[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 30 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2072-S2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GREGG:
  S. 489. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
clarify the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was 
intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the 
birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or 
one's own ``serious medical condition.''
  Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a 
significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. 
According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of 
covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order 
to comply with the Act.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain 
provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended 
administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers 
when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers 
to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members 
planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to 
increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record 
keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing 
policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented in 
five separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a 
House hearing where I testified, the previous administration choose to 
ignore those problems and instead pushed for a back door expansion of 
the Act through a rule known as Baby U.I., the Birth and Adoption 
Unemployment Compensation Rule. The Baby U.I. rule allows states to 
raid their unemployment compensation trust funds for an unrelated 
program, paid family leave. As a former Governor, I am very concerned 
about the impact of the rule on state unemployment trust funds, which 
should be preserved for tough economic times.
  The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing 
regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being 
misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure 
if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold 
will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious 
health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented 
problems with the Act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical 
Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical 
corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its 
original congressional intent.
  The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and 
strengthened by five congressional hearings and by the recent release 
of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now 
been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the 
FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad 
due to DOL's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented 
that the intermittent leave provisions, notification and certification 
problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some 
companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to 
permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing 
collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected 
leave, whichever is greater.
  I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has 
been attributed to the Administration's problematic FMLA 
interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided 
paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 
SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, Benefits Survey found 
that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 
2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 
percent last year and 74 percent this year.
  A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of 
Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department 
report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it 
was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 
percent from 1995 to 2000.
  The recent release of the SHRMR, Society for Human Resource 
Management, 2000 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA 
technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on 
average, 60 percent of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule 
the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the 
ability to plan for work disruptions. Respondents also reported that, 
in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave 
falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have 
had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, more than 
half, 52 percent, said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, 34 
percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints 
over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA 
leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely 
difficult. Three-quarters, 76 percent, of respondents said they would 
find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to 
be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes.
  I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department 
surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not 
easier seven years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the 
Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 107th 
Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem.
  The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for 
Human Resource Management, the

[[Page S2073]]

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals and 
close to 300 other leading companies and associations who make up the 
Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have 
received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be 
printed in the Record. This broad based coalition, shares my belief 
that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain 
technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to 
restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and 
compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good 
faith effort to comply with the act.

  The bill I am introducing today does several important things:
  First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for 
``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' 
own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such 
as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be 
covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious 
health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for 
which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is 
expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick 
leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are 
extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health 
condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 
3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives 
any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or 
a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist, such a broad 
definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a 
health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is 
instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not 
improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' 
any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, 
diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that 
absence and is absent for less than three days.
  Second, the bill amends the Act's provisions relating to intermittent 
leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in 
minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by 
employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine 
justification for early departures.
  Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request 
leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide 
written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the 
employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, 
the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral 
notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the 
leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable 
of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that 
circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary 
to provide notice.
  Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as 
FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the 
employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's 
private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate 
personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected 
to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys 
have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the 
employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid 
or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or 
to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA 
leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave 
under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has 
placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an 
employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there 
is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an 
individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts 
taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F. 
Supp. 326, N.D. Ill. 1995, in case of first impression in 7th Circuit, 
court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled 
`in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence 
and return to her position'').
  Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious 
health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee 
to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid 
absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other 
sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the 
employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue 
their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to 
employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, 
including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union 
representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal 
work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules 
and procedures dealing with attendance requirements.
  The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns 
that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental 
protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to 
restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very 
legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to 
restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. I ask that the 
test of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 489

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family and 
     Medical Leave Clarification Act''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     wherever 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 Family and Medical Leave 
     Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:
       Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
       Sec. 2. Findings.
       Sec. 3. Definition of serious health condition.
       Sec. 4. Intermittent leave.
       Sec. 5. Request for leave.
       Sec. 6. Substitution of paid leave.
       Sec. 7. Regulations.
       Sec. 8. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Act'') is not working as Congress 
     intended when Congress passed the Act in 1993. Many 
     employers, including those employers that are nationally 
     recognized as having generous family-friendly benefit and 
     leave programs, are experiencing serious problems complying 
     with the Act.
       (2) The Department of Labor's overly broad regulations and 
     interpretations have caused many of these problems by greatly 
     expanding the Act's coverage to apply to many nonserious 
     health conditions.
       (3) Documented problems generated by the Act include 
     significant new administrative and personnel costs, loss of 
     productivity and scheduling difficulties, unnecessary 
     paperwork and recordkeeping, and other compliance problems.
       (4) The Act often conflicts with employers' paid sick leave 
     policies, prevents employers from managing absences through 
     their absence control plans, and results in most leave under 
     the Act becoming paid leave.
       (5) The Commission on Leave, established in title III of 
     the ACt (29 U.S.C. 2631 et seq.), which reported few 
     difficulties with compliance with the Act, failed to identify 
     many of the problems with compliance because the study on 
     which the report was based was conducted too soon after the 
     date of enactment of the Act and the most significant 
     problems with compliance arose only when employers later 
     sought to comply with the Act's final regulations and 
     interpretations.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.

       Section 101(11) (29 U.S.C. 2611(11)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by aligning the margins of those clauses with the 
     margins of clause (i) of paragraph (4)(A);
       (3) by inserting before ``The'' the following:
       ``(A) In general.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term does not include a short-term 
     illness, injury, impairment, or condition for which treatment 
     and recovery are very brief.

[[Page S2074]]

       ``(C) Examples.--The term includes an illness, injury, 
     impairment, or physical or mental condition such as a heart 
     attack, a heart condition requiring extensive therapy or a 
     surgical procedure, a stroke, a severe respiratory condition, 
     a spinal injury, appendicitis, pneumonia, emphysema, severe 
     arthritis, a severe nervous disorder, an injury caused by a 
     serious accident on or off the job, an ongoing pregnancy, a 
     miscarriage, a complication or illness related to pregnancy, 
     such as severe morning sickness, a need for prenatal care, 
     childbirth, and recovery from childbirth, that involves care 
     or treatment described in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 4. INTERMITTENT LEAVE.

       Section 102(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2612(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end of the second sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``, as certified under section 103 
     by the health care provider after each leave occurrence. An 
     employer may require an employee to take intermittent leave 
     in increments of up to \1/2\ of a workday. An employer may 
     require an employee who travels as part of the normal day-to-
     day work or duty assignment of the employee and who requests 
     intermittent leave or leave on a reduced schedule to take 
     leave for the duration of that work or assignment if the 
     employer cannot reasonably accommodate the employee's 
     request.''.

     SEC. 5. REQUEST FOR LEAVE.

       Section 102(e) (29 U.S.C. 2612(e)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Request for leave.--If an employer does not exercise, 
     under subsection (d)(2), the right to require an employee to 
     substitute other employer-provided leave for leave under this 
     title, the employer may require the employee who wants leave 
     under this title to request the leave in a timely manner. If 
     an employer requires a timely request under this paragraph, 
     an employee who fails to make a timely request may be denied 
     leave under this title.
       ``(4) Timeliness of request for leave.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (3), a request for leave shall be considered to be 
     timely if--
       ``(A) in the case of foreseeable leave, the employee--
       ``(i) provides the applicable advance notice required by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       ``(ii) submits any written application required by the 
     employer for the leave not later than 5 working days after 
     providing the notice to the employer; and
       ``(B) in the case of unforeseeable leave, the employee--
       ``(i) notifies the employer orally of the need for the 
     leave--
       ``(I) not later than the date the leave commences; or
       ``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary, 
     if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of 
     providing the notification; and
       ``(ii) submits any written application required by the 
     employer for the leave--
       ``(I) not later than 5 working days after providing the 
     notice to the employer; or
       ``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary, 
     if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of 
     submitting the application.''.

     SEC. 6. SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.

       Section 102(d)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Paid absence.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), with respect to leave provided under subparagraph (D) of 
     subsection (a)(1), where an employer provides a paid absence 
     under the employer's collective bargaining agreement, a 
     welfare benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or under any 
     other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or 
     policy of the employer, the employer may require the employee 
     to choose between the paid absence and unpaid leave provided 
     under this title.''.

     SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Existing Regulations.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall review 
     all regulations issued before that date to implement the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.), including the regulations published in sections 
     825.114 and 825.115 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Termination.--The regulations, and opinion letters 
     promulgated under the regulations, shall cease to be 
     effective on the effective date of final regulations issued 
     under subsection (b)(2)(B), except as described in subsection 
     (c).
       (b) Revised Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue revised 
     regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
     1993 that reflect the amendments made by this Act.
       (2) New regulations.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue--
       (A) proposed regulations described in paragraph (1) not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) final regulations described in paragraph (1) not later 
     than 180 days after that date of enactment.
       (3) Effective date.--The final regulations take effect 90 
     days after the date on which the regulations are issued.
       (e) Transitioin.--The regulations described in subsection 
     (a) shall apply to actions taken by an employer prior to the 
     effective date of final regulations issued under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), with respect to leave under the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                                             FMLA,


                              Technical Corrections Coalition,

                                Springfield, VA, February 7, 2001.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Children and Families,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gregg: the Family and Medical Leave Act 
     Technical Corrections Coalition would like to commend you for 
     reintroducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act.
       As you know, the Coalition is a diverse, broad-based, 
     nonpartisan group of nearly 300 leading companies and 
     associations. Members of the Coalition are fully committed to 
     complying with both the spirit and the letter of the FMLA and 
     strongly believe that employers should provide policies and 
     programs to accommodate the individual work-life needs of 
     their employees. At the same time, members of the Coalition 
     believe that the FMLA should be fixed to protect those 
     employees that Congress aimed to assist while streamlining 
     administrative problems that have arisen. Since the FMLA is 
     not working properly, the Coalition does not support 
     expansions to the Act.
       Unfortunately, FMLA implementation problems, which were 
     well documented during your July 14, 1999 hearing and four 
     other Congressional hearings, continue to grow. The need for 
     your FMLA technical corrections legislation has been 
     confirmed and even strengthened over the past year through 
     additional Congressional hearings and through the release of 
     new survey information: (1) the SHRM (Society for Human 
     Resource Management) 2000 FMLA Survey and (2) the new 
     Department of Labor (DOL) FMLA Survey. While the SHRM survey 
     is a more accurate national measure of FMLA implementation 
     since it was specifically directed to those actually charged 
     with FMLA compliance, both the SHRM and DOL surveys 
     essentially reached the same conclusion: FMLA problems are 
     growing. For example:
       Both the DOL and SHRM surveys found that more employers are 
     finding the FMLA and its regulations and interpretations more 
     difficult than they did several years ago.
       The Labor Department report found that the share of covered 
     establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to 
     comply with the FMLA declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. 
     The fact that both the Labor Department and SHRM surveys show 
     that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not 
     easier seven years after it has been in place is of great 
     concern.
       The DOL survey conducted by former President Clinton's 
     Labor Department casts significant doubt on the need for 
     federally mandated FMLA expansions as the best way to provide 
     increased flexibility for workers. For example, the Labor 
     Department survey found that the gap between covered and non-
     covered establishments has narrowed since 1995, as non-
     covered establishments are significantly more likely to offer 
     FMLA-type benefits in 2000 than they were five years earlier. 
     Interestingly, non-covered employers are more likely than 
     covered establishments to offer leave for school-related 
     functions or routine medical appointments.
       The SHRM report confirmed Congressional hearing findings 
     that the issue of intermittent leave continues to be 
     extremely difficult. Three-quarters (76 percent) of 
     respondents said they would find compliance easier if the 
     Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and 
     tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes. 
     Additionally, a survey by CORE, Inc. survey found that the 
     majority (54%) does not feel confident that their company is 
     tracking FMLA correctly.
       In all SHRM and Labor Department surveys, past and present, 
     the most commonly reported method of covering work when an 
     employee takes leave was to assign the work temporarily to 
     other employees. The SHRM survey showed that a full 34% of 
     human resource professionals were aware of complaints by 
     coworkers due to questionable use of FMLA.
       The fact that both the Labor Department and SHRM surveys 
     show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not 
     easier, seven years after it has been in place is of great 
     concern.
       Thank you for your leadership and continued commitment to 
     restoring the FMLA to its original Congressional intent 
     through FMLA technical corrections while preserving the 
     spirit of the Act. The entire FMLA Technical Corrections 
     Coalition looks forward to working with you to ensure its 
     success.
           Respectfully,
                                            Deanna R. Gelak, SPHR,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS:
  S. 490. A bill to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that 
ensure that law enforcement officers employed by such agencies are 
afforded due process when involved in a case that may lead to 
dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S2075]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law 
Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 2001. Every day our nation's 
police officers put their lives on the line in the fight against crime. 
Every time they patrol a beat they put their own safety at risk to 
protect our children and make our country a better place to live and 
work. We all owe a great deal to these brave men and women.
  Working police officers spend their lives among the public 
safeguarding the innocent and apprehending those who have committed 
crimes. Much of this contact can be stressful for everyone involved. 
Perhaps an individual has been stopped by an officer for the suspected 
violation of a law. Or maybe the officer is assisting someone who is 
the victim of a crime. Due to the circumstances, these are often 
unpleasant situations. And unfortunately, in some instances, contact 
with the police officer may become adversarial and generate complaints 
about the officer's actions.
  These complaints range from accusations that an officer took too long 
to arrive at a crime scene, used too much force, or was not forceful 
enough, to claims that the officer was rude or didn't show proper 
respect. Some complaints against officers are legitimate. However, some 
complaints are generated to intimidate an officer who is simply doing 
his or her job, into dropping charges. Any one of these complaints can 
get an officer fired, suspended, or otherwise punished without the 
benefit of due process.
  A patchwork of state and local laws currently governs the rights of 
officers when they are involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, 
demotion, suspension or transfer. Thirty-five states have state and/or 
local laws in place that govern the administrative due process rights 
of law enforcement officers. However, 15 states do not have any of 
these much-deserved due process protections for their law enforcement 
officers.
  The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is a common-sense 
measure designed to replace arbitrary and ad hoc investigatory 
procedures with consistent standards. The legislation will provide 
additional funding to law enforcement agencies that either have in 
place, or currently do not have but certify they will implement, 
administrative due process for their law enforcement officers. An 
agency will be eligible for grant money if its administrative 
procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under 
investigation to: (1) a hearing before a fair and impartial board or 
hearing officer; (2) be represented by an attorney or other officer at 
the expense of the officer under investigation; (3) confront any 
witness testifying against him or her; and (4) record all meetings he 
or she attends. In many instances, an employer with direct control over 
an officer is also the investigator. That is why providing basic, 
explicitly stated rights to officers under investigation is crucial to 
maintaining impartial investigations. These rights will not interfere 
with the management of state and local internal investigations. They 
will merely ensure that officers receive the benefit of fair and 
objective investigations, whether a complaint against them is 
legitimate or not.
  Some individuals may be concerned that providing these rights would 
delay removal of an officer who is ultimately found to have deserved 
disciplinary action taken against them. However, I'd like to emphasize 
that my legislation would not prevent the immediate suspension of an 
officer whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a 
substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law enforcement 
agency or the public; who refuses to obey a direct order issued in 
conformance with the agency's rules and regulations; or who is accused 
of committing an illegal act.
  The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act does not force a law 
enforcement agency to implement due process rights for its officers. 
Rather, it encourages agencies to do the right thing by offering them 
additional funds if they establish written procedures for determining 
if a complaint is valid or merely designed to cause trouble for the 
officer.
  I urge my colleagues who represent states that do not have law 
enforcement officers' due process rights laws to cosponsor my bill and 
give their police officers the protections they deserve. I also urge my 
colleagues who represent states that have various local laws in place 
to cosponsor my bill. By doing so they will help eliminate the 
disparity that exists among local jurisdictions, and guarantee that 
every single officer in their state will have a minimum baseline of 
rights to help guarantee fair and impartial investigations.
  Crime rates are down across the nation. We owe a tremendous debt of 
gratitude to our nation's police officers for helping make this happen. 
Our communities, our schools, and our places of business would not 
enjoy the level of security they have today without the efforts of law 
enforcement. Enacting the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is 
the least we can do to show officers that we will fight for all of them 
just like they fight for all of us every day.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 490

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers Due 
     Process Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General is authorized 
     to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under subsection (b).
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a law enforcement agency shall--
       (1) have in effect an administrative process that complies 
     with the requirements of subsection (c); or
       (2) certify that it will establish, not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, an administrative 
     process that complies with the requirements of subsection 
     (c).
       (c) Officer Rights.--The administrative process referred to 
     in subsection (b) shall require that a law enforcement agency 
     that investigates a law enforcement officer for matters which 
     could reasonably lead to disciplinary action against such 
     officer, including dismissal, demotion, suspension, or 
     transfer provide recourse for the officer that, at a minimum, 
     includes the following:
       (1) Access to administrative process.--The agency has 
     written procedures to ensure that any law enforcement officer 
     is afforded access to any existing administrative process 
     established by the employing agency prior to the imposition 
     of any such disciplinary action against the officer.
       (2) Specific procedures.--The procedures used under 
     paragraph (1) include, the right of a law enforcement officer 
     under investigation--
       (A) to a hearing before a fair and impartial board or 
     hearing officer;
       (B) to be represented by an attorney or other officer at 
     the expense of such officer;
       (C) to confront any witness testifying against such 
     officer; and
       (D) to record all meetings in which such officer attends.
       (d) Immediate Suspension.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the immediate suspension with pay of a law 
     enforcement officer--
       (1) whose continued presence on the job is considered to be 
     a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law 
     enforcement agency or the public;
       (2) who refuses to obey a direct order issued in 
     conformance with the agency's written and disseminated rules 
     and regulations; or
       (3) who is accused of committing an illegal act.
       (e) Distribution of Funds.--From the amount made available 
     to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall 
     allocate--
       (1) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under paragraph (1) of subsection (b); and
       (2) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are 
     eligible under paragraph (2) of subsection (b).
       (f) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``law enforcement agency'' means any State or 
     unit of local government within the State that employs law 
     enforcement officers; and
       (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means an officer 
     with the powers of arrest as defined by the laws of each 
     State and required to be certified under the laws of such 
     State.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 491. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

[[Page S2076]]

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver 
Water Reuse project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to reintroduce a 
bill that will help millions of water consumers throughout my home 
state of Colorado. My bill, the Denver Water Reuse Project, is based on 
legislation I previously introduced in the last Congress. The full 
Senate passed this legislation last year, but time ran out in the 106th 
Congress before the House could act.
  The Denver Water Department has developed a plan to re-use non-
potable water for irrigation and industrial uses. In the arid West, 
where growing populations and changing values are placing increasing 
demands on existing water supplies, water availability remains an 
important issue throughout the West. Recent conflicts are particularly 
apparent where agricultural needs for water are often in direct 
conflict with urban needs. This legislation will help remedy some of 
this conflict.
  The State of Colorado, the Colorado Water Congress, the Denver Board 
of Water Commissioners, and the Mayor of Denver endorsed this 
legislation last year. I am pleased to assist these interested parties 
with this worthwhile proposal.
  The Denver Water Department serves over a million customers and is 
one of the largest water suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region. Over 
the past several years Denver Water has developed a plan to treat and 
re-use some of its water supply for uses not involving human 
consumption. In this manner, Denver will stretch its water supply 
without the cost and potential environmental disruption of building new 
projects. It will also ease the demand on fresh drinking-quality water 
supplies.
  The Denver Water Reuse Project will treat secondary wastewater which 
is water that has already been used once in Denver's system. It is an 
environmentally and economically viable method for extending and 
conserving our limited water supplies. The water quality will meet all 
Colorado and federal standards. The water will still be clean and 
odorless, but since it will be used for irrigation and industrial uses 
around the Denver International Airport and the Rocky Mountain Wildlife 
Refuge, the additional expense to treat it for consumption will be 
avoided.
  In the West, naturally scarce water supplies and increasing urban 
populations have increased our need for water re-use, recycling, 
conservation, and storage proposals. These are all keys to successfully 
meet the water needs of everyone. This plan would benefit many 
Coloradans, and would help relieve many of the water burdens faced in 
the Denver region. Again, I'd like to thank the interested parties for 
their support, and I am hopeful this bill can be quickly passed and put 
into effect.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a copy of the 
letter of support from the Mayor of Denver be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 491

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

     SECTION 1. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, 1633, and 1634 
     (43 U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15, 390h-16) as sections 
     1632, 1633, 1634, and 1635, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1630 the following:

     ``SEC. 1631. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the appropriate State and local authorities, may participate 
     in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water 
     Reuse project to reclaim and reuse water in the service area 
     of the Denver Water Department of the city and county of 
     Denver, Colorado.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for the operation or maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act (as amended by subsection (a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in section 1632(a), by striking ``1630'' and inserting 
     ``1631'';
       (B) in section 1633(c), by striking ``section 1633'' and 
     inserting ``section 1634''; and
       (C) in section 1634, by striking ``section 1632'' and 
     inserting ``section 1633''.
       (2) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation 
     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended 
     by striking the items relating to sections 1631 through 1634 
     and inserting the following:

``Sec. 1631. Denver water reuse project.
``Sec. 1632. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1633. Groundwater study.
``Sec. 1634. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1635. Willow Lake natural treatment system project.''.
                                  ____



                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                        Denver, CO, March 5, 2001.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Once again, I want to express my 
     appreciation for your support of legislation adding the 
     Denver Water Non-potable Reuse Project to the Bureau of 
     Reclamation's approved projects list.
       We are proud to include non-potable reuse, coupled with 
     water conservation and system refinements, as core components 
     of the Denver Water 20-year plan. We certainly acknowledge 
     the importance and value of our limited water resources 
     throughout Colorado. Reuse efforts allow us to reduce or 
     minimize the Denver metro area's demands on limited Colorado 
     River sources.
       Once again, thank you for your support.
           Yours truly,
                                               Wellington E. Webb,
                                                            Mayor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 493. A bill to provide for the establishment of a Sioux Nation 
Economic Development Council; the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill along with 
Senator Johnson, to amend the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place 
legislation that was enacted in the final days of the 106th Congress.
  The original version of the Wakpa Sica bill that the Senate approved 
last year established a center of law, history, culture and economic 
development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper 
Midwest. The Reconciliation Place authorized by the bill will become a 
focal point for the preservation of Sioux law and culture. It will 
enhance the knowledge and understanding of the Sioux by displaying and 
interpreting their history, art, and culture. It will also provide an 
important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family 
histories for members of tribes, and other important historical 
documents.
  Regrettably, the Reconciliation Place law that ultimately passed in 
the 106th Congress did not include the economic development title to 
strengthen tribal communities and expand opportunities for tribal 
members and businesses. That provision, which I strongly support, was 
dropped due to objections from the House of Representatives that 
threatened enactment of the entire bill, which included Wakpa Sica.
  The bill that I am introducing today would authorize a Sioux Nation 
Economic Development Council. It complements the Wakpa Sica 
Reconciliation Place by providing opportunities for further economic 
development and regional job creation for the Great Sioux Nation.
  The Sioux Nation Economic Development Council will assist tribal 
governments and individuals in promoting economic growth on the 
reservations and surrounding communities. It will coordinate economic 
development and will centralize the expertise and technical support to 
help tribes obtain federal assistance. It will raise funds from private 
donations to match federal contributions. Finally, it will provide 
grants, loans, scholarships and technical assistance to tribes and 
their members, to ultimately help tribes generate jobs.
  The strength of the Reconciliation Place lies in its diversity of 
purpose. It will have many funding sources, both public and private. 
Each agency mentioned in the bill will assist in providing funding and 
technical assistance to the tribes and tribal members through the 
Reconciliation Place. This assistance will not diminish the government-
to-government policy established by the United States for individual 
tribes. Instead, it will provide a focal point for governmental and 
private organizations to expand their ability to help the entire Great 
Sioux Nation.
  The United Sioux Tribes, the State of South Dakota and Mike Jandreau,

[[Page S2077]]

Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, have been working on this 
project for many years. I share their enthusiasm for the concept and 
commitment to building a comprehensive center for Sioux culture, law 
and economic development. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to 
fulfill that commitment to the Great Sioux Nation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. 
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. 493

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

     SECTION 1. SIOUX NATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.

       Title IV of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law 
     106-568) is amended--
       (1) in section 401--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the establishment of a Native American Economic 
     Development Council will assist in promoting economic growth 
     and reducing poverty on reservations of the Sioux Nation by--
       ``(A) coordinating economic development efforts;
       ``(B) centralizing expertise concerning Federal assistance; 
     and
       ``(C) facilitating the raising of funds from private 
     donations to meet matching requirements under certain Federal 
     assistance programs.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

        ``Subtitle C--Sioux Nation Economic Development Council

     ``SEC. 431. ESTABLISHMENT OF SIOUX NATION ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established the Sioux Nation 
     Economic Development Council (in this subtitle referred to as 
     the `Council') as a part of the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation 
     Place. The Council shall be a charitable and nonprofit 
     corporation and shall not be considered to be an agency or 
     establishment of the United States.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Council are--
       ``(1) to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of 
     property;
       ``(2) to use those gifts as a source of matching funds 
     necessary to receive Federal assistance;
       ``(3) to provide members of Indian tribes with the skills 
     and resources necessary for establishing successful 
     businesses;
       ``(4) to provide grants and loans to members of Indian 
     tribes to establish or operate small businesses;
       ``(5) to provide scholarships for members of Indian tribes 
     who are students pursuing an education in business or a 
     business-related subject; and
       ``(6) to provide technical assistance to Indian tribes and 
     members thereof in obtaining Federal assistance.

     ``SEC. 432. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Establishment and Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Council shall have a governing Board 
     of Directors (in this subtitle referred to as the `Board').
       ``(2) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 11 directors, 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       ``(A)(i) Nine members appointed under this paragraph shall 
     represent the 9 reservations of South Dakota.
       ``(ii) Each member described in clause (i) shall--
       ``(I) represent 1 of the reservations described in clause 
     (i); and
       ``(II) be selected from among nominations submitted by the 
     appropriate Indian tribe.
       ``(B) One member appointed under this paragraph shall be 
     selected from nominations submitted by the Governor of South 
     Dakota.
       ``(C) One member appointed under this paragraph shall be 
     selected from nominations submitted by the most senior member 
     of the South Dakota Congressional delegation.
       ``(3) Citizenship.--Each member of the Board shall be a 
     citizen of the United States.
       ``(b) Appointments and Terms.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall appoint the directors of the Board under 
     subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) Terms.--Each director shall serve for a term of 2 
     years.
       ``(3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board shall be filled 
     not later than 60 days after that vacancy occurs, in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       ``(4) Limitation on terms.--No individual may serve more 
     than 3 consecutive terms as a director.
       ``(c) Chairman.--The Chairman shall be elected by the Board 
     from its members for a term of 2 years.
       ``(d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman at least once a year. If a director misses 3 
     consecutive regularly scheduled meetings, that individual may 
     be removed from the Board by the Secretary and that vacancy 
     filled in accordance with subsection (b)(3).
       ``(f) Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of the Board 
     shall serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for the actual 
     and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by 
     them in the performance of the duties of the Council in 
     accordance with section 434(a).
       ``(g) General Powers.--
       ``(1) Powers.--The Board may complete the organization of 
     the Council by--
       ``(A) appointing officers and employees;
       ``(B) adopting a constitution and bylaws consistent with 
     the purposes of the Council under this subtitle; and
       ``(C) carrying out such other actions as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purposes of the Council under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Effect of appointment.--Appointment to the Board 
     shall not constitute employment by, or the holding of an 
     office of, the United States for the purposes of any Federal 
     law.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to the appointment of officers and employees of 
     the Council:
       ``(A) Officers and employees may not be appointed until the 
     Council has sufficient funds to pay them for their service.
       ``(B) Officers and employees of the Council--
       ``(i) shall be appointed without regard to the provisions 
     of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service; and
       ``(ii) may be paid without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       ``(4) Secretary of the board.--The first officer or 
     employee appointed by the Board shall be the Secretary of the 
     Board. The Secretary of the Board shall--
       ``(A) serve, at the direction of the Board, as its chief 
     operating officer; and
       ``(B) be knowledgeable and experienced in matters relating 
     to economic development and Indian affairs.

     ``SEC. 433. POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Corporate Powers.--To carry out its purposes under 
     section 431(b), the Council shall have, in addition to the 
     powers otherwise given it under this subtitle, the usual 
     powers of a corporation acting as a trustee under South 
     Dakota law, including the power--
       ``(1) to accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and 
     use any gift, devise, or bequest, either absolutely or in 
     trust, of real or personal property or any income therefrom 
     or other interest therein;
       ``(2) to acquire by purchase or exchange any real or 
     personal property or interest therein;
       ``(3) unless otherwise required by the instrument of 
     transfer, to sell, donate, lease, invest, reinvest, retain, 
     or otherwise dispose of any property or income therefrom;
       ``(4) to borrow money and issue bonds, debentures, or other 
     debt instruments;
       ``(5) to sue and be sued, and complain and defend itself in 
     any court of competent jurisdiction, except that the 
     directors shall not be personally liable, except for gross 
     negligence;
       ``(6) to enter into contracts or other arrangements with 
     public agencies and private organizations and persons and to 
     make such payments as may be necessary to carry out its 
     function; and
       ``(7) to carry out any action that is necessary and proper 
     to carry out the purposes of the Council.
       ``(b) Other Powers and Obligations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Council--
       ``(A) shall have perpetual succession;
       ``(B) may conduct business throughout the several States, 
     territories, and possessions of the United States and abroad;
       ``(C) shall have its principal offices in South Dakota; and
       ``(D) shall at all times maintain a designated agent 
     authorized to accept service of process for the Council.
       ``(2) Service of notice.--The serving of notice to, or 
     service of process upon, the agent required under paragraph 
     (1)(D), or mailed to the business address of such agent, 
     shall be deemed as service upon or notice to the Council.
       ``(c) Seal.--The Council shall have an official seal 
     selected by the Board, which shall be judicially noticed.
       ``(d) Certain Interests.--If any current or future interest 
     of a gift, devise, or bequest under subsection (a)(1) is for 
     the benefit of the Council, the Council may accept the gift, 
     devise, or bequest under such subsection, even if that 
     gift,devise, or bequest is encumbered, restricted, or subject 
     to beneficial interests of 1 or more private persons.

     SEC. 434. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.

       ``(a) Provision of Services.--The Secretary may provide 
     personnel, facilities, and other administrative services to 
     the Council, including reimbursement of expenses under 
     section 432(f), not to exceed then current applicable Federal 
     Government per diem rates, for a period ending not later than 
     5 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle.
       ``(b) Reimbursement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Council may reimburse the Secretary 
     for any administrative service provided under subsection (a). 
     The

[[Page S2078]]

     Secretary shall deposit any reimbursement received under this 
     subsection into the Treasury to the credit of the 
     appropriations then current and chargeable for the cost of 
     providing such services.
       ``(2) Continuation of certain assistance.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, the Secretary is 
     authorized to continue to provide facilities, and necessary 
     support services for such facilities, to the Council after 
     the date specified in subsection (a), on a space available, 
     reimbursable cost basis.

     ``SEC. 435. VOLUNTEER STATUS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may accept, without regard to the civil 
     service classification laws, rules, or regulations, the 
     services of the Council, the Board, and the officers and 
     employees of the Board, without compensation from the 
     Secretary, as volunteers in the performance of the functions 
     authorized under this subtitle.
       ``(b) Incidental Expenses.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide for incidental expenses, including transportation, 
     lodging, and subsistence to the officers and employees 
     serving as volunteers under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 436. AUDITS, REPORT REQUIREMENTS, AND PETITION OF 
                   ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.

       ``(a) Audits.--The Council shall be subject to auditing and 
     reporting requirements under section 10101 of title 36, 
     United States Code, in the same manner as is a corporation 
     under part B of that title.
       ``(b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Council shall transmit to Congress a report 
     of its proceedings and activities during such year, including 
     a full and complete statement of its receipts, expenditures, 
     and investments.
       ``(c) Relief With Respect to Certain Council Acts or 
     Failure To Act.--If the Council--
       ``(1) engages in, or threatens to engage in, any act, 
     practice, or policy that is inconsistent with the purposes of 
     the Council under section 431(b); or
       ``(2) refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge the 
     obligations of the Council under this subtitle, or threatens 
     to do so;

     then the Attorney General of the United States may petition 
     in the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia for such equitable relief as may be necessary or 
     appropriate.

     ``SEC. 437. UNITED STATES RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.

       The United States shall not be liable for any debts, 
     defaults, acts, or omissions of the Council, the Board, or 
     the officers or employees of the Council. The full faith and 
     credit of the United States shall not extend to any 
     obligation of the Council, the Board, or the officers or 
     employees of the Council.

     ``SEC. 438. GRANTS TO COUNCIL; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Secretary shall award a grant to the Council, to be used to 
     carry out the purposes specified in section 431(b) in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Grant agreements.--As a condition to receiving a 
     grant under this section, the secretary of the Board, with 
     the approval of the Board, shall enter into an agreement with 
     the Secretary that specifies the duties of the Council in 
     carrying out the grant and the information that is required 
     to be included in the agreement under paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(3) Matching requirements.--Each agreement entered into 
     under paragraph (2) shall specify that the Federal share of a 
     grant under this section shall be 80 percent of the cost of 
     the activities funded under the grant. No amount may be made 
     available to the Council for a grant under this section, 
     unless the Council has raised an amount from private persons 
     or State or local government agencies equivalent to the non-
     Federal share of the grant.
       ``(4) Prohibition on the use of federal funds for 
     administrative expenses.--Each agreement entered into under 
     paragraph (2) shall specify that a reasonable amount of the 
     Federal funds made available to the Council (under the grant 
     that is the subject of the agreement or otherwise), but in no 
     event more that 15 percent of such funds, may be used by the 
     Council for administrative expenses of the Council, including 
     salaries, travel and transportation expenses, and other 
     overhead expenses.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each agency head listed in paragraph (2) 
     shall provide to the Council such technical assistance as may 
     be necessary for the Council to carry out the purposes 
     specified in section 431(b).
       ``(2) Agency heads.--The agency heads listed in this 
     paragraph are as follows:
       ``(A) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       ``(B) The Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(C) The Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
       ``(D) The Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of 
     the Department of Commerce.
       ``(E) The Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       ``(F) The Administrator of the Rural Development 
     Administration.

     ``SEC. 439. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006, to be used in accordance with 
     section 438.
       ``(b) Additional Authorization.--The amounts authorized to 
     be appropriated under this section are in addition to any 
     amounts provided or made available to the Council under any 
     other provision of Federal law.

     ``SEC. 440. DEFINITION.

       ``In this section the term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH.
  S. 495. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an 
above-the-line deduction for certain professional development expenses 
and classroom supplies of elementary and secondary school teachers; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary 
school teachers.
  Over the past few years, much has been said about the inequities of 
some of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Indeed, one does 
not need to look very far in the Code to begin to see provisions that 
are just plain unfair. I would like to highlight just one egregious 
example of this unfairness today, and introduce legislation to begin to 
rectify it.
  Mr. President, our public school teachers are some of the unheralded 
heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to 
educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often 
difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including 
in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school 
teacher is significantly below that of other similarly educated and 
experienced professionals in our society.
  Moreover, school teachers find themselves further disadvantaged by 
unfair treatment from the tax code as to the deductibility of 
professional development expenses and of the out-of-pocket costs of 
classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves 
supplying. Let me explain.
  Like many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school 
teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their 
field of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other 
periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to 
improve their knowledge or teaching skills. These expenditures are 
necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, 
techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the 
best education possible.
  Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic 
classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education 
budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material 
teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, 
dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, 
books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If 
not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies 
themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.
  I realize that many employees incur expenses for professional 
development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these 
costs are fully reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case 
with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are 
able to fully deduct these types of expenses.
  Under the current tax law, unreimbursed employee expenses are 
deductible, as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are 
two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-
deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount 
of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 
percent of adjusted gross income before they begin to be deductible. 
The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, 
if any, combined with all other deductions the taxpayer has, must 
exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only 
about 30 percent of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The 
unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical 
matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct these 
expenses.
  Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us 
consider the case of a fifth-year high school chemistry teacher in Utah 
who I will call Wendy Ruffner. Wendy is single

[[Page S2079]]

and earns $35,000 per year. Last year she incurred $750 in expenses for 
chemistry periodicals and for a course she took over the summer to 
increase her knowledge of chemistry. Wendy also incurred $100 in out-
of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies such as copies, periodical 
charts, and equipment for classroom experiments.
  Under current law, Wendy's expenditures are deductible, subject to 
the limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses 
must exceed 2 percent of her income before they begin to be deductible. 
Two percent of $35,000 is $700. Thus only $140 of her $840 total 
expenses is deductible, that portion that exceeds $700.
  As a single taxpayer, Wendy's standard deduction for 2000 is $4,400. 
Her total itemized deductions, including the $140 miscellaneous 
deduction for professional expenses, fall short of the standard 
deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $140 of the original $840 
in professional expenses is deductible for Wendy. What the first 
limitation did not block, the second one did.
  The legislation I introduce today, the Tax Equity for School 
Teachers, or TEST Act, would eliminate the unfairness teachers face in 
regards to these limitations by making all professional development and 
out-of-pocket expenses an above-the-line deduction. This means a 
teacher could deduct these expenses without regard to the 2 percent of 
AGI limitation and whether he or she itemizes or not.
  Let us return to my previous example of Wendy Ruffner. Under this 
bill, Wendy would be allowed to deduct all $840 of her professional 
expenses from her taxable income. This would help provide tax equity, 
and a measure of much-needed tax relief for an underpaid professional.
  Some might argue that this would be giving teachers preferential 
treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training for their 
employees that is fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable 
to the employee. Yet, public teachers, who are some of the most vital 
professionals in our society, are left to foot the bill on their own. 
Office supplies and instructional materials are also fully deductible 
to businesses. Shouldn't teachers who provide these similar materials 
for their classrooms be afforded the same tax treatment?
  School teachers deserve better tax treatment than what they receive. 
With the low pay teachers typically receive, it is no wonder that many 
areas of the country are facing severe shortages of experienced 
teachers. The tax code is compounding the problem by adding insult to 
injury. We need to remove the unfair disincentives that discourage 
motivated and qualified individuals from pursuing teaching as a 
profession.
  I note that President Bush's tax cut plan also recognizes this need 
and provides for a deduction of up to $400 in teachers' out-of-pocket 
classroom expenses. This is a good step in the right direction. My 
bill, however, provides an unlimited deduction for out-of-pocket 
expenses and goes further and also includes the costs of professional 
development expenses. I do not believe we need to place a limit on 
these deductions. Teachers are going to provide their students with 
materials and take the professional development courses regardless of a 
tax deduction. They should be able to deduct these expenditures.
  Mr. President, this bill would provide modest tax equity for teachers 
who, for too long, have been footing the bill for improving the quality 
of teaching by themselves. It is time we the tax code recognized this 
unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to 
address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  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. 495

       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 ``Tax Equity for School 
     Teachers Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
                   EXPENSES AND CLASSROOM SUPPLIES OF ELEMENTARY 
                   AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Subsection (a)(2) of section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Certain professional development expenses and 
     classroom supplies for teachers.--The deductions allowed by 
     section 162 which consist of qualified professional 
     development expenses and qualified elementary and secondary 
     education expenses paid or incurred by an eligible 
     teacher.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Qualified Expenses of Eligible Teachers.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a)(2)(D)--
       ``(1) Qualified professional development expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional 
     development expenses' means expenses for tuition, fees, 
     books, supplies, equipment, and transportation required for 
     the enrollment or attendance of an individual in a qualified 
     course of instruction.
       ``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified 
     course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
       ``(i) is--

       ``(I) directly related to the curriculum and academic 
     subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction, 
     or
       ``(II) designed to enhance the ability of an eligible 
     teacher to understand and use State standards for the 
     academic subjects in which such teacher provides instruction,

       ``(ii) may--

       ``(I) provide instruction in how to teach children with 
     different learning styles, particularly children with 
     disabilities and children with special learning needs 
     (including children who are gifted and talented), or
       ``(II) provide instruction in how best to discipline 
     children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate 
     interventions to help children described in subclause (I) to 
     learn,

       ``(iii) is tied to challenging State or local content 
     standards and student performance standards,
       ``(iv) is tied to strategies and programs that demonstrate 
     effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement and 
     student performance, or substantially increasing the 
     knowledge and teaching skills of an eligible teacher, and
       ``(v) is part of a program of professional development 
     which is approved and certified by the appropriate local 
     educational agency as furthering the goals of the preceding 
     clauses.
       ``(C) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Qualified elementary and secondary education 
     expenses.--The term `qualified elementary and secondary 
     education expenses' means expenses for any taxable year for 
     books, supplies (other than nonathletic supplies for courses 
     of instruction in health or physical education), computer 
     equipment (including related software and services) and other 
     equipment, and supplementary materials used by an eligible 
     teacher in the classroom.
       ``(3) Eligible teacher.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means an 
     individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom 
     teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal in an 
     elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for an 
     academic year ending during a taxable year.
       ``(B) Elementary or secondary school.--The term `elementary 
     or secondary school' means any school which provides 
     elementary education or secondary education (through grade 
     12), as determined under State law.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 496. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act to modify authorizations of appropriations for programs under such 
Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
dramatically increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA. My legislation would more than double the federal 
commitment to IDEA funding within four years. The legislation, 
``Growing Resources in Educational Achievement for Today and 
Tomorrow,'' GREATT IDEA, will take significant steps toward fulfilling 
the federal commitment to IDEA funding. The legislation will also free 
up additional funds for local school districts to be spent on their 
highest priorities, whether it be teacher training or salaries, 
reducing class sizes, school construction, library resources, 
technology, or music and arts education. The legislation is supported 
by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Governor 
Tom Ridge.

[[Page S2080]]

  Every child is deserving of a high-quality education in an 
environment that encourages them to learn and grow to the best of their 
ability. Thanks to IDEA, many students are learning and achieving at 
levels previously thought impossible, graduating from high school, 
going to college and entering the workforce as productive citizens. We 
must encourage this progress and continue to give parents and teachers 
the resources they need to create opportunities for special children. 
By boldly increasing the IDEA funding level, we can keep more students 
in schools and help them achieve new measures of success.
  Prior to IDEA's implementation in 1975, approximately 1 million 
children with disabilities were shut out of schools and hundreds of 
thousands more were denied appropriate services. Since then, IDEA has 
helped change the lives of these children. Congress had originally 
committed to cover 40 percent of IDEA's costs when it passed the 
original IDEA bill in 1975, with the remaining balance to be met by 
local communities and states. Over the years, however, while the law 
itself continues to work and children are being educated, the intended 
cost-sharing partnership has not been realized. The federal commitment 
of 40 percent will be reached within eight years if the funding stream 
established in GREATT IDEA is sustained. This is my first priority in 
helping local school districts provide the best education possible for 
elementary and secondary education.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort to double funding for 
IDEA within the next four years as we continue to work to fulfill this 
long neglected federal commitment and free up educational resources for 
local education. I am pleased with the funding progress we were able to 
make this past year. Yet, this legislation goes further by fully 
funding approximately 700,000 additional IDEA students at an average 
cost of $13,860 per student. We must accelerate the progress we have 
made by passing and funding this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Crapo, 
        Mr. Conrad, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 497. A bill to express the sense of Congress that the Department 
of Defense should field currently available weapons, other 
technologies, tactics and operational concepts that provide suitable 
alternatives to anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems 
and that the United States should end its use of such mines and join 
the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon as 
possible, to expand support for mine action programs including mine 
victim assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Landmine 
Elimination Act of 2001. I am joined by Senators Collins, Bingaman, 
Crapo, Conrad, Specter, Feinstein, Rockefeller, McConnell, Kerry, 
Sarbanes, Dorgan, Jeffords, Reed, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Feingold, 
Torricelli, and Durbin.
  This legislation does three things.
  It expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense 
should field currently available weapons, other technologies, tactics 
and operational concepts which provide suitable alternatives to 
landmines. It is our view that such alternatives exist and are, in 
fact, better suited than mines to protect United States Armed Forces in 
today's fast-moving battlefield. This view is shared by many active and 
retired military officers.
  The bill calls on the United States to end its use of mines, and to 
join the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon 
as possible. It also codifies the U.S. moratorium on mine exports, 
which has been in effect since 1992 and is official United States 
policy. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency working group to 
develop a comprehensive plan for expanded mine action programs, 
including programs to assist mine victims.
  Mr. President, the havoc wreaked by landmines throughout the world is 
well known. They have been responsible for by far the majority of 
casualties of NATO and peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. They were a 
cause of American casualties in Somalia. They maimed and killed 
thousands of our troops in Vietnam. And, most often, they cripple and 
kill innocent civilians, thousands and thousands each year.
  In 1992, the United States became the first country to stop exporting 
landmines. That led other countries to take similar action, and in 1994 
President Clinton called for an international treaty banning the 
weapons. That treaty, which came into force in 1998, has been signed by 
139 countries and ratified by 110.
  The United States is not among them, because of concerns at the time 
about Korea and the fact that the treaty would require the United 
States to stop using most of its anti-vehicle mines. Those were not 
frivolous concerns, although I do not believe either issue was fully 
understood or examined when the decision was made, and I have worked to 
obtain the funds to develop alternatives to mines.
  Over the past year, however, I and others have spent a great deal of 
time discussing these issues with both active and retired military 
officers. These discussions have revealed a number of interesting 
facts, which I intend to discuss with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Joint 
Chiefs, President Bush and others. Most importantly, I and others have 
become convinced that landmines are inconsistent with current U.S. 
military doctrine. They are neither cost effective nor compatible with 
our highly mobile forces, and in fact they pose serious logistical 
problems and dangers for our troops. We can do better, and we should be 
working together to get rid of these outdated weapons. It is not 
necessary to waste years developing costly new alternatives. We have 
the ``smart'' weapons and other technologies to more effectively 
protect our Armed Forces.
  I look forward to the day when the United States joins the Treaty, 
because I am convinced that without U.S. participation and leadership 
the Treaty will never achieve its promise. But having said that, I have 
never regarded the Treaty as a kind of ``holy grail'' of landmines. My 
interest in this issue, which dates to 1989 when I met a young Honduran 
boy who had lost a leg from a mine, has always been to achieve a mine-
free world. That is an ambitious goal, but it is the right goal. And 
regardless of when the U.S. joins the Treaty, we can develop a mine-
free military.
  Ironically, when that happens, the United States, which at times has 
been unfairly blamed for causing the mine problem, will become the 
world's leader on this issue. We will have ended not only our use of 
anti-personnel mines, which the Treaty prohibits, but also of anti-
vehicle mines, which, while not prohibited by the Treaty, are 
responsible for the indiscriminate deaths and injuries of countless 
innocent people.
  I look forward to an opportunity to work with the Department of 
Defense and the White House to develop a common approach, because the 
issue is no longer whether we develop a mine-free military, but when. 
It is a far more political issue than a military issue, and it is time 
to leave past disagreements and disappointments behind and work 
together on this common goal.
  The problem of landmines continues to be an issue of deep concern to 
people across this country and around the world. This week, hundreds of 
people from dozens of countries are in Washington to focus attention on 
this issue. Among them is Her Majesty Queen Noor, who I am honored to 
call a friend and who has been an eloquent advocate for a mine-free 
world and particularly for assistance for mine victims.
  One of the purposes of this legislation is to develop more effective 
programs to address the urgent needs of mine victims. It is one thing 
for a person who has lost an arm or a leg from a mine to obtain an 
artificial limb. It is another to get the counseling and training to be 
able to earn income in poor countries where the disabled are often 
ostracized. We need to do what we can to help mine victims reintegrate 
into the social and economic life of their communities.
  I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, who, like other 
legislation I have sponsored on landmines

[[Page S2081]]

span the political spectrum. This is not and has never been a partisan 
issue. It is a humanitarian issue. If landmines were a problem in our 
own country, they would have been prohibited years ago.
  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. 497

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Landmine Elimination and 
     Victim Assistance Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2 FINDINGS.

       Congess makes the following findings:
       (1) The threat posed by tens of millions of unexploded 
     landmines to innocent civilians is a global problem requiring 
     strong United States leadership in cooperation with other 
     governments.
       (2) Landmines continue to maim and kill thousands of 
     people, mostly civilians, each year, and most mine victims 
     lack the care and rehabilitation services they need.
       (3) Landmines, which remain active for hours, days or 
     years, impeded the mobility and threaten the safety of United 
     States Armed Forces, North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     forces, and other friendly forces in combat and other 
     military operations.
       (4) At least 139 countries have signed, and 110 countries 
     have ratified, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, 
     Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines 
     and on Their Destruction (opened for signature at Ottawa, 
     Canada, on December 3 and 4, 1997, and at the United Nations 
     Headquarters beginning December 5, 1997). Many of these 
     countries are former producers, exporters, and users of anti-
     personnel mines. Worldwide adherence to the Convention would 
     greatly reduce the threat to future generations from anti-
     personnel mines.
       (5) It is United States Government policy that the United 
     States will search aggressively for alternatives to anti-
     personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems and that the 
     United States will join the Convention by 2006 if suitable 
     alternatives are fielded by then.
       (6) Since 1992, United States law has prohibited the export 
     or transfer of anti-personnel mines.
       (7) Since 1997, the United States has capped its inventory 
     of anti-personnel mines and has not produced anti-personnel 
     mines.
       (8) The United States Government has contributed hundreds 
     of millions of dollars to the costly, dangerous, and arduous 
     task of humanitarian demining around the world.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Defense should field currently 
     available weapons, other technologies, tactics and 
     operational concepts that provide suitable alternatives to 
     anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems; and
       (2) The United States should end its uses of such mines and 
     join the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, 
     Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines 
     and on Their Destruction as soon as possible.

     SEC. 4. TRANSFERS OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES

       Section 1365(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2778 note) is amended by 
     striking ``During'' and all that follows through ``1991--'' 
     and inserting ``Beginning on October 23, 1992--''.

     SEC. 5. INTER-AGENCY WORKING GROUP ON MINE ACTION.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall establish an inter-agency 
     working group to develop a comprehensive plan for expanded 
     mine action programs, including mine victim rehabilitation, 
     social support, and economic reintegration. The working group 
     shall be composed of the Secretaries of State, Health and 
     Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Education, and the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development. 
     The comprehensive plan shall be developed in close 
     consultation with relevant nongovernmental organizations. As 
     part of the development of the comprehensive plan, the 
     working group shall determine an estimated cost of carrying 
     out the plan.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES TO MINES.

       No later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House or Representatives 
     a report describing actions taken by the Department of 
     Defense to field currently available weapons, other 
     technologies, tactics and operational concepts that provide 
     suitable alternatives to anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-
     tank mine systems.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 498. A bill entitled ``National Discovery Trails Act of 2001''; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, America's trails are one of our most 
treasured recreational resources. Each year millions of Americans hike, 
ski, jog, bike, ride horses, drive snow machines and all-terrain 
vehicles, observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the 
country. The types of trails found across the nation are varied and 
range from urban bike paths to bridle paths, community green ways, 
abandoned railroad right-of-ways, historic trails, and long distance 
hiking trails.
  This legislation proposes to establish the American Discovery Trail, 
or ADT. The ADT is being proposed as a continuous coast to coast trail 
that links the nation's principal north-south trails and east-west 
historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a 
nationwide network.
  National Discovery Trails are a new category of trails that recognize 
that use and enjoyment of trails close to home is equally as important 
as hiking remote wilderness trails. National Discovery Trails will 
connect people to large cities, small towns and urban areas and to 
mountains, forest, desert and natural areas by incorporating local, 
regional and national trails together.
  The American Discovery Trail links towns and cities on America's long 
distance trail system. Existing long-distance trails are used mostly by 
people living close to the trail and by weekend users. Backpacking 
excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks long. For 
example, of the estimated three million users of the Appalachian Trail 
each year, only about 150 to 200 are ``through-hikers'' who hike the 
trail from end to end. This will also be true of the American Discovery 
Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban areas.
  The ADT, the first of the Discovery Trails, will connect six national 
scenic trails, 10 national historic trails, 23 national recreational 
trails, and hundreds of other local and regional trails. The ADT will 
be a thread that sews together a variety of events, cultures, and 
features that are all part of the American experience.
  What makes the ADT so exciting is the way it has already brought 
people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 
miles support the effort. Each state the trail pass through already has 
a volunteer coordinator who leads an active ADT committee. This strong 
grassroots effort, along with financial support from Backpacker 
magazine, Ford Motor Company, The Coleman Company and others have 
helped take the ADT from dream to reality.
  Only one more very important step on the trail needs to be taken. 
Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our National Trails 
System.
  The American Discovery Trail begins (or ends) with your two feet in 
the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San 
Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the 
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and Lake Tahoe, in the middle of 
the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
  Nevada will offer Historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, 
the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park 
with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak.
  Utah will provide National Forests and Parks along with spectacular 
red rock country, until you get to Colorado and Colorado National 
Monument and its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then 
there's Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass, and Crested Butte, in the heart 
of ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails 
into Evergreen.
  At Denver the ADT divides and becomes the Northern and Southern 
Midwest routes. The Northern Midwest Route winds through Nebraska, 
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The Southern Midwest Route leaves 
Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon 
wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri 
as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky until the trail joins the Northern route in Cincinnati.
  West Virginia is next, then Maryland to the C&O Canal into Washington 
D.C. The Trail passed the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then 
heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the ADT reaches its 
eastern terminus at Cap Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean.
  Between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans one will experience some of 
the

[[Page S2082]]

most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, 
lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an 
opportunity to discover America from small towns, to rural country 
side, to large metropolitan areas.
  When the President signs this legislation into law, a twelve year 
effort will have been achieved--the American Discovery Trail will have 
become a reality. The more people who use it, the better.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Lincoln, 
        and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 500. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to 
required the Federal Communications Commission to fulfill the 
sufficient universal service support requirements for high cost areas, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  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. 500

       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 ``Universal Service Support 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO SUFFICIENT SUPPORT 
                   MECHANISMS.

       Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       (m) Removal of Impediments to Sufficient Support 
     Mechanisms.--
       (1) Removal of caps on high cost support mechanisms.--The 
     caps and limitations on universal service support contained 
     in sections 36.601(c), and 36.621(4) and 54.305 of the 
     Commission's regulations (47 CFR 36.601, [etc]) shall cease 
     to be effective on the date of enactment of the Universal 
     Service Support Act. The Commission shall not, on or after 
     such date of enactment, enforce or reimpose caps or 
     limitations on support mechanisms for rural telephone 
     companies or exchanges they acquire based on fund size or 
     other considerations unrelated to the sufficiency of support 
     to achieve the purposes of this section.
       (2) High cost support and nationwide average 
     calculations.--The Commission shall
       (A) calculate that portion of the high cost support 
     mechanism attributable to loops that have costs that are in 
     excess of 115 percent of the nationwide average under section 
     36.631 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 36.631) as in 
     effect in the date of enactment of the Universal Service 
     Support Act; and
       (B) calculate the nationwide average unseparated loop cost 
     for purposed of sections 36.621 (a)(1)-(3) and 36.622 of 
     those regulations (47 CFR 36.621 and 36.622) as in effect on 
     such date of enactment of such Act, taking into account the 
     elimination of caps and limitations of support pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockfeller, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 501. A bill to amend titles IV and XX of the Social Security Act 
to restore funding for the Social Services Block Grant, to restore the 
ability of States to transfer up to 10 percent of TANF funds to carry 
out activities under such block grant, and to require an annual report 
on such activities by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators 
Jeffords, Rockefeller, and Snowe, to introduce the Social Services 
Block Grant Restoration Act of 2001. This important block grant, 
commonly known as ``SSBG,'' is more than just money.
  When SSBG was written into law two decades ago, the goals were 
spelled out clearly. SSBG was created to ``prevent, reduce or eliminate 
dependency.'' It exists to help people ``achieve or maintain self-
sufficiency.'' It meant to ``prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or 
exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own 
interests,'' and for ``preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting 
families.''
  In other words, SSBG is a commitment on the part of this country to 
the most vulnerable members of our society. SSBG has become a 
commitment by this country to help address the pressing needs of many 
of our senior citizens. SSBG dollars are used to provide training 
services for those making the transition from welfare to work.
  It is a commitment to protect children. It is a commitment to those 
in need of mental health services and those with disabilities. It is a 
commitment to states that the federal government recognizes and shares 
the responsibility for providing human services programs.
  For too long we shrugged off this commitment and directed these vital 
federal dollars to other programs. Data from the Department of Health 
and Human Services shows how many lives this has affected.
  In 1998, SSBG accounted for 25 percent of all federal, state, and 
local expenditures for services for the disabled; 24 percent of all 
expenditures for child protective services; and 22 percent of all 
expenditures for adult protective services.
  The state of Florida relies on SSBG for 25 percent of its budget to 
protect abused and neglected elderly persons.
  These are all programs that touch the lives of the people who sent us 
here--people who are rarely able to lobby us here in our nation's 
Capitol. This program directly relates to the goals that the new 
markets tax credit would achieve--enhancing peoples' lives and giving 
vulnerable communities the ability to thrive.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this critical piece 
of legislation.

                          ____________________