by the
National Commission on Capital Representation pursuant to
section 201(b) of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001.
SEC. 205. CAPITAL DEFENSE RESOURCE GRANTS.
Section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and (k) as
subsections (j), (k), and (l), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Capital Defense Resource Grants.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `capital case'--
``(i) means any criminal case in which a defendant
prosecuted in a State court is subject to a sentence of death
or in which a death sentence has been imposed; and
``(ii) includes all proceedings filed in connection with
the case, including trial, appellate, and Federal and State
post-conviction proceedings;
``(B) the term `defense services' includes--
``(i) recruitment of counsel;
``(ii) training of counsel; and
``(iii) legal and administrative support and assistance to
counsel; and
``(C) the term `Director' means the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
``(2) Grant award and contract authority.--Notwithstanding
subsection (g), the Director shall award grants to, or enter
into contracts with, public agencies or private nonprofit
organizations for the purpose of providing defense services
in capital cases.
``(3) Purposes.--Grants and contracts awarded under this
subsection shall be used in connection with capital cases in
the jurisdiction of the grant recipient for 1 or more of the
following purposes:
``(A) Enhancing the availability, competence, and prompt
assignment of counsel.
``(B) Encouraging continuity of representation between
Federal and State proceedings.
``(C) Increasing the efficiency with which such cases are
resolved.
``(4) Guidelines.--The Director, in consultation with the
Judicial Conference of the United States, shall develop
guidelines to ensure that defense services provided by
recipients of grants and contracts awarded under this
subsection are consistent with applicable legal and ethical
proscriptions governing the duties of counsel in capital
cases.
``(5) Consultation.--In awarding grants and contracts under
this subsection, the Director shall consult with
representatives of the highest State court, the organized
bar, and the defense bar of the jurisdiction to be served by
the recipient of the grant or contract, and shall ensure
coordination with grants administered by the State Justice
Institute pursuant to section 207A of the State Justice
Institute Act of 1984.''.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES.
Section 2513(e) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$50,000 for each 12-
month period of incarceration, except that a plaintiff who
was unjustly sentenced to death may be awarded not more than
$100,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration.''.
SEC. 302. COMPENSATION IN STATE DEATH PENALTY CASES.
Section 20105(b)(1) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13705(b)(1)) is amended
by--
(1) striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) adding at the end the following:
``(C) provide assurances to the Attorney General that the
State, if it prescribes, authorizes, or permits the penalty
of death for any offense, has established or will establish
not later than 18 months after the enactment of the Innocence
Protection Act of 2001, effective procedures for--
``(i) reasonably compensating persons found to have been
unjustly convicted of an offense against the State and
sentenced to death; and
``(ii) investigating the causes of such unjust convictions,
publishing the results of such investigations, and taking
steps to prevent such errors in future cases.''.
SEC. 303. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IN FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY
PROSECUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 228 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3599. Certification requirement
``(a) Certification by Attorney General.--The Government
shall not seek a sentence of death in any case brought before
a court of the United States except upon the certification in
writing of the Attorney General, which function of
certification may not be delegated, that the Federal interest
in the prosecution is more substantial than the interests of
the State or local authorities.
``(b) Requirements.--A certification under subsection (a)
shall state the basis on which the certification was made and
the reasons for the certification.
``(c) State Interest.--In States where the imposition of a
sentence of death is not authorized by law, the fact that the
maximum Federal sentence is death does not constitute a more
substantial interest in Federal prosecution.
``(d) Definition of State.--For purposes of this section,
the term `State' includes a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.
``(e) Rule of Construction.--This section does not create
any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by
any party in any matter civil or criminal.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 228 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``3599. Certification requirement.''.
SEC. 304. ALTERNATIVE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to clarify
that juries in death penalty prosecutions brought under the
drug kingpin statute--like juries in all other Federal death
penalty prosecutions--have the option of recommending life
imprisonment without possibility of release.
(b) Clarification.--Section 408(l) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(l)), is amended by striking the
first 2 sentences and inserting the following: ``Upon a
recommendation under subsection (k) that the defendant should
be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without
possibility of release, the court shall sentence the
defendant accordingly. Otherwise, the court shall impose any
lesser sentence that is authorized by law.''.
SEC. 305. RIGHT TO AN INFORMED JURY.
Section 20105(b)(1) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13705(b)(1)), as amended
by section 302 of this Act, is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) adding at the end the following:
``(D) provide assurances to the Attorney General that in
any capital sentencing proceeding occurring after the date of
enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 in which
the jury has a role in determining the sentence imposed on
the defendant, the court, at the request of the defendant,
shall inform the jury of all statutorily authorized
sentencing options in the particular case, including
applicable parole eligibility rules and terms.''.
SEC. 306. ANNUAL REPORTS.
(a) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney
General shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report
concerning the administration of capital punishment laws by
the Federal Government and the States.
(b) Report Elements.--The report required under subsection
(a) shall include substantially the same categories of
information as are included in the Bureau of Justice
Statistics Bulletin entitled ``Capital Punishment 1999''
(December 2000, NCJ 184795), and shall also include the
following additional categories of information, if such
information can practicably be obtained:
(1) The percentage of death-eligible cases in which a death
sentence is sought, and the percentage in which it is
imposed.
(2) The race of the defendants in death-eligible cases,
including death-eligible cases in which a death sentence is
not sought, and the race of the victims.
(3) The percentage of capital cases in which counsel is
retained by the defendant, and the percentage in which
counsel is appointed by the court.
(4) The percentage of capital cases in which life without
parole is available as an alternative to a death sentence,
and the sentences imposed in such cases.
(5) The percentage of capital cases in which life without
parole is not available as an alternative to a death
sentence, and the sentences imposed in such cases.
(6) The frequency with which various statutory aggravating
factors are invoked by the prosecution.
(7) The percentage of cases in which a death sentence or a
conviction underlying a death sentence is vacated, reversed,
or set aside, and a short statement of the reasons therefore.
(c) Request for Assistance.--In compiling the information
referred to in subsection (b),
[[Page S2006]]
the Attorney General shall, when necessary, request
assistance from State and local prosecutors, defense
attorneys, and courts, as appropriate. Requested assistance,
whether provided or denied by a State or local official or
entity, shall be noted in the reports referred to in
subsection (a).
(d) Public Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the
Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, as appropriate,
shall ensure that the reports referred to in subsection (a)
are--
(1) distributed to national print and broadcast media; and
(2) posted on an Internet website maintained by the
Department of Justice.
SEC. 307. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF
JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED.
It is the sense of Congress that the death penalty is
disproportionate and offends contemporary standards of
decency when applied to a person who is mentally retarded or
who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the
offense.
____
Innocence Protection Act of 2001--Section-by-Section Summary
overview
The Innocence Protection Act of 2001 is a carefully crafted
package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the
risk that innocent persons may be executed. Most urgently the
bill would afford greater access to DNA testing by convicted
offenders; and help States improve the quality of legal
representation in capital cases.
title I--exonerating the innocent through dna testing
Sec. 101. Findings and purposes. Legislative findings and
purposes in support of this title.
Sec. 102. DNA testing in Federal criminal justice system.
Establishes rules and procedures governing applications for
DNA testing by inmates in the Federal system. Courts shall
order DNA testing if it has the scientific potential to
produce new exculpatory evidence material to the inmate's
claim of innocence. When the test results are exculpatory,
courts shall order a hearing and make such further orders as
may be appropriate under existing law. Prohibits the
destruction of biological evidence in a criminal case while a
defendant remains incarcerated, absent prior notification to
such defendant of the government's intent to destroy the
evidence.
Sec. 103. DNA testing in State criminal justice system.
Conditions receipt of Federal grants for DNA-related programs
on an assurance that the State will adopt adequate procedures
for preserving biological material and making DNA testing
available to inmates.
Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th
Amendment. Prohibits States from denying applications for DNA
testing by death row inmates, if the proposed testing has the
scientific potential to produce new exculpatory evidence
material to the inmate's claim of innocence. Also prohibits
States from denying inmates a meaningful opportunity to prove
their innocence using the results of DNA testing. Inmates may
sue for declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce these
prohibitions.
Sec. 105. Grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.
Permits States to use grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs to fund
the growing number of prosecutor-initiated programs that
review convictions to identify cases in which DNA testing is
appropriate and that offer DNA testing to inmates in such
cases.
title ii--ensuring competent legal services in capital cases
Sec. 201. National Commission on Capital Representation.
Establishes a National Commission on Capital Representation
to develop standards for providing adequate legal
representation for indigents facing a death sentence. The
Commission would be composed of nine members and would
include experienced prosecutors, defense attorneys, and
judges, and would complete its work within on year. Total
authorization $1,000,000.
Sec. 202. Capital defense incentive grants. Establishes a
grant program, to be administered by the State Justice
Institute, to help States implement the Commission's
standards and otherwise improve the quality of representation
in capital cases. Authorization is $50,000,000 for the first
year, and such sums as may be necessary for the two years
that follow.
Sec. 203. Amendments to prison grant programs. Directs the
Attorney General to withhold a portion of the funds awarded
under the prison grant programs from death penalty States
that have not established or do not maintain a system for
providing legal representation in capital cases that
satisfies the Commission's standards. The Attorney General
may waive the withholding requirement for one year under
certain circumstances.
Sec. 204. Effect on procedural default rules. Provides that
certain procedural barriers to Federal habeas corpus review
shall not apply if the State did not provide legal
representation to the habeas petitioner under a State system
for providing representation that satisfied the Commission's
standards. This section does not apply in any case in which
the relevant State court proceeding occurred more than 1 year
before the formulation of such standards.
Sec. 205. Capital defense resource grants. Amends the
Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A, to make more
Federal funding available for purposes of enhancing the
availability, competence, and prompt assignment of counsel in
capital cases, encouraging the continuity of representation
in such cases, and increasing the efficiency with which
capital cases are resolved.
title iii--miscellaneous provisions
Sec. 301. Increased compensation in federal cases. Raises
the total amount of damages that may be awarded against the
United States in cases of unjust imprisonment from $5,000 to
$50,000 a year in a non-death penalty case, or $100,000 a
year in a death penalty case.
Sec. 302. Compensation in state death cases. Encourages
states to maintain effective procedures for reasonably
compensating persons who were unjustly convicted and
sentenced to death, and investigating the causes of such
unjust convictions in order to prevent such errors from
recurring.
Sec. 303. Certification requirement in federal death
penalty prosecutions. Increases accountability by requiring
the Attorney General, when seeking the death penalty in any
case, to certify that the federal interest in the prosecution
is more substantial than the interests of the state or local
authorities. Modeled on the certification requirements in the
federal civil rights and juvenile delinquency laws, this
section codifies existing practice as reflected in section 9-
10.070 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual. This section does not
create any rights enforceable at law by any party in any
matter civil or criminal.
Sec. 304. Alternative of life imprisonment without
possibility of release. Clarifies that juries in death
penalty prosecutions brought under the drug kingpin statute,
21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(l), have the option of recommending life
imprisonment without possibility of release. This amendment
incorporates into the drug kingpin statute a procedural
protection that federal law already expressly provides to the
vast majority of capital defendants.
Sec. 305. Right to an informed jury. Encourages states to
allow defendants in capital cases to have the jury instructed
on all statutorily-authorized sentencing options, including
applicable parole eligibility rules and terms.
Sec. 306. Annual reports. Directs the Justice Department to
prepare an annual report regarding the administration of the
nation's capital punishment laws. The report must be
submitted to Congress, distributed to the press and posted on
the Internet.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Congress regarding the execution of
juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded. Expresses the
sense of the Congress that the death penalty is
disproportionate and offends contemporary standards of
decency when applied to juvenile offenders and the mentally
retarded.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of
this new and improved Innocence Protection Act. The Innocence
Protection Act we introduced last year was widely heralded as providing
much-needed improvements to our nation's already strong judicial
system. This year, the bill itself has been strengthened, so it can
better benefit the truly innocent without imposing undue hardship on
our hard-working law enforcement personnel. While our court and law
enforcement officials work extremely hard to ensure justice for all,
occasionally mistakes are made.
To prevent these rare instances, The Innocence Protection Act
encourages appropriate use of DNA testing, and provision of competent
counsel. The bill also provides for adequate compensation in the rare
case that a person is wrongfully imprisoned, and encourages states to
examine these situations to prevent their recurrence. The Innocence
Protection Act proposes to apply technological advances of the 21st
century evenly across the country to ensure that justice is served
swiftly and fairly, regardless of where you live.
Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty can support this
bill, which will only improve the integrity of our Criminal Justice
System. By helping ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes
are behind bars, the innocent can live in a safer world. I am a
supporter of the death penalty. I believe that there are some times
when humankind can act in a manner so odious, so heinous, and so
depraved that the right to life is forfeited. Notwithstanding this
belief, indeed, because of this belief, I am reintroducing the
Innocence Protection Act of 2001 with Senator Leahy and others today.
Clearly, there is a growing interest in this issue in Congress. I
feel strongly that this is a bill whose time has come, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure
its passage this session.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 487. A bill to amend chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code,
relating to
[[Page S2007]]
the exemption of certain performances or displays for educational uses
from copyright infringement provisions, to provide that the making of a
single copy of such performances or displays is not an infringement,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with my
distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, legislation entitled the
``Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act'' or fittingly
abbreviated as the ``TEACH Act,'' which updates the educational use
provisions of the copyright law to account for advancements in digital
transmission technologies that support distance learning.
While distance learning is far from a new concept, there is no
``official'' definition as to what falls under the umbrella of distance
learning. There is, however, general agreement that distance education
covers the various forms of study at all levels in which students are
separated from instructors by time or space. By creating new avenues of
communication, technology has paved the way for so-called ``distance
learning,'' starting with correspondence courses, and later with
instructional broadcasting. Most recently, however, the introduction of
online education has revolutionized the world of ``distance learning.''
While the benefits of all forms of distance learning are self-evident,
online learning opens unprecedented educational opportunities. With the
click of a mouse, students in remote areas are able to access a broad
spectrum of courses from the finest institutions and ``chat'' with
other students across the country.
Distance education, and the use of high technology tools such as the
Internet in education, hold great promise for students in states like
Utah. Students in remote areas of my state are now able to link up to
resources previously only available to those in cities or at
prestigious educational institutions. For many Utahns, this means
having access to courses or being able to see virtual demonstrations of
principles that until now they have only read about.
True to its heritage, Utah is a pioneer among states in blazing the
trail to the next century, making tomorrow's virtual classrooms a
reality today. Fittingly, since it is home to one of the original six
universities that pioneered the Internet, the State of Utah and the
Utah System of Higher Education, as well as a number of individual
universities in the state have consistently been recognized as
technology and web-education innovators. Such national recognition
reflects, in part, Utah's high-tech industrial base, its learning-
oriented population, and the fact that Utah was the first state with a
centrally coordinated statewide system for distance learning. In the
course of preparing the report that resulted in this legislation, I was
pleased to host the Register of Copyrights at a distance education
exposition and copyright round table that took place at the nerve
center of that system, the Utah Education Network, where we saw many of
the exciting technologies being developed and implemented in Utah, by
Utahns, to make distance education a reality.
At the event in Salt Lake City, Ms. Peters and I dropped in on a live
on-line art history class hosted in Orem, that included high school and
college students scattered from Alpine in the north to Lake Powell in
the south, nearly the length of the state. And the promise of distance
education extends far beyond the traditional student, making expanded
opportunities available for working parents, senior citizens, and
anyone else with a desire to learn.
This legislation will make it easier for the teacher who connects
with her students online to enhance the learning process by
illustrating music appreciation principles with appropriately limited
sound recordings or illustrate visual design or story-telling
principles with appropriate movie clips. Or she might create wholly new
experiences such as making a hypertext poem that links significant
words or formal elements to commentary, similar uses in other contexts,
or other sources for deeper understanding, all accessible at the click
of a mouse. These wholly new interactive educational experiences, or
more traditional ones now made available around the students' schedule,
will be made more easily and more inexpensively by this legislation.
Beyond the legislative safe harbor provided by this legislation,
opportunities for students and lifetime learners of all kinds, in all
kinds of locations, is limited only by the human imagination and the
cooperative creativity of the creators and users of copyrighted works.
I hope that creative licensing arrangements will be spurred to make
even more exciting opportunities available to students and lifelong
learners, and that incentives to create those experiences will continue
to encourage innovation in education, art and entertainment online. The
possibilities for everyone in the wired world are thrilling to
contemplate.
While the development of digital technology has fostered the
tremendous growth of distance learning in the United States, online
education will work only if teachers and students have affordable and
convenient access to the highest quality educational materials. In
fact, in its recent report, the Web-Based Commission, established by
Congress to develop policies to ensure that new technologies will
enhance learning, concluded that United States copyright practice
presents significant impediments to online education. Additionally, the
Web-Based Commission concluded that there are some needed reforms in
higher education regulations and statutes. Specifically, the Commission
identifies reforms needed in the so-called 12 hour rule, the 50 percent
rule and the ban on incentive based compensation. These education
recommendations are not included in the legislation I am introducing
today. However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will
pushing for these reforms and leave open the possibility of amending
this particular bill or seek other vehicles to include such education
reform provisions which will improve delivery of distance education to
a wider variety of students. We will be discussing education reforms in
the Senate in the coming weeks, and I think it is important that any
education reform include the kinds of reforms that will promote the use
of high technologies in education, such as the Internet. And I intend
to work to have these reforms included in any larger education package
considered this year.
As part of its mandate under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
DMCA, which laid the basic copyright rules in a digital environment,
the Copyright Office was tasked to study the impact of copyright law on
online education and submit recommendations on how to promote distance
learning through digital technologies while maintaining an appropriate
balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users
of copyrighted works. Without adequate incentives and protections,
those who create these materials will be disinclined to make their
works available for use in online education. The interests of
educators, students, and copyright owners need not be divergent;
indeed, I believe they coincide in making the most of this medium. As
expected, the Copyright Office has presented us with a detailed and
comprehensive study of the copyright issues involved in digital
distance education that takes into account a wide range of views
expressed by various groups, including copyright owners, educational
institutions, technologists, and libraries. As part of its report, the
Copyright Office concluded that the current law should be updated to
accommodate digital educational technologies.
After careful review and consideration of the findings and
recommendations presented in the report prepared by the Copyright
Office, not to mention my enormous respect for and confidence in the
Register of Copyrights, I fully support the Office's recommendation to
update the current copyright law in a manner that promotes the use of
high technology in education, such as distance learning over the
Internet, while maintaining appropriate incentives for authors. While
the bill we are introducing today is based on the hard work and expert
advice of the Copyright Office, and is therefore, I believe a very good
bill, I welcome constructive suggestions from improvements from any
interested party as this bill moves through the legislative process.
Currently, United States copyright law contains a number of
exemptions
[[Page S2008]]
to copyright owners' rights relating to face-to-face classroom teaching
and instructional broadcasts. While these exemptions embody the policy
that certain uses of copyrighted works for instructional purposes
should be exempt from copyright control, the current exemptions were
not drafted with online, interactive digital technologies in mind. As a
result, the Copyright Office concluded that the current exemptions
related to instructional purposes are probably inapplicable to most
advanced digital delivery systems and without a corresponding change,
the policy behind the existing law will not be advanced.
Drawing from the recommendations made by the Copyright Office, the
primary goal of this legislation is simple and straight forward: to
promote digital distance learning by permitting certain limited
instructional activities to take place without running afoul of the
rights of copyright owners. The bill does not limit the bounds of
``fair use'' in the educational context, but provides something of a
``safe harbor'' for online distance education. And nothing limits the
possibilities for creative licensing of copyrighted works for even more
innovative online educational experiences. While Section 110(1) of the
Copyright Act exempts the performance or display of any work in the
course of face-to-face teachings, Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act
limits these exemptions in cases of instructional broadcasting. Under
Section 110(2), while displays of all works are permitted, only
performances of nondramatic literary or mystical works are permitted.
Thus, an instructor is currently not able to show a movie or perform a
play via educational broadcasting.
This legislation would amend Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act to
create a new set of rules in the digital education world that, in
essence, represent a hybrid of the current rules applicable to face-to-
face instruction and instructional broadcasting. In doing this, the
legislation amends Section 110(2) by expanding the permitted uses
currently available for instructional broadcasting in a modest fashion
by including the performance of any work not produced primarily for
instructional use in reasonable and limited portions.
In addition, in order to modernize the statute to account for digital
technologies, the legislation amends Section 110(2) by eliminating the
requirement of a physical classroom and clarifies that the
instructional activities exempted in Section 110(2) of the Copyright
Act apply to digital transmissions as well as analog. The legislation
also permits a limited right to reproduce and distribute transient
copies created as part of the automated process of digital
transmissions. Mindful of the new risks involved with digital
transmissions, the legislation also creates new safeguards for
copyright owners. These include requirements that those invoking the
exemptions institute a policy to promote compliance with copyright law
and apply technological measures to prevent unauthorized access and
uses.
Moreover, in order to allow the exempted activities to take place in
online education asynchronously, a new amendment to the ephemeral
recording exemption is proposed that would permit an instructor to
upload a copyrighted work onto a server to be later transmitted to
students. Again, extra safeguards are in place to ensure that no
additional copies beyond those necessary to the transmission can be
made and that the retention of the copy is limited in time.
I believe that this legislation is necessary to foster and promote
the use of high technology tools, such as the Internet, in education
and distance learning, while at the same time maintains a careful
balance between copyright owners and users. Through the increasing
influence of educational technologies, virtual classrooms are popping
up all over the country and what we do not want to do is stand in the
way of the development and advancement of innovative technologies that
offer new and exciting educational opportunities. I think we all agree
that digital distance should be fostered and utilized to the greatest
extent possible to deliver instruction to students in ways that could
have been possible a few years ago. We live at a point in time when we
truly have an opportunity to help shape the future by influencing how
technology is used in education so I hope my colleagues will join us in
supporting this modest update of the copyright law that offers to make
more readily available distance education in a digital environment to
all of our students.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and explanatory
section-by-section analysis, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 487
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, Education And
Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PERFORMANCES AND DISPLAYS FOR
EDUCATIONAL USES.
Section 110(2) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(2) except with respect to a work produced primarily for
instructional use or a performance or display that is given
by means of a copy that is not lawfully made and acquired
under this title, and the transmitting governmental body or
nonprofit educational institution knew or had reason to
believe was not lawfully made and acquired, the performance
of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and
limited portions of any other work, or display of a work, by
or in the course of a transmission, reproduction of such work
in transient copies or phonorecords created as a part of the
automatic technical process of a digital transmission, and
distribution of such copies or phonorecords in the course of
such transmission, to the extent technologically necessary to
transmit the performance or display, if--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking all beginning with
``the performance'' through ``regular'' and inserting the
following: ``the performance or display is made by or at the
direction of an instructor as an integral part of a class
session offered as a regular'';
(3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the transmission is made solely for, and, to the
extent technologically feasible, the reception of such
transmission is limited to--
``(i) students officially enrolled in the course for which
the transmission is made; or
``(ii) officers or employees of governmental bodies as part
of their official duties or employment; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) any transient copies are retained for no longer than
reasonably necessary to complete the transmission; and
``(E) the transmitting body or institution--
``(i) institutes policies regarding copyright, provides
informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant
staff members that accurately describe, and promote
compliance with, the laws of the United States relating to
copyright, and provides notice to students that materials
used in connection with the course may be subject to
copyright protection; and
``(ii) in the case of digital transmissions, applies
technological measures that reasonably prevent unauthorized
access to and dissemination of the work, and does not
intentionally interfere with technological measures used by
the copyright owner to protect the work.''.
SEC. 3. EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS.
(a) In General.--Section 112 of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, and
without limiting the application of subsection (b), it is not
an infringement of copyright for a governmental body or other
nonprofit educational institution entitled to transmit a
performance or display of a work that is in digital form
under section 110(2) to make copies or phonorecords embodying
the performance or display to be used for making
transmissions authorized under section 110(2), if--
``(1) such copies or phonorecords are retained and used
solely by the body or institution that made them, and no
further copies or phonorecords are reproduced from them,
except as authorized under section 110(2);
``(2) such copies or phonorecords are used solely for
transmissions authorized under section 110(2); and
``(3) the body or institution does not intentionally
interfere with technological measures used by the copyright
owner to protect the work.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 802(c) of
title 17, United States Code, is amended in the third
sentence by striking ``section 112(f)'' and inserting
``section 112(g)''.
[[Page S2009]]
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY COPYRIGHT OFFICE.
(a) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Copyright Office shall conduct a
study and submit a report to Congress on the status of--
(1) licensing by private and public educational
institutions of copyrighted works for digital distance
education programs, including--
(A) live interactive distance learning classes;
(B) faculty instruction recorded without students present
for later transmission; and
(C) asynchronous delivery of distance learning over
computer networks; and
(2) the use of copyrighted works in such programs.
(b) Conference.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Copyright Office shall--
(1) convene a conference of interested parties, including
representatives of copyright owners, nonprofit educational
institutions and nonprofit libraries and archives to develop
guidelines for the use of copyrighted works for digital
distance education under the fair use doctrine and section
110 (1) and (2) of title 17, United States Code;
(2) to the extent the Copyright Office determines
appropriate, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the House of Representatives such guidelines,
along with information on the organizations, Government
agencies, and institutions participating in the guideline
development and endorsing the guidelines; and
(3) post such guidelines on an Internet website for
educators, copyright owners, libraries, and other interested
persons.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Technology, Education, and Copyright
Harmonization Act
section 1. short title
This bill may be cited as the ``Technology, Education And
Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001'' or the TEACH Act.
section 2. exemption of certain performances and displays for
educational uses
The bill updates section 110(2) to allow the similar
activities to take place using digital delivery mechanisms
that were permitted under the basic policy balance struck in
1976, while minimizing the additional risks to copyright
owners that are inherent in exploiting works in a digital
format. Current law allows performances and displays of all
categories of copyrighted works in classroom settings, under
section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, and allows performances
of non-dramatic literary and musical works and displays of
works during certain education-related transmissions (usually
television-type transmission) under Section 110(2). Section
110(2) is amended to allow performances of categories of
copyrighted works--such as portions of audiovisual works,
sound recordings and dramatic literary and musical works--in
addition to the non-dramatic literary and musical works that
may be performed under current law. Because of the potential
adverse effect on the secondary markets of such works, only
reasonable and limited portions of these additional works may
be performed under the exemption. Excluded from the exemption
are those works that are produced primarily from
instructional use, because for such works, unlike
entertainment products or materials of a general educational
nature, the exemption could significantly cut into primary
markets, impairing incentives to create. As an additional
safeguard, this provision requires the exempted performance
or display to be made from a lawful copy. Since digital
transmissions implicate the reproduction and distribution
rights in addition to the public performance right, section
110(2) is further amended to add coverage of the rights of
reproduction/and or distribution, but only to the extent
technologically required in order to transmit a performance
or display authorized by the exemption.
Section 110(2)(C) eliminates the requirement of a physical
classroom by permitting transmissions to be made to students
officially enrolled in the course and to government
employees, regardless of their physical location. In lieu of
this limitation two safeguards have been added. First,
section 110(2)(A) emphasizes the concept of mediated
instruction by ensuring that the exempted performance or
display is analogous to the type of performance or display
that would take place in a live classroom setting. Second,
section 110(2)(C) adds the requirement that, to the extent
technologically feasible, the transmission must be made
solely for reception by the defined class of eligible
recipients.
Sections 110(2)(D), (E)(i) and (E)(ii) add new safeguards
to counteract the new risks posed by the transmission of
works to students in digital form. Paragraph (D) requires
that transient copies permitted under the exemption be
retained no longer than reasonably necessary to complete the
transmission. Paragraph (E)(i) requires that beneficiaries of
the exemption institute policies regarding copyright; provide
information materials to faculty, students, and relevant
staff members that accurately describe and promote compliance
with copyright law; and provide notice to students that
materials may be subject to copyright protection. Paragraph
110(2)(E)(ii) requires that the transmitting organization
apply measures to protect against both unauthorized access
and unauthorized dissemination after access has been
obtained. This provision also specifies that the transmitting
body or institution may not intentionally interfere with
protections applied by the copyright owners themselves.
section 3. ephemeral recordings
Section 112 is amended by adding a new subsection which
permits an educator to upload a copyrighted work onto a
server to facilitate transmissions permitted under section
110(2) to students enrolled in his or her course. Limitations
have been imposed upon the exemption similar to those set out
in other subsections of section 112. Paragraph 112(f)(1)
specifies that any such copy be retained and used solely by
the entity that made it and that no further copies be
reproduced from it except the transient copies permitted
under section 110(2). Paragraph 112(f)(2) requires that the
copy be used solely for transmissions authorized under
section 110(2). Paragraph 112(f)(3) prohibits a body or
institution from intentionally interfering with technological
protection measures used by the copyright owner to protect
the work.
section 4. implementation by copyright office
Subsection (a) requires the Copyright Office, not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment, to conduct a
study and submit a report to Congress on the status of
licensing for private and public school digital distance
education programs and the use of copyrighted works in such
programs. Subsection (b) requires the Copyright Office, not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment, to convene a
conference of other interested parties on the subject of the
use of copyrighted works in education and, to the extent the
Office deems appropriate, develop guidelines for the
clarification of the appropriate use of copyrighted works in
educational settings, including distance education, for
submission to Congress and for posting on the Copyright
Office website as a reference resource.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, an important responsibility of the Senate
Judiciary Committee is fulfilling the mandate set forth in Article 1,
section 8 of the Constitution, ``to promote the progress of science and
useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''
Chairman Hatch and I, and other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee,
have worked together successfully over the years to update and make
necessary adjustments to our copyright, patent and trademark laws to
carry out this responsibility. We have strived to do so in a manner
that advances the rights of intellectual property owners while
protecting the important interests of users of the creative works that
make our culture a vibrant force in this global economy.
Several years ago, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
DMCA, we asked the Copyright Office to perform a study of the complex
copyright issues involved in distance education and to make
recommendations to us for any legislative changes. In conducting that
study, Maybeth Peters, the Registrar of Copyrights met informally with
interested Vermonters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont, to
hear their concerns on this issue. Champlain College has been offering
on-line distance learning programs since 1993, with a number of online
programs, including for degrees in accounting, business, and hotel-
restaurant management.
The Copyright Office released its report in May, 1999, at a hearing
held in this Committee, and made valuable suggestions on how modest
changes in our copyright law could go a long way to foster the
appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning
activities. I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the
Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization, or TEACH, Act, that
incorporates the legislative recommendations of that report. This
legislation will help clarify the law and allow educators to use the
same rich material in distance learning over the Internet that they are
able to use in face-to-face classroom instruction.
The growth of distance learning is exploding, largely because it is
responsive to the needs of older, non-traditional students. The
Copyright Office, CO, report noted two years ago that, by 2002, the
number of students taking distance education courses will represent 15
percent of all higher education students. Moreover, the typical average
distance learning student is 34 years old, employed full-time and has
previous college credit. More than half are women. In increasing
numbers, students in other countries are benefitting from educational
opportunities here through U.S. distance education programs.
In high schools, distance education makes advanced college placement
and college equivalency courses available,
[[Page S2010]]
a great opportunity for residents in our more-rural states. In
colleges, distance education makes lifelong learning a practical
reality.
Not only does distance education make it more convenient for many
students to pursue an education, for students who have full-time work
commitments, who live in rural areas or in foreign countries, who have
difficulty obtaining child or elder care, or who have physical
disabilities, distance education may be the only means for them to
pursue an education. These are the people with busy schedules who need
the flexibility that on-line programs offer: virtual classrooms
accessible when the student is ready, and free, to log-on.
In Vermont and many other rural states, distance learning is a
critical component of any quality educational and economic development
system. In fact, the most recent Vermont Telecommunications Plan, which
was published in 1999 and is updated at regular intervals, identifies
distance learning as being critical to Vermont's development. It also
recommends that Vermont consider ``using its purchasing power to
accelerate the introduction of new [distance learning] services in
Vermont.'' Technology has empowered individuals in the most remote
communities to have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to
improve their education and ensure they are competitive for jobs in the
21st century.
Several years ago, I was proud to work with the state in establishing
the Vermont Interactive Television network. This constant two-way
video-conferencing system can reach communities, schools and businesses
in every corner of the State. Since we first successfully secured funds
to build the backbone of the system, Vermont has constructed fourteen
sites. The VIT system is currently running at full capacity and has
demonstrated that in Vermont, technology highways are just as important
as our transportation highways.
No one single technology should be the platform for distance
learning. In Vermont, creative uses of available resources have put in
place a distance learning system that employees T-1 lines in some areas
and traditional internet modem hook-ups in others. Several years ago,
the Grand Isle Supervisory Union received a grant from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to link all the schools within the district
with fiber optic cable. There are not a lot of students in this
Supervisory Union but these is a lot of land separating one school from
another. The bandwidth created by the fiber optic cables has not only
improved the educational opportunities in the four Grand Isle towns,
but it has also provided a vital economic boost to the area's business.
While there are wonderful examples of the use of distance learning
inside Vermont, the opportunities provided by these technologies are
not limited to the borders of one state, or even one country. Champlain
College, a small school in Burlington, Vermont has shown this is true
when it adopted a strategic plan to provide distance learning for
students throughout the world. Under the leadership of President Roger
Perry, Champlain College now has more students enrolled than any other
college in Vermont. The campus in Vermont has not been overwhelmed with
the increase. Instead, Champlain now teaches a large number of students
overseas through its on-line curriculum. Similarly, Marlboro College in
Marlboro, Vermont, offers innovative graduate programs designed for
working professionals with classes that meet not only in person but
also online.
The Internet, with its interactive, multi-media capabilities, has
been a significant development for distance learning. By contrast to
the traditional, passive approach of distance learning where a student
located remotely from a classroom was able to watch a lecture being
broadcast at a fixed time over the air, distance learners today can
participate in real-time class discussions, or in simultaneous
multimedia projects. The Copyright Office report confirms what I have
assumed for some time--that ``the computer is the most versatile of
distance education instruments,'' not just in terms of flexible
schedules, but also in terms of the material available.
Over twenty years ago, the Congress recognized the potential of
broadcast and cable technology to supplement classroom teaching, and to
bring the classroom to those who, because of their disabilities or
other special circumstances, are unable to attend classes. At the same
time, Congress also recognized the potential for unauthorized
transmissions of works to harm the markets for educational uses of
copyrighted materials. The present Copyright Act strikes a careful
balance and includes two narrowly crafted exemptions for distance
learning, in addition to the general fair use exemption.
Under current law, the performance or display of any work in the
course of face-to-face instruction in a classroom is exempt from the
exclusive rights of a copyright owner. In addition, the copyright law
allows transmission of certain performances or displays of copyrighted
works to be sent to a classroom or a similar place which is normally
devoted to instruction, to persons whose disabilities or other special
circumstances prevent classroom attendance, or to government employees.
While this exemption is technology neutral and does not limit
authorized ``transmissions'' to distance learning broadcasts, the
exemption does not authorize the reproduction or distribution of
copyrighted works--a limitation that has enormous implications for
transmissions over computer networks. Digital transmissions over
computer networks involve multiple acts of reproduction as a data
packet is moved from one computer to another.
The need to update our copyright law to address new developments in
online distance learning was highlighted in the December, 2000 report
of the Web-Based Education Commission, headed by former Senator Bob
Kerrey. This Commission noted that:
Current copyright law governing distance education . . .
was based on broadcast models of telecourses for distance
education. That law was not established with the virtual
classroom in mind, nor does it resolve emerging issues of
multimedia online, or provide a framework for permitting
digital transmissions.
This report further observed that ``This current state of affairs is
confusing and frustrating for educators. . . . Concern about
inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts,
to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.'' In
conclusion, the report concluded that our copyright laws were
``inappropriately restrictive.''
The TEACH Act makes three significant expansions in the distance
learning exemption in our copyright law, while minimizing the
additional risks to copyright owners that are inherent in exploiting
works in a digital format. First, the bill eliminates the current
eligibility requirements for the distance learning exemption that the
instruction occur in a physical classroom or that special circumstances
prevent the attendance of students in the classroom.
Second, the bill clarifies that the distance learning exemption
covers the temporary copies necessarily made in networked servers in
the course of transmitting material over the Internet.
Third, the current distance learning exemption only permits the
transmission of the performance of ``non-dramatic literary or musical
works,'' but does not allow the transmission of movies or videotapes,
or the performance of plays. The Kerrey Commission report cited this
limitation as an obstacle to distance learning in current copyright law
and noted the following examples: A music instructor may play songs and
other pieces of music in a classroom, but must seek permission from
copyright holders in order to incorporate these works into an online
version of the same class. A children's literature instructor may
routinely display illustrations from childrens' books in the classroom,
but must get licenses for each one for on online version of the course.
To alleviate this disparity, the TEACH Act would amend current law to
allow educators to show limited portions of dramatic literary and
musical works, audiovisual works, and sound recordings, in addition to
the complete versions of nondramatic literary and musical works which
are currently exempted.
This legislation is a balanced proposal that expands the educational
use
[[Page S2011]]
exemption in the copyright law for distance learning, but also contains
a number of safeguards for copyright owners. In particular, the bill
excludes from the exemption those works that are produced primarily for
instructional use, because for such works, unlike entertainment
products or materials of a general educational nature, the exemption
could significantly cut into primary markets, impairing incentives to
create. Indeed, the Web-Based Education Commission urged the
development of ``high quality online educational content that meets the
highest standards of educational excellence.'' Copyright protection can
help provide the incentive for the development of such content.
In addition, the bill requires the use by distance educators of
technological safeguards to ensure that the dissemination of material
covered under the exemption is limited only to the students who are
intended to receive it.
Finally, the TEACH Act directs the Copyright Office to conduct a
study on the status of licensing for private and public school digital
distance education programs and the use of copyrighted works in such
programs, and to convene a conference to develop guidelines for the use
of copyrighted works for digital distance education under the fair use
doctrine and the educational use exemptions in the copyright law. Both
the Copyright Office report and the Kerrey Commission noted
dissatisfaction with the licensing process for digital copyrighted
works. According to the Copyright Office, many educational institutions
``describe having experienced recurrent problems [that] . . . can be
broken down into three categories: difficulty locating the copyright
owner; inability to obtain a timely response; and unreasonable prices
for other terms.'' Similarly, the Kerrey Commission report echoed the
same concern. A study focusing on these licensing issues will hopefully
prove fruitful and constructive for both publishers and educational
institutions.
The Kerrey Commission report observed that ``[c]oncern about
inadvertent copyright infringement appears, in many school districts,
to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool.''
For this reason, the Kerrey Commission report endorsed ``the U.S.
Copyright Office proposal to convene education representatives and
publisher stakeholders in order to build greater consensus and
understanding of the `fair use' doctrine and its application in web-
based education. The goal should be agreement on guidelines for the
appropriate digital use of information and consensus on the licensing
of content not covered by the fair use doctrine.'' The TEACH Act will
provide the impetus for this process to begin.
I appreciate that, generally speaking, copyright owners believe that
current copyright laws are adequate to enable and foster legitimate
distance learning activities. As the Copyright Office report noted,
copyright owners are concerned that ``broadening the exemption would
result in the loss of opportunities to license works for use in digital
distance education'' and would increase the ``risk of unauthorized
downstream uses of their works posed by digital technology.'' Based
upon its review of distance learning, however, the Copyright Office
concluded that updating section 110(2) in the manner proposed in the
TEACH Act is ``advisable.'' I agree. At the same time we have made
efforts to address the valid concerns of both the copyright owners and
the educational and library community, and look forward to working with
all interested stakeholders as this legislation is considered by the
Judiciary Committee and the Congress.
Distance education is an important issue to both the chairman and to
me, and to the people of our States. I commend him for scheduling a
hearing on this important legislation for next week.
____________________