[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.

                          ____________________