Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 64 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 64 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4824-S4846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 859. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
mental health community education program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Mental
Health Accessibility Act of 2001 with Senators Conrad, Domenici,
Johnson, Roberts, and Nelson from Nebraska. Like all of the rural
health bills I've worked on with my colleagues in the Senate Rural
Health Caucus, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this
important legislation.
I believe, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 is
crucial because it reflects the unique needs of rural communities to
improve access to mental health services.
Many people do not seek mental health services because of the stigma
associated with mental illnesses. This is especially true in rural
areas where anonymity is more difficult to obtain. This legislation
creates the Mental Health Community Education Grant program, which
permits states and communities to conduct targeted public education
campaigns with particular emphasis on mental illnesses, mental
retardation, suicide, and substance abuse disorders. This new program
will go a long way in reducing the stigmatization and misinformation
surrounding mental health issues.
More than 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health
Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of
all rural counties in the nation have no mental health services of any
kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent of
these remote areas do not have psychiatrists, 68 percent do not have
psychologists and 78 percent do not have social workers. While I'm
proud that every county in my home state of Wyoming now has a
psychologist, there are still several counties that are severely
underserved and are designated as a Mental Health Shortage Area.
Due to the scarcity of mental health specialists in rural
communities, primary care providers are often the only source of
treatment. However, primary care providers do not receive the
specialized training necessary to recognize the signs of depression and
other mental illnesses in their patients. The Rural Mental Health
Accessibility Act of 2001 authorizes an Interdisciplinary Grant program
that will permit universities and other entities to establish
interdisciplinary training programs where mental health providers and
primary care providers are taught side-by-side in the classroom, with
clinical training conducted in rural underserved communities. This will
encourage greater collaboration amongst providers and increase the
quality of care for rural patients.

I am particularly concerned that suicide rates among rural children
and adolescents are higher than in urban areas, especially in western
and frontier states. Additionally, 20 percent of the nation's elderly
population live in rural areas, but only 9 percent of our nation's
physicians practice in rural areas. This bill authorizes $30 million
for 20 demonstration projects, equally divided, to provide mental
health services to children and elderly residents of long term care
facilities located in mental health shortage areas. These projects will
also provide mental illness education and targeted instruction on
coping and dealing with the

[[Page S4825]]

stressful experiences of childhood and adolescence or aging.
To prepare for further expansion of mental telehealth, this bill
requires the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy to
report to Congress on the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health
services delivered through the utilization of telehealth technologies.
In crafting this legislation I and my colleagues worked with numerous
outside organizations with an interest in mental health issues. As a
result of this collaboration, the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act
of 2001 is strongly supported by the National Rural Health Association,
the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Psychiatric
Association and the American Psychological Association.
I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and
well-being of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues
to support the rural areas in their states by becoming cosponsors of
the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of
endorsement from supporting organizations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 859

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Mental Health
Accessibility Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``SEC. 330I. MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the Office of
Rural Health Policy (of the Health Resources and Services
Administration) shall award grants to eligible entities to
conduct mental health community education programs.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' includes
a State entity, public or private school, mental health
clinic, rural health clinic, local public health department,
nonprofit private entity, federally qualified health center,
rural Area Health Education Center, Indian tribe and tribal
organization, and any other entity deemed eligible by the
Secretary.
``(2) Mental health community education program.--The term
`mental health community education program' means a program
regarding mental illness, mental retardation, suicide
prevention and co-occurring mental illness and substance
abuse disorder.
``(c) Preference.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
the Director shall give a preference to eligible entities
that are or propose to be in a network, or work in
collaboration, with other eligible entities to carry out the
programs under this section, such as a rural public or
nonprofit private entity that represents a network of local
health care providers or other entities that provide or
support delivery of health care services, and a State office
of rural health or other appropriate State entity.
``(d) Duration.--The Director shall award grants under
subsection (a) for a period of 3 years.
``(e) Amount.--Each grant awarded under this section shall
not be greater than $200,000 each fiscal year.
``(f) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under subsection (a) shall use funds received through
such grant to administer a mental health community education
program to rural populations that provides information to
dispel myths regarding mental illness and to reduce any
stigma associated with mental illness.
``(g) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may reasonably require,
including--
``(1) a description of the activities which the eligible
entity intends to carry out using amounts provided under the
grant;
``(2) a plan for continuing the project after Federal
support is ended;
``(3) a description of the manner in which the educational
activities funded under the grant will meet the mental health
care needs of underserved rural populations within the State;
and
``(4) a description of how the local community or region to
be served by the network or proposed network, if the eligible
entity is in such a network, will be involved in the
development and ongoing operations of the network.
``(h) Evaluations; Report.--Each eligible entity that
receives a grant under this section shall submit to the
Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy (of the Health
Resources and Services Administration) an evaluation
describing the programs authorized under this section and any
other information that the Director deems appropriate. After
receiving such evaluations, the Director shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report describing such
evaluations.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

``SEC. 330J. INTERDISCIPLINARY GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the Office of
Rural Health Policy (of the Health Resources and Services
Administration) shall award grants to eligible entities to
establish interdisciplinary training programs that include
significant mental health training in rural areas for certain
health care providers.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
public university or other educational institution that
provides training for mental health care providers or primary
health care providers.
``(2) Mental health care provider.--The term `mental health
care provider' means--
``(A) a physician with postgraduate training in a residency
program of psychiatry;
``(B) a licensed psychologist (as defined by the Secretary
for purposes of section 1861(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(ii)));
``(C) a clinical social worker (as defined in section
1861(hh)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(1)); or
``(D) a clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section
1861(aa)(5)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(5)(B))).
``(3) Primary health care provider.--The term `primary
health care provider' includes family practice, internal
medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, geriatrics,
and emergency medicine physicians as well as physician
assistants and nurse practitioners.
``(4) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means a rural area
as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security
Act, or such an area in a rural census tract of a
metropolitan statistical area (as determined under the most
recent modification of the Goldsmith Modification, originally
published in the Federal Register on February 27, 1992 (57
Fed. Reg. 6725)), or any other geographical area that the
Director designates as a rural area.
``(c) Duration.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) shall
be awarded for a period of 5 years.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under subsection (a) shall use funds received through
such grant to administer an interdisciplinary, side-by-side
training program for mental health care providers and primary
health care providers, that includes providing, under
appropriate supervision, health care services to patients in
underserved, rural areas without regard to patients' ability
to pay for such services.
``(e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may reasonably require,
including--
``(1) a description of the activities which the eligible
entity intends to carry out using amounts provided under the
grant;
``(2) a description of the manner in which the activities
funded under the grant will meet the mental health care needs
of underserved rural populations within the State; and
``(3) a description of the network agreement with
partnering facilities.
``(f) Evaluations; Report.--Each eligible entity that
receives a grant under this section shall submit to the
Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy (of the Health
Resources and Services Administration) an evaluation
describing the programs authorized under this section and any
other information that the Director deems appropriate. After
receiving such evaluations, the Director shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report describing such
evaluations.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $100,000,000
for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for
each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

``SEC. 330K. STUDY OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERED WITH
TELEHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES.

``(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute
of Mental Health, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Rural Health Policy, shall carry out activities to
research the efficacy and effectiveness of mental health
services delivered remotely by a qualified mental health
professional (psychiatrist or doctoral level psychologist)
using telehealth technologies.
``(b) Mandatory Activities.--Research described in
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) objective measurement of treatment outcomes for
individuals with mental illness treated remotely using
telehealth technologies as compared to individuals with
mental illness treated face-to-face;
``(2) objective measurement of treatment compliance by
individuals with mental illness treated remotely using
telehealth technologies as compared to individuals with
mental illness treated face-to-face; and
``(3) any other variables as determined by the Director.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to

[[Page S4826]]

carry out this section such sums as may be necessary.

``SEC. 330L. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERED VIA TELEHEALTH.

``(a) Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of
the Health Resources and Services Administration, shall award
grants to eligible entities to establish demonstration
projects for the provision of mental health services to
special populations as delivered remotely by qualified mental
health professionals using telehealth and for the provision
of education regarding mental illness as delivered remotely
by qualified mental health professionals and qualified mental
health education professionals using telehealth.
``(2) Number of demonstration projects.--Ten grants shall
be awarded under paragraph (1) to provide services for the
children and adolescents described in subsection (d)(1)(A)
and not less than 6 of such grants shall be for services
rendered to individuals in rural areas. Ten grants shall also
be awarded under paragraph (1) to provide services for the
elderly described in subsection (d)(1)(B) in rural areas. If
the maximum number of grants to be awarded under paragraph
(1) is not awarded, the Secretary shall award the remaining
grants in a manner that is equitably distributed between the
populations described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (d)(1).
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
public or nonprofit private telehealth provider network which
has as part of its services mental health services provided
by qualified mental health providers.
``(2) Qualified mental health education professionals.--The
term `qualified mental health education professionals' refers
to teachers, community mental health professionals, nurses,
and other entities as determined by the Secretary who have
additional training in the delivery of information on mental
illness to children and adolescents or who have additional
training in the delivery of information on mental illness to
the elderly.
``(3) Qualified mental health professionals.--The term
`qualified mental health professionals' refers to providers
of mental health services currently reimbursed under medicare
who have additional training in the treatment of mental
illness in children and adolescents or who have additional
training in the treatment of mental illness in the elderly.
``(4) Special populations.--The term `special populations'
refers to the following 2 distinct groups:
``(A) Children and adolescents located in primary and
secondary public schools in mental health underserved rural
areas or in mental health underserved urban areas.
``(B) Elderly individuals located in long-term care
facilities in mental health underserved rural areas.
``(5) Telehealth.--The term `telehealth' means the use of
electronic information and telecommunications technologies to
support long-distance clinical health care, patient and
professional health-related education, public health, and
health administration.
``(c) Amount.--Each entity that receives a grant under
subsection (a) shall receive not less than $1,500,000 with no
more than 40 percent of the total budget outlined for
equipment.
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this section shall use such funds--
``(A) for the populations described in subsection
(b)(3)(A)--
``(i) to provide mental health services, including
diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, in primary and
secondary public schools as delivered remotely by qualified
mental health professionals using telehealth;
``(ii) to provide education regarding mental illness
(including suicide and violence) in primary and secondary
public schools as delivered remotely by qualified mental
health professionals and qualified mental health education
professionals using telehealth, including early recognition
of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, and instruction
on coping and dealing with stressful experiences of childhood
and adolescence (such as violence, social isolation, and
depression); and
``(iii) to collaborate with local public health entities
and the eligible entity to provide the mental health
services; and
``(B) for the populations described in subsection
(b)(3)(B)--
``(i) to provide mental health services, including
diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, in long-term care
facilities as delivered remotely by qualified mental health
professionals using telehealth;
``(ii) to provide education regarding mental illness to
primary staff (including physicians, nurses, and nursing
aides) as delivered remotely by qualified mental health
professionals and qualified mental health education
professionals using telehealth, including early recognition
of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, and instruction
on coping and dealing with stressful experiences of old age
(such as loss of physical and cognitive capabilities, death
of loved ones and friends, social isolation, and depression);
and
``(iii) to collaborate with local public health entities
and the eligible entity to provide mental health services.
``(2) Other uses.--An eligible entity receiving a grant
under this section may also use funds to--
``(A) acquire telehealth equipment to use in primary and
secondary public schools and long-term care facilities for
the purposes of this section;
``(B) develop curriculum to support activities described in
subsections (d)(1)(A)(ii) and (d)(1)(B)(ii);
``(C) pay telecommunications costs; and
``(D) pay qualified mental health professionals and
qualified mental health education professionals on a
reasonable cost basis as determined by the Secretary for
services rendered.
``(3) Prohibited uses.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall not use funds received through
such grant to--
``(A) purchase or install transmission equipment (other
than such equipment used by qualified mental health
professionals to deliver mental health services using
telehealth under the project); or
``(B) build upon or acquire real property (except for minor
renovations related to the installation of reimbursable
equipment).
``(e) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Secretary shall ensure, to the greatest
extent possible, that such grants are equitably distributed
among geographical regions of the United States.
``(f) Application.--An entity that desires a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary determines to be reasonable.
``(g) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and
submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress
that shall evaluate activities funded with grants under this
section.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums that are
required to carry out this program for fiscal years 2003
through 2009.
``(i) Sunset Provision.--This section shall be effective
for 7 years from the date of enactment of this section.''.
____

NAMI, National Alliance for

the Mentally Ill,

Arlington, VA, May 7, 2001.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: on behalf of the 220,000 members and
1,200 affiliates of the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill (NAMI), I am pleased to offer our support for the Rural
Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. As the nation's
largest organization representing children and adults with
severe mental illnesses and their families, NAMI is pleased
to support this important legislation. Thank you for your
leadership in bringing this bipartisan measure forward.
Accessing mental illness treatment and services is a
particular challenge for individuals living in isolated rural
communities. The challenges related to geographic isolation
are too often further compounded by the stigma associated
with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, major depression and severe anxiety disorders.
Advances in scientific research and medical treatment for
these serious brain disorders have been tremendous in recent
years. Your legislation will bring these advances in research
and treatment to underserved rural areas. The initiatives
contained in the rural Mental Health Accessibility Act--
community education to address stigma, training for
providers, funding for a telehealth services program--are an
important step forward for expanding access to treatment in
sparsely populated regions of our country. NAMI looks forward
to working with you to ensure passage of this legislation in
2001.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue for
individuals with severe mental illnesses and their families.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Shannon
President.
____

National Rural Health Association,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: on behalf of the National Rural Health
Association, I would like to convey our strong support for
the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001.
While a lack of primary care services in rural and frontier
areas has long been acknowledged, the scarcity of rural
mental health services has only recently received increased
attention. At the end of 1997, 76% of designated mental
health professional shortage areas were located in
nonmetropolitan areas with a total population of over 30
million Americans.
The Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001 would
provide important first steps toward increased access to
mental health care services in rural and frontier areas. The
stigma associated with having a mental disorder and the lack
of anonymity in small rural communities leads to under-
diagnosis and under-treatment of mental disorders among rural
residents. Your legislation

[[Page S4827]]

would address this problem by creating a Mental Health
Community Education Program aimed at reducing the stigma and
misinformation surrounding mental health care.
In many rural and frontier communities, primary care
providers by necessity are responsible for the delivery of
mental health services. Because primary care providers often
lack specific mental health training, interdisciplinary
collaboration and training would increase access for rural
residents to appropriate mental health care treatment. The
interdisciplinary training grant program created by your
legislation would increase collaboration and sharing of
information between mental health providers and primary care
providers and improve care for rural residents.
The NRHA appreciates your ongoing leadership on rural
health issues, and stands ready to work with you on enactment
of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001, which
would increase the availability of mental health care in
rural and frontier areas.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Hardt,
President.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues
as a cosponsor of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001.
This bipartisan effort would take important steps toward improving
access to mental health care in rural America.
This issue is particularly important to me and my constituents in
North Dakota. Sadly, as compared to the rest of the United States,
North Dakota has the second-highest suicide rate among children ages 10
through 14, and the sixth-highest suicide rate among teenagers 15
through 19 years of age. As a result, over the 10 year period from 1987
to 1996, the percentage of deaths due to suicide among North Dakota's
children and teens was double the national average. Clearly, suicide
makes a much greater impact on child mortality in North Dakota than it
does in the rest of the United States, and it is a leading cause of
death in this age group.
In the vast majority of cases, suicide is directly related to mental
illness, particularly mood disorders such as depression. Depressive
symptoms are remarkably common in North Dakota's school-age children,
with one screening finding that 21 percent of students had mild
depression and 5 percent had moderate-to-severe depression. This level
of depression is likely a contributing factor to the 2,600 suicide
attempts by North Dakota's teens reported in 1999.
North Dakota is not alone in this crisis. Rather, it is one of a
group of western and Plains states that have elevated youth suicide
rates. As agricultural difficulties continue to plague rural areas, the
stress on families and individuals grows greater with each passing
season. Farm financial stress has been related to individual
psychological problems and an increased risk of mental disorders,
including depression, substance abuse, and suicide.
It is important to keep in mind that rural areas have a prevalence of
mental illness similar to urban areas. The difference is that people in
rural areas have less access to health care, especially mental health
care. Availability of mental health treatment is scarce in remote rural
areas. Additionally, there remains a strong stigma surrounding mental
illness and its treatment. The bill we introduce today would address
both of these problems: reducing the stigma and increasing access to
mental health services in rural areas.
Our bill addresses the problem of stigma through $50 million in
grants designed to support community mental health education programs.
Existing state and community efforts could be sustained and expanded
through these grants, and new efforts could obtain early support. In
addition, our bill establishes $30 million in demonstration projects
for the provision of mental health education in rural public schools
and nursing homes using televideoconferencing technology. Rural schools
and nursing homes would have access to information regarding mental
illness, information that would reduce stigma, enhance understanding,
and increase recognition of mental disorders. Importantly, suicide
education and prevention are to be key parts of these programs.
Other provisions of our bill address the access problem to mental
health services found in the majority of rural communities. Since
mental health care in rural communities is often provided solely by
primary care clinics, our bill establishes a $150 million grant program
to foster close interaction between mental health professionals and
primary care physicians. The grants would be available to public
universities or educational institutions to develop side-by-side
training programs for mental health care professionals and primary care
providers. These provider teams would give care to patients in
underserved, rural areas without regard to the patient's ability to pay
for such services. It is expected that primary care providers
participating in such a training program would develop greater comfort
and improved coordination with colleagues in treating mental illness in
rural settings.

Finally, our bill would increase access to mental health care
professionals by taking advantage of the latest telehealth
technologies. Our bill would fund telehealth demonstration projects
that would be focused on providing mental health services to hard-to-
reach populations, such as children, adolescents, and the elderly.
These individuals would be able to receive mental health services in
convenient sites, such as rural public schools and nursing homes.
It is my hope that the Rural Mental health Accessibility Act will
strengthen existing community efforts to fight mental illness while
encouraging the formation of new and innovative programs. I am pleased
to join Senator Thomas and others in this effort. I urge my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Baucus, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 860. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the treatment of certain expenses of rural letter carriers; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides a vital
and important communication link for the Nation and the citizens of my
home state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role and have
a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery of our
mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own horses and
buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their own cars
and trucks. They are repsonsible for maintenance and operation of their
vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the winter,
snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting snow and
ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these quite
adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 million
miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 routes.
Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the
horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has changed
dramatically. As the Nation's mail volume has increased throughout the
years, the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion
pieces of mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces
of mail a day to about 500 addresses.
Most recently, e-commerce has changed the type of mail rural carriers
deliver. This fact was confirmed in a recent GAO study entitled ``U.S.
Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements
Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century,'' dated October 21,
1999. As this report explains, the Postal Service expects declines in
its core business, which is essentially letter mail, in the coming
years. The growth of e-mail on the Internet, electronic communications,
and electronic commerce has the potential to substantially affect the
Post Service's mail volume.
First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal
Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters
is declining. E-commerce is providing the Postal Service with another
opportunity to increase another part of its business. That's because
what individuals and companies order over the Internet must be
delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and often by rural carriers.
Currently, the Postal Service has about 33 percent percent of the
parcel business. Carriers are not delivering larger volumes of business
mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But, more parcel business
will mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in postal delivery
vehicles, especially in

[[Page S4828]]

those owned and operated by rural letter carriers.
When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the
Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase,
operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from
the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment
Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a
personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use.
So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to
have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage,
extraorindary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right-
hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance
from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail
carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.

That provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was
involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to
compute their business use mileage deduction as 150 percent of the
standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative,
rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense
method, business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the
vehicle, plus depreciation. If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle
expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of
the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the
extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous
itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted
gross income.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns of
rural letter carriers. That Act permitted the EMA income and expenses
``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be
reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for
approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the
option of filing the actual expense method for employee business
vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic
changes the Internet is having on the mail, specifically on rural
carriers and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and
must address.
The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has,
understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand
drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles, SUVs, to handle the
increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than
traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense
method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to
cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed
11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers
receive no EMA.
These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the
historical congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the
government service of delivering mail, and also has created an
inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If actual business
expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be
allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today that
reinstates the ability of a rural letter carrier to choose between
using the actual expense method for computing the deduction allowable
for business use of a vehicle, or using the current practice of
deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses.
Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many
changes and challenges in this new Internet era. We must make sure that
these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they
perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate
of binding the Nation together.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Jeffords,
Conrad, Breaux, Rockefeller, Daschle, Baucus, Lincoln and myself in
sponsoring 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. 860

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN EXPENSES OF RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.

(a) In General.--Section 162(o) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of certain reimbursed
expenses of rural mail carriers) is amended by redesignating
paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting after
paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Special rule where expenses exceed reimbursements.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), if the expenses incurred by
an employee for the use of a vehicle in performing services
described in paragraph (1) exceed the qualified
reimbursements for such expenses, such excess shall be taken
into account in computing the miscellaneous itemized
deductions of the employee under section 67.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 162(o)
is amended by striking ``Reimbursed''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this important
legislation with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and several of
our colleagues that would reduce the costs incurred by rural letter
carriers by allowing them to deduct the actual expenses they incur when
using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. For many years, rural
letter carriers were allowed to calculate their deductible expenses by
using either a special formula or keeping track of their costs. In
1997, Congress simplified the tax treatment for letter carriers, but
disallowed them the ability to use the actual expense method (business
portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus
depreciation) for calculating their costs. The result is that many
letter carriers are unable to account for the real expenses they incur
when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This problem has been
exasperated by the increased need for larger vehicles by rural letter
carriers, in part, due to the volume and size of parcels. Road
conditions and severe weather have also increased vehicle costs because
of the necessity to have an SUV or four wheel drive vehicle. These
letter carriers must often purchase special vehicles with right hand
drive capabilities which are more expensive than the regular
counterpart and may have little to no value when it is time to trade
them in for a new one. It is important that these mail carriers are not
forced to pay these costs out of their own pockets.
Although the internet has made the world seem smaller, purchased
goods must still be delivered. The benefits of internet purchases in
remote locations is limited if the purchased item cannot be delivered.
For this reason, in rural states, such as New Mexico, these letter
carriers play an important role in delivering the majority of the
state's mail and parcels. On a daily basis, across the nation rural
letter carriers drive over 3 million miles delivering mail and parcels
to over 30 million families. We need to be sure that we have not
created a tax impediment for these dedicated individuals. I look
forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues to get this
legislation passed this year.
______

By Mr. BOND:
S. 861. A bill to enhance small business access to Federal
contracting opportunities and provide technical advice and support that
small businesses need to perform contracts awarded to them, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I offer a bill to take a successful
pilot program at the Department of Defense, make it permanent, and
extend it governmentwide. For the past decade, DOD has had a program in
place to try to develop and maintain small business vendors as a vital
part of our Nation's defense industrial base. This program, the Mentor-
Protege program, has also been a principal source of opportunity for
small business, to offset some of the other Federal procurement
practices that have squeezed small business out of contracting.
Those two goals, the enhanced vendor base and improved opportunity,
are worth emphasizing before I discuss the specific provisions of this
bill. Why is small business participation in contracting important?
Far too often, small business is seen as just another social or
economic development program. In Federal contracting, however, it is
much more than that. Small business is a critical, vital, indispensable
part of our nation's preparedness for its defense.

[[Page S4829]]

We have been working here in the Senate toward trying to shore up our
defense preparedness. For the better part of a decade, DOD has had more
and more missions with fewer and fewer resources. Now that we are
trying to overcome this neglect with additional funding, we must also
ensure that our economic base is strong, as well. It will do little
good to have the money to buy defense-related goods and services if
there are no vendors available to sell them.
The DOD Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has an
excellent slogan that drives this point home. ``Small Business: A
Readiness Multiplier.''
So, keeping small business involved in contracting is a matter of
self-interest for our Nation. It is a matter of having the goods, the
services, the resources for the warfighter to take into battle.
Second, small business must have access to contracting as a matter of
economic opportunity. The Government is an enormous customer. It
averages about $180 to $190 billion worth of contracting every year. No
one else has that kind of presence in the marketplace.
If the Government spends the lion's share of its money on a handful
of large insider corporations, it distorts the marketplace. It tends to
give unfair advantage to the winning firms, purely because of the
Government's enormous purchasing power.
To avoid harming our economy with that kind of market distortion, the
small business program seeks to disperse Government contracts among a
variety of vendors. The small business program is not so much an
intervention in the economy as it is a dilution of the distortion that
would otherwise occur.
Unfortunately, over the last decade the Government has increasingly
squeezed small business out of contracting. As part of the
``Reinventing Government'' effort, acquisition has been streamlined.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that all acquisition reform has been
harmful. In fact, burdensome processes and bureaucracy also tend to
discourage small business. Large businesses are more likely to have
lawyers and contracting staff to wade through the bureaucracy, so
excessive emphasis on process tends to crowd out small business.
But in some areas we have gone too far. Contract bundling is a good
example of this. By rolling several small contracts into large
packages, the Government has made things simpler and faster for the
contracting officers. It is administratively simpler to handle one
bundled contract than ten smaller ones.

However, that often crowds out small business. A small business owner
looks at one of these huge contracts and says, ``Even if I won that
contract, I couldn't carry it out. It's too big, and the requirements
are too complex.'' So she, and it is often women business owners that
suffer, she doesn't even bother to bid.
Those two issues, the need to improve opportunity and to strengthen
our defense vendor base, show why we need to take specific steps to
restore small business access to procurement opportunities.
Fortunately, we have a successful model to build upon!
In the Fiscal 1991 defense authorization bill, the Congress adopted a
provision to help small firms develop the technical infrastructure
necessary to perform Federal contracts effectively. This pilot program,
the Mentor-Protege program, provided for prime contractors either to be
reimbursed for their added costs in providing technical assistance to
small firms, or to receive credit for accomplishing their
subcontracting plans in lieu of reimbursement.
Experience under the Mentor-Protege pilot program has been very
positive. We have learned a lot about what it takes to get small
businesses ready to be serious players in Federal procurement. For
firms that are simply delivering a specific order for a product,
performing on that delivery order is often simple enough.
But longer term, larger contracts are more complex. They require
sustained effort over many months or years. They require a firm to
commit to and achieve intermediate milestones on time. They require the
firm to maintain quality assurance standards month in and month out,
year in and year out. This can be extraordinarily challenging.
Mentor firms have demonstrated that they can help train small protege
firms to develop that infrastructure, so necessary to be successful in
larger Federal contracts.
I have a case history right here that I call to the attention of my
colleagues. Scott Ulvi, of Anteon Corporation, has written me about his
experience in mentoring, and Ray Lopez, of Engineering Services
Network, has written about the value of the training and assistance he
received from Anteon. I call particular attention to Mr. Lopez'
experience in successfully receiving Federal contracts, only to have
the reality sink in that he was originally unprepared to carry them
out. His experience is truly instructive of what small business owners
encounter daily, and I call his letter to the attention of my
colleagues. I will ask unanimous consent that both letters be inserted
into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The bill I am offering today would build upon the experience with the
DOD program and make it governmentwide. Specifically, the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration would be charged with developing a
governmentwide program that would provide assistance to all types of
firms targeted for special procurement procedures under the Small
Business Act.
Now, it would not be possible for the SBA to manage every Mentor-
Protege relationship in the Federal Government. It would be
administratively impossible. Thus, my bill calls for the Administrator
to develop a core Mentor-Protege program, applicable across the
Government, and to reimburse part of the expenses of agencies that
agree to adopt the SBA program. Agencies would administer the program
in-house, but would apply to be reimbursed for up to 50 percent of
certain expenses incurred in a program that conforms to the
Administrator's guidelines.
The expenses to be partially reimbursed are those for which an agency
reimburses the mentoring firms. Mentor firms can get reimbursed from
the contracting office for added costs they incur in providing
technical, managerial, and developmental assistance to the protege
firm. Under this bill, up to 50 percent of these costs would then in
turn be reimbursed to the agency from the SBA. The technical assistance
provided through this reimbursable program is far and away the most
valuable, as the letter from Scott Ulvi of Anteon Corporation
describes. This program seeks to help agencies put together the
resources they need to make such reimbursements.
This program will help all agencies of the Government strengthen
their vendor base, just as it has for the Department of Defense. It
will help small businesses develop their abilities to compete for
larger contracts, and the taxpayer will be the ultimate winner as a
result of that competition. It also meets one of the Bush
administration's goals, as described in the recent budget submission,
of reducing fragmentation among Federal programs by ensuring a uniform,
core Mentor-Protege program across the Government.
Nothing succeeds like success. The DOD Mentor-Protege program,
adopted as a pilot in 1991, has been such a success. Now we need to
learn from that success and make it available across the Government. My
bill proposes to do exactly that and I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill and supporting letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 861

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 ``Governmentwide Mentor-
Protege Program Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.

The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 36 as section 37; and
(2) by inserting after section 35 the following:

``SEC. 36. MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment of Program.--The Administrator shall
establish a Program to be

[[Page S4830]]

known as the `Governmentwide Mentor-Protege Program'.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are to
provide--
``(1) incentives for major Federal contractors to assist
eligible small business concerns to enhance the capabilities
of eligible small business concerns to perform as
subcontractors and suppliers under Federal contracts in order
to increase the participation of eligible small business
concerns as subcontractors and suppliers under those
contracts; and
``(2) Governmentwide criteria for partial reimbursement of
certain agency costs incurred in the administration of the
Program.
``(c) Program Participants.--
``(1) Mentor firms.--A mentor firm may enter into
agreements under subsection (e) and furnish assistance to
eligible small business concerns upon making application to
the head of the agency for which it is contracting and being
approved for participation in the Program by the head of the
agency.
``(2) Eligible small business concerns.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible small business concern may
obtain assistance from a mentor firm upon entering into an
agreement with the mentor firm to become a protege firm, as
provided in subsection (e).
``(B) Restriction.--A protege firm may not be a party to
more than one agreement to receive assistance described in
subparagraph (A) at any time.
``(3) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--Before receiving assistance from a
mentor firm under this section, a small business concern
shall furnish to the mentor firm--
``(i) if the Administration regularly issues certifications
of qualification for the category of that small business
concern listed in subsection (k)(1), that certification; and
``(ii) if the Administration does not regularly issue
certifications of qualification for the category of that
small business concern listed in subsection (k)(1), a
statement indicating that it is an eligible small business
concern.
``(B) Development of certification.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to require the Administration to
develop a certification program for any category of small
business concern listed in subsection (k)(1).
``(C) Assistance to non-eligible small business concern.--
If at any time, a small business concern is determined by the
Administration not to be an eligible small business concern
in accordance with this section--
``(i) the small business concern shall immediately notify
the mentor firm of the determination; and
``(ii) assistance furnished to that small business concern
by the mentor firm after the date of the determination may
not be considered to be assistance furnished under the
Program.
``(d) Mentor Firm Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c)(1), a mentor
firm that is eligible for award of Federal contracts may
enter into an agreement with one or more protege firms under
subsection (e) and provide assistance under the Program
pursuant to that agreement, if the mentor firm demonstrates
to the subject agency the capability to assist in the
development of protege firms.
``(2) Presumption of capability.--A mentor firm shall be
presumed to be capable under paragraph (1) if the total
amount of contracts and subcontracts that the mentor firm has
entered into with the subject agency exceeds an amount
determined by the Administrator, in consultation with the
head of the subject agency, to be significant relative to the
contracting volume of the subject agency.
``(e) Mentor-Protege Agreement.--
``(1) In general.--Before providing assistance to a protege
firm under the Program, a mentor firm shall enter into a
mentor-protege agreement with the protege firm regarding the
assistance to be provided by the mentor firm.
``(2) Contents of agreement.--The agreement required by
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) a developmental program for the protege firm, in such
detail as may be reasonable, including--
``(i) factors to assess the developmental progress of the
protege firm under the Program; and
``(ii) the anticipated number and type of subcontracts to
be awarded to the protege firm;
``(B) a Program participation term of not longer than 3
years, except that the term may be for a period of not longer
than 5 years if the Administrator determines, in writing,
that unusual circumstances justify a Program participation
term of longer than 3 years; and
``(C) procedures for the protege firm to terminate the
agreement voluntarily and for the mentor firm to terminate
the agreement for cause.
``(f) Forms of Assistance.--A mentor firm may provide to a
protege firm--
``(1) assistance using mentor firm personnel, in--
``(A) general business management, including organizational
management, financial management, and personnel management,
marketing, business development, and overall business
planning;
``(B) engineering and technical matters, including
production, inventory control, and quality assurance; and
``(C) any other assistance designed to develop the
capabilities of the protege firm under the developmental
program referred to in subsection (e)(2)(A);
``(2) the award of subcontracts on a noncompetitive basis
under Federal contracts;
``(3) progress payments for performance of the protege firm
under a subcontract referred to in paragraph (2), in amounts
as provided for in the subcontract, except that no such
progress payment may exceed 100 percent of the costs incurred
by the protege firm for the performance;
``(4) advance payments under subcontracts referred to in
paragraph (2);
``(5) loans;
``(6) cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the
protege firm, not to exceed 10 percent of the total ownership
interest;
``(7) assistance obtained by the mentor firm for the
protege firm from--
``(A) small business development centers established
pursuant to section 21;
``(B) entities providing procurement technical assistance
pursuant to chapter 142 of title 10, United States Code; or
``(C) a historically Black college or university or a
minority institution of higher education.
``(g) Incentives for Mentor Firms.--
``(1) Reimbursement for progress or advance payment.--The
head of the agency for which a mentor firm is contracting may
provide to a mentor firm reimbursement for the total amount
of any progress payment or advance payment made under the
Program by the mentor firm to a protege firm in connection
with a Federal contract awarded to the mentor firm.
``(2) Reimbursement for mentoring assistance.--
``(A) Mentor firm.--The head of the agency for which a
mentor firm is contracting may provide to a mentor firm
reimbursement for the costs of the assistance furnished to a
protege firm pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (7) of subsection
(f), as provided for in a line item in a Federal contract
under which the mentor firm is furnishing products or
services to the agency, subject to a maximum amount of
reimbursement specified in the contract, except that this
subparagraph does not apply in a case in which the head of
the agency determines in writing that unusual circumstances
justify reimbursement using a separate contract.
``(B) Total amount of reimbursement.--The total amount
reimbursed under subparagraph (A) to a mentor firm for costs
of assistance furnished in a fiscal year to a protege firm
may not exceed $1,000,000, except in a case in which the head
of the subject agency determines in writing that unusual
circumstances justify reimbursement of a higher amount.
``(C) Reimbursement to agency.--The head of an agency may
submit documentation to the Administrator indicating the
total amount of reimbursement that the agency paid to each
mentor firm under this paragraph, and the agency shall be
reimbursed by the Administration for not more than 50 percent
of that total amount, as indicated in the documentation.
``(3) Costs not reimbursed.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Credit.--Costs incurred by a mentor firm in providing
assistance to a protege firm that are not reimbursed pursuant
to paragraph (2) shall be recognized as credit in lieu of
subcontract awards for purposes of determining whether the
mentor firm attains a subcontracting participation goal
applicable to the mentor firm under a Federal contract or
under a divisional or companywide subcontracting plan
negotiated with an agency.
``(ii) Subject agency authority.--Clause (i) shall not be
construed to authorize the negotiation of divisional or
companywide subcontracting plans by an agency that did not
have such authority before the date of enactment of the
Governmentwide Mentor-Protege Program Act of 2001.
``(B) Amount of credit.--The amount of the credit given to
a mentor firm for unreimbursed costs described in
subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
``(i) 4 times the total amount of the unreimbursed costs
attributable to assistance provided by entities described in
subsection (f)(7);
``(ii) 3 times the total amount of the unreimbursed costs
attributable to assistance furnished by the employees of the
mentor firm; and
``(iii) 2 times the total amount of any other unreimbursed
costs.
``(C) Adjustment of credit.--Under regulations issued by
the Administrator pursuant to subsection (j), the head of the
subject agency shall adjust the amount of credit given to a
mentor firm pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this
paragraph, if the head of the subject agency determines that
the performance of the mentor firm regarding the award of
subcontracts to eligible small business concerns has declined
without justifiable cause.
``(h) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Developmental assistance.--For purposes of this Act,
no determination of affiliation or control (either direct or
indirect) may be found between a protege firm and its mentor
firm on the basis that the mentor firm has agreed to furnish
(or has furnished) to the protege firm pursuant to a mentor-
protege agreement under this section any form of
developmental assistance described in subsection (f).
``(2) Participation in program.--Notwithstanding section 8,
the Administration may not determine an eligible small
business concern to be ineligible to receive any assistance
authorized under this Act on the basis

[[Page S4831]]

that the small business concern has participated in the
Program, or has received assistance pursuant to any
developmental assistance agreement authorized under the
Program.
``(3) Administration review.--
``(A) In general.--Upon determining that the mentor-protege
program administered by the subject agency conforms to the
standards set forth in the rules issued under subsection
(j)(1), the Administrator may not require a small business
concern that is entering into, or has entered into, an
agreement under subsection (e) as a protege firm, or a firm
that makes an application under subsection (c)(1), to submit
the application, agreement, or any other document required by
the agency in the administration of the Program to the
Administration for review, approval, or any other purpose.
``(B) Exception.--The Administrator may require submission
for review of an agreement entered into under subsection (e),
or application submitted under subsection (c)(1), if the
agreement or application relates to--
``(i) a mentor-protege program administered by the agency
that does not conform to the standards set forth in the rules
issued under subsection (j)(1); or
``(ii) a claim for reimbursement of costs submitted by an
agency to the Administration under subsection (g)(2)(C) that
the Administrator has reason to believe is not authorized
under this section.
``(i) Participation in Program not To Be a Condition for
Award of a Contract or Subcontract.--A mentor firm may not
require a small business concern to enter into an agreement
with the mentor firm pursuant to subsection (e) as a
condition for being awarded a contract by the mentor firm,
including a subcontract under a contract awarded to the
mentor firm.
``(j) Regulations.--
``(1) Proposed rules.--Not later than 270 days after the
date of enactment of the Governmentwide Mentor-Protege
Program Act of 2001, the Administrator shall issue final
rules to carry out this section .
``(2) Proposed rules from the federal acquisition
regulatory council.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of issuance of the final rules of the Administration under
paragraph (1), the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
shall publish final rules that conform to the final rules
issued by the Administration .
``(k) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `eligible small business concern' means--
``(A) any qualified HUBZone small business concern, as
defined in section 3(p)(5);
``(B) any small business concern that is owned and
controlled by women, as defined in section 3(n);
``(C) any small business concern that is owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals, as defined in section 8(a)(4); and
``(D) any small business concern that is owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans, as defined in
section 3(q)(2);
``(2) the term `historically Black college and university'
means any of the historically Black colleges and universities
referred to in section 2323 of title 10, United States Code;
``(3) the term `mentor firm' means a business concern
that--
``(A) meets the requirements of subsection (d); and
``(B) is approved for participation in the Program under
subsection (c)(1);
``(4) the term `minority institution of higher education'
means an institution of higher education with a student body
that reflects the composition specified in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) of section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(b)(3), (4), (5));
``(5) the term `Program' means the Mentor-Protege Program
established under this section;
``(6) the term `protege firm' means an eligible small
business concern that receives assistance from a mentor firm
under this section; and
``(7) the term `subcontracting participation goal', with
respect to a Federal Government contract, means a goal for
the extent of the participation by eligible small business
concerns in the subcontracts awarded under such contract, as
established by the Administrator and the subject agency head,
in accordance with the goals established pursuant to section
15(g).
``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.''.
____

Anteon Corporation,

Fairfax, VA, April 30, 2001.
Senator Christopher S. Bond,
Chairman, Small Business Committee, Russell Senator Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senate Bond: Anteon Corporation is a mid-sized
Government contractor that has been a Department of Defense
Mentor since 1997. This program has enabled Anteon to provide
valuable assistance to seven small disadvantaged businesses
at critical points in their development. We are committed to
the success of our protege firms and the Mentor-Protege
Program overall. The responsibility of a mentor is a serious
one. We recognize this and have established a separate
Mentor-Protege organization dedicated to delivering the
highest quality mentoring services. This has been made
possible primarily by the reimbursement provided under our
Mentor-Protege Agreements within the DOD. The financial
incentives from DOD's program have produced significant
results in several of Anteon's Mentor-Protege Agreements:
Anteon and Engineering Services Network, Inc.--March 2001,
DoD Nunn-Perry Award winning team--240% Growth in Revenues in
18 months; 178% Growth in employees; 1,281% return on
investment (ROI) since March 1999.
Anteon and CETECH, Inc.--422% Growth in Revenues in 36
months; 400% Growth in employees; 452% ROI over 36 months.
Anteon and DaySys, Inc.--217% improvement in Revenues; 128%
improvement in profit from 1999 to 2001 (projected).
While each firm is certainly unique, the common denominator
for the success realized under this program, is the owner's
recognition of the value of a mentor and a willingness to
accept assistance. Anteon's success as a mentor comes from
our commitment and dedication to our protege and the program.
Our experience has taught us that a truly successful program
must focus on technical development while effectively
balancing the infrastructure support so important to small
businesses. Technical development is unquestionably the most
important component of this program because it increases the
value and competitive posture of the protege to the customer.
As a result of the DOD Mentor-Protege Program our proteges
have been able to receive technical development in such
critical areas as: ISO 9000 Quality Management System
Certification; Software Engineering Institute Capability
Maturity Model preparation; and other high technology
development in the disciplines of engineering and information
technology. These important skills produce significant return
to the Federal Government in terms of increased efficiency,
lower costs and higher project success rates.
The success of our program is the direct result of
knowledge, experience and a great deal of hard work, work
that would not have been possible without the support
afforded this program by the DOD, both financially and
otherwise. This program is what it is today because of the
tremendous support and vision of its leaders past and
present. Mr. Robert Neal, Mr. George Schultz, and Ms. Janet
Koch have shown relentless commitment to the success of the
Mentor-Protege program in DOD and deserve the lion's share of
recognition for the program's success. The support of the
Congress in reauthorizing this program every year for the
last decade speaks volumes of the support received by our
Nation's leaders. The support for this program must continue
and the program must grow to reach the multitude of deserving
small businesses that desperately need the assistance.
Mentor firms like Anteon receive considerable business,
social and political value from this program. That value
translates directly to the bottom line by taking part in the
growth and success of our proteges as business partners and
through our active participation in the small business
community. My mentor once told me that the highest calling of
a leader is to develop others--I truly believe that. My
reward for being a mentor is the gratification of knowing
that my efforts have helped to develop the business leaders
of tomorrow.
Anteon stands ready to assist the Department of Defense,
the Congress and the Federal Government in any way possible
to ensure the continued success and growth of this most
important program.
Sincerely,
M.N. Scott Ulvi,
Director, Mentor-Protege Programs.
____

Engineering Services

Network, Inc.,

Arlington, VA, April 27, 2001.
Senator Christopher S. Bond,
Chairman, Small Business Committee, Russell Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: I would like to make you aware of what I
consider to be the most important small business program
currently available to small businesses whether they be
minority owned, veteran owned, woman owned, or otherwise. The
Mentor-Protege Program is so important that it transcends
personalities, race, creed, color or religion. This program
has enabled my firm, Engineering Services Network, Inc., to
realize remarkable success in a very short period of time.
The Mentor-Protege Program deserves continued and increasing
support from the Federal government and our Executive Branch.
After my retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1994, I
considered a career coaching in the secondary education
system, I also had an interest in providing high technology
services to my former fellow shipmates and the patriots of
this great nation. My wife and I made the decision that the
transition to a business life would be easier if I could
provide services to the organization that meant so much to me
for thirty years. Little did I realize the amount of
headwork, legwork, anxiety and mental toughness required to
enter the field of business. Our first few years became the
toughest challenge of our lives. Although I was technically
astute in Command, Control, Communication, Combat Systems and
the various operational aspects of the United States Navy, I
soon realized that I was ill prepared for the challenges
presented by owning your own business. I enjoyed a gift that
enabled me to bring in business, but quickly found that we
lacked the necessary skills and experience within the firm to
manage and grow the work that I'd captured. We needed to
learn the basic skills of pricing, contract management, and

[[Page S4832]]

project management in order to perform successfully. On the
business side, the basic and key concepts of developing a
solid business plan were foreign to me. The significance and
meaning of operating assets and liabilities were as
unfamiliar to me as the standard operational procedures of an
M1 Tank. I was a warrior, not a businessman.
After two years of slowly building the organization to 18
employees, surviving delivery order to delivery order, and
continually asking ourselves whether the effort was worth the
reward, two pivotal events occurred:
1. The company received its 8(a) status from the Small
Business Administration.
2. We entered into an informal Mentor-Protege relationship
with Anteon Corporation.
The 8(a) program was instrumental in opening doors to
market areas in which our corporation would not normally
compete. Our informal mentor protege relationship with Anteon
provided us access to training resources that allowed us to
understand some of the basic concepts of doing business in
the DOD arena. This was an important asset for ESN at such a
critical point in our business life.
In 1999 ESN and Anteon took the next natural step in
advancing our relationship by entering into a formal Mentor-
Protege relationship through the Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA). In the short four years since its birth, the
company had grown to 28 employees and had limped along with
limited and inexperienced infrastructure.
The formal Mentor-Protege relationship established a far
more structured and focused approach to assisting ESN with
its developmental needs. Our mentor introduced to us cutting
edge and critical ideas, not only in technology but in our
financial and other responsibilities as a company. They have
helped ESN to implement effective management controls
including budgeting and financial management and are largely
responsible for catalyzing ESN's commitment to achieve ISO
9000 certification in 2001. Our mentor has helped us build a
foundation that will take ESN far into the 21st century.
After only two short years in our formal Mentor-Protege
relationship with Anteon we employ 87 people, which would not
have been possible without our Mentor's help. Our progress
was recognized by the Department of Defense in March 2001
with the award of the prestigious Nunn-Perry Award. As a
result of the progress we have made, ESN is able to
contribute to the Gross National Product and provide
outstanding technical and engineering skills to our nation's
warfighters. I am now a businessman and former warrior.
Without the Mentor-Protege Program there would be no
``ESNs'' to contribute to the important cause of keeping our
nation safe and free by protecting our country and our
national security. As you can tell from this letter, I fully
believe in and support the Mentor-Protege Program,
established many years ago by our forward thinking leaders,
and willingly respond to any call that will help to continue
and improve this program.
Sincerely,
Raymond F. Lopez, Jr.,
President & CEO.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. McCain):
S. 862. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to carry
out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001,''
bipartisan legislation that would authorize funds to relieve State and
county governments of the some of the high costs of incarcerating
persons who enter this country illegally and are later convicted of
felonies or multiple misdemeanors. I am pleased to be joined in
introducing this bill by Senators Jon Kyl, Bob Graham, John McCain,
Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, and John Kerry.
The broad principle on which this bill is based is simple: the
control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. The Federal
government's failure to control illegal immigration, and the financial
and human consequences of this failure are, thus, Federal
responsibilities as well.
More and more, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration are
being dealt to the states and local counties. The ``State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001'' would properly
vest the fiscal burden of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit
crimes with the Federal government. It would do this by authorizing up
to $750 million for federal reimbursement to the States and county
governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating
undocumented felons.
At the initiative of my colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham,
the Federal government took the first steps in 1994 in addressing these
costs by authorizing reimbursements to State and local governments
through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, established
by the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Since 1997, the
authorization level for SCAAP has been $650 million. Last year, the
provision authorizing SCAAP funding through the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund expired. Enactment of the reauthorization legislation would
constitute an acknowledgment that these costs, though borne by other
levels of government, remain the Federal government's obligation.
Winning enactment of this authorization bill is half of what Congress
needs to do to provide adequate funding to states and counties for this
important program. Congress also must appropriate an adequate level of
funding for SCAAP, and my colleagues and I will be working in the
Appropriations Committee to assure that this is done.
This bill would help all states that are experiencing increasing
costs from incarcerating undocumented felons, both low-impact and high-
impact states. Even in historically low impact states and counties
SCAAP funding has been on the rise. SCAAP funding to Fairfax County,
Virginia, for example, has risen from $14,906 in FY 1999 to $2 million
in FY 2000. In the County of Outgamie, Wisconsin, SCAAP funding has
jumped from $0 in FY 1999 to $548,458 in FY 2000. In the State of
Mississippi, SCAAP funding rose from $47,171 in FY 1999 to $$780,795 in
FY 2000.
Clearly, these numbers suggest that the increasing costs to states
and local governments for incarcerating criminal aliens is not just a
problem for States on the southwest border but, rather, it is a
nationwide problem.
High impact States, like California, continue to face extraordinary
criminal alien incarceration costs. In February 1997, there were 17,904
undocumented felons in the California correctional system with
Immigration and Naturalization Service holds. By the end of February
2001, there were 20,937 illegal alien inmates in the system with INS
holds. This year, California taxpayers can expect to spend $576.1
million to pay for what is, indeed, a Federal obligation. In fact,
1995, the first year in which SCAAP funding was awarded, California has
spent a total of $3.8 billion in costs directly associated with
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.
Local counties often shoulder a disproportional share of the burden
of criminal aliens as well. In California, for example, counties are
responsible for providing local law enforcement, detention,
prosecution, probation and indigent defense services. While SCAAP only
reimburses a portion of the costs directly related to the incarceration
of undocumented criminal aliens, most other indirect criminal justice
expenditures, are fully borne by County taxpayers.
Furthermore, while funding levels for SCAAP has remained about the
same, the number of local governments applying for the awards has
greatly increased over the past few years. In fiscal year 1996, local
governments were reimbursed at a rate of approximately 60 percent for
the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens convicted of a felony or two
or more misdemeanors when only 90 jurisdictions applied for such
reimbursement. For fiscal year 2000, 361 local jurisdictions applied
for SCAAP funding, and reimbursement amounted to less than 40 percent
of the costs incurred by these jurisdictions.
SCAAP funding is especially important to Los Angeles County, which
has a larger undocumented immigrant population than any single state
except California, and operates the nation's largest local criminal
justice system. Los Angeles County also has a violent crime rate which
is far higher than the national average, and accounts for about one out
of every 16 violent crimes committed in the United States.
A recent study conducted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department concluded that 23 percent of the County's inmate population
consisted of criminal aliens in 2000. The study further found that the
impact of criminal aliens on the criminal justice system in Los Angeles
County had doubled from approximately $75 million in 1990 to more than
$150 million in 1999.

[[Page S4833]]

There are numerous other jurisdictions in California that are
significantly affected by criminal aliens, including the border
counties of San Diego and Imperial. Like Los Angeles County, these
counties are not being adequately reimbursed for the costs associated
with the incarceration of criminal aliens.
In FY 1999 San Diego and Imperial counties spent a combined $56
million on law enforcement and indirect costs involving illegal aliens,
whether criminal or not. These costs include criminal alien
incarceration, justice and court costs, emergency medical care,
autopsies, and burials of indigents. SCAAP compensated these counties
for only $8 million or 15 percent of these costs which went solely to
the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.
Border counties, however, are taking a hit in other areas: San Diego,
has to spend 7 percent of its total public safety budget to cover other
costs, including indigent defense, court and emergency medical costs;
Imperial County expends 16 percent of its public safety budget to cover
these costs.
The structure of public financing in California makes it extremely
difficult for local governments, especially county governments, to
increase their sources of revenue. This problem is greatly exacerbated
when they are also forced to pay for costs related to the Federal
responsibility of controlling illegal immigration.
Without the ability to raise taxes in any significant way to deal
with the costs associated with criminal illegal aliens, counties are
forced to cut back on other expenditures that would otherwise benefit
the legal resident population.
It is unfortunate, that at a time when Congress is concerned about
unfunded mandates, the Administration has seen fit to proposed cutting
SCAAP funding by almost $300 million for fiscal year 2002. Given the
increasing numbers of illegal aliens that California and other states
incarcerate each year, the Administration's decision in this regard is
perplexing.
If the Administration has its way, States and local counties would
face an unfair set of choices with real consequences: either cut other
essential local law enforcement programs and community services, or
raise local taxes. Neither of these are acceptable options.
I am pleased that this legislation has the support of such
organizations as the National Association of Counties and the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association. I ask for unanimous
consent that their letters in support of this measure be printed in the
Record.
I also ask unanimous consent that the letter to President Bush,
signed by a bipartisan group of Senators, expressing concern about the
proposed cuts in SCAAP funding and the text of the bill be printed into
the Record.
I join my colleagues in introducing the SCAAP reauthorization bill
today in hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of the fiscal
hardships States and local counties incur when they must take on a
Federal responsibility. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
move it through the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows;

S. 862

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 ``State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002
THROUGH 2006.

Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1251(i)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2006.''.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2001.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: We write out of deep concern over your
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget proposal to cut funding for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by nearly 50
percent. We ask that you reconsider this recommendation and,
instead, at a minimum, support funding this program at $750
million. SCAAP is a vitally important program that assists
states in recovering the costs associated with the
incarceration of criminal aliens. We would strongly oppose
cuts in this important program.
As you are well aware, control of our nation's borders is
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government.
Unfortunately, Federal efforts are often not adequate to
combat illegal immigration. As a consequence, such high
impact states as California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,
Florida, New York, Washington, Nevada and Massachusetts
continue to face extraordinary costs associated with
incarcerating criminal aliens. Much of these costs are borne
by counties, some of which are among the poorest in the
nation and traditionally operate with slim budgets and
staffing.
By some estimates, the total annual cost to states and
county governments exceeds $1.6 billion. In light of this
growing burden, your FY 02 budget proposal inexplicably
recommends cutting funding for this urgently needed program
by $300 million.
Unless the Administration supports and Congress
appropriates sufficient funds for SCAAP, our state and local
governments will continue to unfairly shoulder the burden of
bearing the costs of a Federal responsibility. Given the
upward trend in incarceration costs, any shortfall in SCAAP
funding would force states to draw funds away from other,
cash-strapped crime control and prevention programs. In
short, the impact on the states would be devastating.
Therefore, we urge you to support funding for this
important program at a level of $750 million.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein.
Bob Graham.
Jon Kyl.
Harry Reid.
____

National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2001.
Hon. George W. Bush,
The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The National Association of counties
strongly supports the State Criminal Alien Assistance program
(SCAAP) at least at its full authorization level. However, we
believe the program needs to be funded at a much higher level
than proposed, in order to address the serious shortfall in
meeting costs to counties.
As of today, SCAAP only reimburses counties at a rate of 40
percent of actual expenses. To truly meet our annual costs
for the incarceration of alien undocumented criminals, this
considerable increase in funding would be needed. Moreover,
due to recent changes in the administration of the program,
significant costs such as inmate recreation and drug
treatment expenses are no longer recognized.
While immigration policy is solemnly within federal
responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it
burden counties and state governments. Costs of providing
services for undocumented aliens extend to county hospitals
and county health departments and county human service
agencies. With the upward trend in incarceration costs,
counties depend even more on federal programs such as SCAAP
since most of our local correctional agencies are at or near
capacity.
We strongly urge you to fund SCAAP at least at its full
authorization level.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director.
____

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office,

Largo, FL, April 27, 2001.
Senator Bob Graham,
Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We write to you in response to your
Fiscal Year 2002 budget proposal to cut funding for the state
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by more than 50
percent. We urge you not to reduce the program but rather
secure funding at a minimum of the current appropriation
level. As of today, SCAAP only partly reimburses the actual
expenses borne by state and local governments. To truly meet
our annual costs for the incarceration of alien undocumented
criminals, a considerable increase in the funding would be
needed. Due to recent changes in the administration of the
program, significant costs such as inmate recreation and drug
treatment expenses are no longer recognized.
While immigration policy is solemnly within federal
responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it
burden local jurisdictions. Costs of providing services for
undocumented aliens extend to the municipal police, local
hospitals and health care department. With the upward trend
in incarceration costs, counties depend even more on federal
programs such as SCAAP since any undocumented alien caught
committing a state felony or several misdemeanors enters the
state or county criminal justice system.
We strongly ask you to reconsider your proposed cuts for
SCAAP and instead secure financial assistance for the states
and counties.
Sincerely,
Everett S. Rice,
Sheriff.

[[Page S4834]]

____
Collier County Sheriff's Office,

Naples, FL, April 27, 2001.
Re State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).

President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We write to you in response to your
Fiscal Year 2002 budget proposal to cut funding for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) by more than 50
percent. We urge you not to reduce the program but rather
secure funding at a minimum of the current appropriation
level. As of today, SCAAP only partially reimburses the
actual expenses borne by state and local governments. To
truly meet our annual costs for the incarceration of alien
undocumented criminals, a considerable increase in the
funding would be needed. Due to recent changes in the
administration of the program, significant costs such as
inmate recreation and drug treatment expenses are no longer
recognized.
While immigration policy is solemnly within federal
responsibility, many of the expenses associated with it
burden local jurisdictions. Costs of providing services for
undocumented aliens extend to local law enforcement agencies,
local hospitals, and health care departments. With the upward
trend in incarcerations costs, counties depend even more on
federal programs such as SCAAP since any undocumented alien
caught committing a state felony or several misdemeanors
enters the state or county criminal justice system.
We strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed cuts for
SCAAP and instead secure financial assistance for the states
and counties.
Sincerely,
Don Hunter,
Sheriff.
____

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office,

Tampa, FL, May 2, 2001.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: Enclosed is the original and a copy of
my letter to President Bush regarding the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program. I appreciate the pro active stance
that you have taken to counter the proposed funding cut.
We have examined Senate Bill 169 and do not feel that it is
a reasonable alternative. Each county and state, regardless
of its geographic location, should have equal opportunity to
apply for reimbursement using the same formula and criteria.
The other questions that you posed regarding the efficiency
and effectiveness of the current SCAAP program are on point,
but we do not have supporting statistics or documentation
readily available. I would simply suggest that adequate
funding for the program in its current form is of greatest
importance.
Thank you again for taking the lead to protect the SCAAP
program.
Sincerely,
Cal Henderson,
Sheriff.
____

California Correctional

Peace Officers Association,

Sacramento, CA, May 9, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA),
representing approximately 28,000 correctional officers and
parole agents in the State of California, to express our
strong support for legislation you plan to introduce to
reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP).
It is our understanding that your bill would reauthorize
the SCAAP program at an increased level of $750,000,000 for
fiscal years 2002 through 2006. As you know, this program
reimburses state and local governments for the costs of
incarcerating criminal aliens. This program pays for the
incarceration costs of criminals who have illegally entered
or stayed in our country, have committed at least one felony
or two misdemeanor crimes while in this country, and are
serving time in local jails or state prisons. SCAAP
recognizes that the federal government has sole jurisdiction
over preventing illegal immigration and should be accountable
for the consequences of illegal immigration. States and
counties should not have to bear the financial consequences
of the federal government's failure to prevent illegal
immigration.
CCPOA was disappointed that the President's $265 million in
funding for this program, a decrease of $299 million from
last year, because ``SCAAP reimburses a relatively small
portion of states incarceration costs and contributes little
to reducing violent crime.'' SCAAP does only reimburse a
small portion of states' incarceration costs, which is
exactly why appropriations for this program need to be
increased, not decreased. The program was never intended to
reduce violent crime. It was intended, and has succeeded, in
allowing state and local resources to be used on state and
local crime issues, rather than federal responsibilities.
Again, CCPOA commends you for your leadership in this area.
Please contact our Washington representative, Shannon Lahey
if we can be of any assistance to you in securing the passage
of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Mike Jimenez,
Executive Vice President.
____

National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2001.
Hon. Diane Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I understand you will be
introducing legislation tomorrow that will raise the SCAAP
authorization level to $750 million annually. The National
Association of Counties (NACo) wishes to go on record in
support of your legislation.
NACo recognizes that securing the nation's border from
illegal immigration is clearly the responsibility of the
federal government and that Congress should fully reimburse
counties for the costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens.
We look forward to working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators
Feinstein, Kyl, and others, to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, or SCAAP.
SCAAP was created as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act because the federal government recognized the
responsibility we have to alleviate the impact of immigration policy on
state and local governments.
The federal government has sole jurisdiction over national
immigration policy, and we should do all possible so that our federal
decisions and actions do not cause a financial burden on states and
localities.
SCAAP is a reimbursement program that sends dollars to our counties
and states to help offset the costs associated with jailing illegal or
criminal aliens.
SCAAP also established and now facilitates a process to better
identify undocumented criminal aliens and to expedite the transfer of
illegal aliens from state facilities and county jails to federal
institutions in preparation for deportation, or other federal
proceedings.
Thus, I was greatly concerned looking through the President's budget
that this program was cut by more than 50 percent this year.
At the moment, SCAAP only provides reimbursement for about 37 cents
of every dollar a state spends on criminal aliens.
We barely cover half the costs as is, and this is before the program
was cut in half in this most recent budget.
For FY99, state and local governments incurred $1.5 billion in costs
associated with criminal aliens which were eligible for reimbursement
under the SCAAP program. In FY98, costs to state and local governments
were even higher: $1.7 billion. This past year, $1.6 billion was spent
by state and local governments on these concerns. Yet, we funded the
program at $585 million in each of those years.
It's not as much reimbursement as is needed, but the reimbursement
gives an appropriate and respectful amount of relief to state and local
law enforcement budgets for the benefits they are providing to the
federal government.
The National Governors Association has the reauthorization of this
program as one of their top priorities for this year. I am certain that
they also join me in asking that the program at least maintain funding
levels of last year, if not a funding increase that will get them a
more fair reimbursement for the dollars they spend.
The National Association of Counties supports reauthorization and
full funding of SCAAP.
They make the point that state and local taxpayers should not have to
bear the costs of criminal aliens. They are a federal responsibility,
and should be transferred to federal custody in an expeditious manner.
Last year, every state, and more than 220 local governments received
reimbursement under SCAAP.
This affects us all. I do not want to see the federal government
backtrack on our obligation to state and local governments in the area
of immigration.
Lastly, statements in the President's budget about this program
concern me.
Two reasons were given for the cut of $299 million which this program
endured.
The first was that it ``reimburses a relatively small portion of
states' incarceration costs.''

[[Page S4835]]

This statement is true. As I've said, it only reimburses state or
local governments about 37 cents of each dollar they spend on illegal
immigrants and criminal aliens.
However, this is no reason to further cut the program! If anything,
if we agree on the premise that immigration policy is a federal
responsibility, then it is reason to fully fund the program.
I have never seen a rationale given where there is clear federal
jurisdiction, like in this case, that specifically says: we can only
reimburse states a small portion of what we owe them, so let's cut the
program in half. I fail to see how this accomplishes the most effective
public policy.
The second reason that is given for the program cut is that it has
contributed ``little to reducing violent crime.''
Again--on it's face--this statement may be true, although I have not
been able to obtain any supporting documentation that verifies it. But,
regardless, that was never the Congressional intent of the program.
The intent of the program, clearly spelled out in the 1994 Crime
bill, was to reimburse state, and later on through amendments in 1996,
local governments for the costs they incur because of federal
immigration policy. And, secondly, to expedite the transfer of criminal
aliens from the state and local facilities where they may be originally
held, into the federal system. I would argue that this, in and of
itself, does reduce crime.
But I find it unfair that a program should be penalized with a 50
percent budget cut because it failed to achieve a goal that was never
intended for the program.
Whichever side of the immigration debate you may be on--a more
expansive immigration policy, or a more restrictive immigration
policy--if you agree with the premise that immigration is the
responsibility of and obligation of the federal government--then you
should join us in our efforts to reauthorize and fully fund the SCAAP
program.
I commend my colleagues, especially Senator Feinstein and Senator
Kyl, for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to seeing
the program reauthorized and funded at an appropriate level this
Congress.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished
colleagues in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. Our bill will provide a
higher level of federal reimbursement to states and localities across
America whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs
associated with illegal immigration.
The premise of our bill, and of current law governing this type of
federal reimbursement to the states, is that controlling illegal
immigration is principally the responsibility of the federal
government, not the states. Local jurisdictions in many areas of our
country, and especially along the southwest border, are burdened by the
excessive costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens and providing
emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. In a typical year, the
federal government reimburses states and localities for less than 40
percent of these costs.
Regrettably, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2002 budget would
slash SCAAP funding by 50 percent from its current, already-
insufficient level of $575 million. The National Governors' Association
and the National Association of Counties, whose members deal with the
problem of illegal immigration on a daily basis, believe we should
increase, not cut, funding for this program, and I agree. SCAAP money
flows to all 50 states and 350 local governments, with more applying
for this assistance every year. Rather than forcing local residents to
subsidize local jails and hospitals because of our government's failure
to adequately reimburse them for illegal alien incarceration and
medical costs, I hope we will take responsibility as a nation for
protecting our borders and covering the contingencies that arise at the
local level when we fail to do so.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is an important
expression of our government's commitment to border control, and to the
quality of life of Americans who suffer the costs of illegal
immigration. I thank my colleagues for considering the merits of our
bill.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 863. A bill to require Medicare providers to disclose publicly
staffing and performance in order to promote improved consumer
information and choice; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Patient Safety
Act. This legislation would require Medicare providers, such as
hospitals and clinics, to publicly disclose staffing ratios and
performance data in order to promote improved consumer information and
choice.
As we celebrate National Nurses Week, it is hard to ignore our
nation's burgeoning nurse staffing crisis. As the baby-boom population
ages and begins to require more nursing care, this shortage will only
get worse. Inadequate staffing levels not only diminish nurses' working
conditions, but they affect the quality of care patients receive. A
recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Nurse
Staffing and Patient Outcomes in Hospitals, confirmed that the number
of nurses in a hospital makes a difference in the quality of care
patients receive. One recommendation that came out of the study was the
need to develop a system for routinely monitoring outcomes of hospital
patient care sensitive to nursing and nurse staffing.
The Patient Safety Act would help to accomplish this goal by
requiring health care institutions to make public specified information
on staffing levels, mix and patient outcomes. At a minimum, they would
have to make public: the number of registered nurses providing direct
care; the number of unlicensed personnel utilized to provide direct
patient care; the average number of patients per registered nurse
providing direct patient care; patient mortality rate; incidence of
adverse patient care incidents; and methods used for determining and
adjusting staffing levels and patient care needs.
In addition, health care institutions would have to make public data
regarding complaints filed with the state agency, the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) or an accrediting agency related to
Medicare conditions of participation. The agency would then have to
make public the results of any investigations or findings related to
the complaint.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that would
improve the safety of patients by encouraging higher nurse to patient
ratios, and ultimately help retain nurses in the face of a nationwide
nursing shortage by encouraging safe work environments.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Liberman, and Mr. Levin):
S. 864. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide that aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings,
or other specified atrocities abroad are inadmissible and removable and
to establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
an Office of Special Investigations having responsibilities under that
Act with respect to all alien participants in war crimes, genocide, and
the commission of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings abroad; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senators
Lieberman and Levin the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2001. I
introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, and was pleased
when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate. The measure was introduced in the last Congress by
Representatives Foley, Franks and Ackerman as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058,
and has again been introduced on April 4, 2001, by Representatives
Foley and Ackerman as H.R. 1449. Moreover, the legislation passed the
Senate, on November 5, 1999, as part of the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe
Havens to Internationals and War Criminals Act,'' S. 1754, but
unfortunately was not acted on by the House. The problem of human
rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real,
and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement
changes proposed in this legislation. The loss last week by the United
States of its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission is highly
embarrassing and unfortunate, but by ensuring that our country is no
safe haven for human rights abusers, we can lead the world by our
actions.

[[Page S4836]]

War criminals and human rights abusers have used loopholes in current
law to enter and remain in this country. I have been appalled that this
country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in
foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent
civilians. For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American
court that Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in
Ethiopia engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses
against them in the late 1970's when they lived in that country. The
court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a
naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the
presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs was subsequently
affirmed by an appellate court. See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844
(11th Cir. 1996). Yet, while Negewo's case was on appeal, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him citizenship.
As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has
noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in
current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other
aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also
gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration
relief.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657. In fact, the Center for Justice
and Accountability, a San Francisco human rights group, has identified
approximately sixty suspected human rights violators now living in the
United States.
Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against
innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and
Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the
same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock
that door to those human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the
United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we
should promptly show them the door out.
We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed
for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too
long after the last world war to focus prosecutorial resources and
attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false
pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence
agencies. Last month, thousands of declassified CIA documents were made
public, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was
proud help enact in 1998, and made clear the extent that United States
relied on and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head
of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted,
``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were
Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens
who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States.
We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to
prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who
now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.
When I first introduced this bill in 1999, the Pulitzer prize-winning
paper, the Rutland Herald, opined on October 31, 1999, that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,
U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough
to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and
then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip
across the border to find a home in America.

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws.
One Clinton Administration witness testified in February, 2000:

Right now, only three types of human rights abuse could
prevent someone from entering or remaining in the United
States. The types of prohibited conduct include: (1)
genocide; (2) particularly severe violations of religious
freedom; and (3) Nazi persecutions. Even these types of
conduct are narrowly defined.

Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' before
the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. On the
Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E.
Costello, Associate Deputy Attorney General).
The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act closes these loopholes. The
Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, currently provides that (i)
participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23,
1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii)
aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious
freedom, are inadmissable to the United States and deportable. See 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The Justice
Department's specialized OSI unit is authorized under a 1979 Attorney
General order to investigate only Nazi war criminals, not any other
human rights abuser. The bill would expand the grounds for
inadmissibility and deportation to (1) add new bars for aliens who have
engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and
``extrajudicial killing'' and (2) remove limitations on the current
bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of
religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which
implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These
definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill
incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal
criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental
pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or
physical control. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (A) the
intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or
application, or threatened administration or application, of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the
threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another
person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 18 U.S.C. Sec.
2340(2).

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for
``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil
liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . .
subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to
mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under
international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a
foreign nation.''
The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and
deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the
current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that
term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). For clarity and consistency, the bill would
substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S.
obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden
the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in
genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has
ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This
broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more
appropriate range of levels of complicity.
Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly
severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, IFRA, limits its
application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct
within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the
individual's spouse and children, if any. The bill would delete
reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period
since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the
United States to promote religious

[[Page S4837]]

freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves opines:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month
time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A
perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to
seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the
commission of these acts. William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.
J. Int'l L., at 683.

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for
the spouse or children. This is a serious sanction that should not
apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are not
within an individual's control. None of the other grounds relating to
serious human rights abuse prevent the spouse or child of an abuser
from entering or remaining lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the
purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in
atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by
holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the
offensive conduct over which they had no control.
Changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers
seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the
solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to
implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does
not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice
with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and
prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights
atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency
for this function can be seen in the experiences of the
Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at
689.

We need to update OSI's mission to ensure effective enforcement. Our
country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing
with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit,
OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute, and remove Nazi war
criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims
under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective
enforcement. Since the OSI's inception in 1979, 61 Nazi persecutors
have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, 49 such individuals have been
removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied
entry.
OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it
remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when
Attorney General Civiletti established OSI within the Criminal Division
of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all
``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who
prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in
association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other
affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited,
assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person
because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.''
(Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be
limited by that Attorney General Order.
Little is being done about the new generation of international human
rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are
costly. As any prosecutor, or, in my case, former prosecutor, knows
instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence
more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. Since I
introduced this bill in the last Congress, there have been no further
developments in the Kelbessa Negewo case, he still remains living in
Atlanta. In addition, there has been no action taken on Carlos Eugenio
Vides Casanova, the former head of the Salvadoran National Guard, a
unit whose members kidnaped, raped, and murdered four American
churchwomen during the El Salvadoran civil war. Vides Casanova remains
in the United States.
We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking
down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this
country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our
current immigration policies and enforcement. No war criminal should
ever come to believe that he is going to find safe harbor in the United
States.
The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney
General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within
the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove,
denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who has participated in
Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad.
Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for Office of
Special Investigation, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal
with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and
genocide abroad, not just Nazis.
The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the
effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases.
OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of
the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in
genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective
prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the
concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal
litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse
missions.
The bill directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to
take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within
the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought
under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country
willing to undertake such a prosecution. As one human rights expert has
noted:

The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is discovered
that serious human rights abusers have found their way into
the United States may lead well-meaning people to call for
their immediate expulsion. Such individuals certainly should
not be enjoying the good life America has to offer. But when
we ask the question ``where should they be?'' the answer is
clear: they should be in the dock. That is the essence of
accountability, and it should be the central goal of any
scheme to penalize human rights abusers.

Hearing on H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability
Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm.
On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 2000 (Statement of
Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington Office, Lawyers Committee For
Human Rights).
I appreciate that this part of the legislation has proven
controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have
concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of
the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in the
bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has
concluded that OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can
be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights
violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines,
the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators
of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J.
Int'l. 657.
Similarly, the Rutland Herald noted that the INS has never deported
an immigrant on the basis of human rights abuses, by contrast to OSI's
active deportations of ex-Nazis, while maintaining a list of 60,000
suspected war criminals with the aim of barring them from entry. Based
on this record, the Rutland Herald concluded that the legislation
correctly looks to OSI to carry out the additional responsibilities
called for in the bill, noting that:

It resolves a turf war between the INS and the OSI in favor
of the OSI, which is as it should be. The victims of human
rights abuses are often victimized again when, seeking refuge
in the United States, they are confronted by the draconian
policies of the INS. It's a better idea to give the job of
finding war criminals to the office that has shown it knows
how to do the job.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from
the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the
bill for OSI's expanded duties.
Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House on implementation of
the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of
matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS forms to reflect amendments
made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due
process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether
an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.

[[Page S4838]]

We must honor and respect the unique experiences of those who were
victims in the darkest moment in world history. We may help honor the
memories of the victims of the Holocaust by pursuing all human rights
abusers and war criminals who enter our country. By so doing, the
United States can provide moral leadership and show that we will not
tolerate perpetrators of genocide, extrajudicial killing and torture,
least of all here.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a sectional
analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 864

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 ``Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS ABROAD.

(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct
that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is
inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States
that would, if committed in the United States or by a United
States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial
killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has
committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of--

``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of
title 18, United States Code; or
``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any
extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991;

is inadmissible.''; and
(3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants
in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting
``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(b) Removability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting
``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in
nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting
``Assisted in nazi persecution, participated in genocide, or
committed any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

(a) Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is amended to read as follows:
``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed
particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any
alien who, while serving as a foreign government official,
was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998, are inadmissible.''.
(b) Section 237(a)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations
of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section
212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.

SEC. 4. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described
in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi
persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts
of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G)
(relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) The Attorney General shall establish within the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of
Special Investigations with the authority of investigating,
and, where appropriate, taking legal action to remove,
denaturalize, prosecute, or extradite any alien found to be
in violation of clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section
212(a)(3)(E). In determining such appropriate legal action,
consideration shall be given to--
``(1) the availability of prosecution under the laws of the
United States for any conduct that may form the basis for
removal and denaturalization; or
``(2) removal of the alien to a foreign jurisdiction that
is prepared to undertake a prosecution for such conduct.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the additional duties established under section
103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by
this Act) in order to ensure that the Office of Special
Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding
Nazi war criminals.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 6. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall submit
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report on implementation of this
Act that includes a description of--
(1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of
Special Investigations in a manner consistent with the
amendments made by this Act;
(2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to
reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made
by the amendments contained in this Act; and
(3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the
amendments made by this Act.
____

Sectional Analysis of Leahy Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act

summary

This bill would make the following four changes in our
country's enforcement capability against aliens who have
committed atrocities abroad and then try to enter or remain
in the United States:
Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to expand
the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover
aliens who have engaged in acts of torture, as defined in 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2340, and extrajudicial killing, as defined in
the Torture Victim Protection Act, abroad, as well as expand
the scope of the current prohibitions on aliens who have
engaged in genocide and particularly severe violations of
religious freedom;
Amend the INA to make clear that aliens who have committed
torture, extrajudicial killing or particularly severe
violations of religious freedom abroad do not have ``good
moral character'' and cannot qualify to become U.S. citizens
or for other immigration benefits;
Direct the Attorney General to establish the Office of
Special Investigation (OSI) within the Criminal Division and
expand the OSI's authority to investigate, remove,
denaturalize, prosecute, or extradite any alien who
participated in torture, genocide and extrajudicial killing
abroad--not just Nazi war criminals; and
Direct the Attorney General, in consultation with the INS
Commissioner, to report to the Judiciary Committees of the
Senate and House of Representatives on implementation of
procedures to refer matters to OSI, revise INS forms, and
procedures to obtain adequate evidence to develop ``watch
lists'' of aliens deemed inadmissible under the bill.

sec. 1. short title

The bill may be cited as the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act of 2001.''

sec. 2. inadmissibility and removability of aliens who have committed
acts of torture or extrajudicial killing abroad

Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during
the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii)
aliens who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the
United States. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i)&(ii).
Current law also provides that aliens who have participated
in Nazi persecutions or engaged in genocide are deportable.
See Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections
of the Immigration and Nationality Act by expanding the
grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens
who have committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of acts of torture or
extrajudicial killing abroad and clarify and expand the scope
of the genocide bar.
Subsection (a) would first amend the definition of
``genocide'' in clause (ii) of section 212(a)(3) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii). Currently, the ground of
inadmissibility relating to genocide refers to the definition
in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. Article III of that Convention punishes
genocide, the conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and
public incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit
genocide, and complicity in genocide. The bill would modify
the definition to refer instead to the ``genocide''
definition in section 1091(a) of title 18, United States
Code, which was adopted to implement United States
obligations under the Convention and also prohibits attempts
and conspiracies to commit genocide.

[[Page S4839]]

Specifically, section 1091(a) defines genocide as
``whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, . . .
with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in
substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group as such: (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes
serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes
the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members
of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are
intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in
whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent
births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children
of the group to another group.'' This definition includes
genocide by public or private individuals in times of peace
or war. While the federal criminal statute is limited to
those offenses committed within the United States or
offenders who are U.S. nationals, see 18 U.S.C. 1091(d), the
grounds for inadmissibility in the bill would apply to such
offenses committed outside the United States that would
otherwise be a crime if committed within the United States or
by a U.S. national.
In addition, the bill would broaden the reach of the
inadmissibility bar to apply not only to those who ``engaged
in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien
who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated
in genocide abroad. This broader scope will ensure that the
genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of
levels of complicity.
Second, subsection (a) would add a new clause to 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E) that would trigger operation of the
inadmissibility ground if an alien has ``committed, ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in'' acts of
torture, as defined in section 2430 of title 18, United
States Code, or extrajudicial killings, as defined in section
3(a) the Torture Victim Protection Act. The statutory
language--``committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in''--is intended to reach the
behavior of persons directly or personally associated with
the covered acts. Attempts and conspiracies to commit these
crimes are encompassed in the ``otherwise participated in''
language. This language addresses an appropriate range of
levels of complicity for which aliens should be held
accountable, and has been the subject of extensive judicial
interpretation and construction. See Fedorenko v. United
States, 449 U.S. 490, 514 (1981); Kalejs v. INS, 10 F. 3d
441, 444 (7th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Schmidt, 923 F. 2d 1253,
1257-59 (7th Cir. 1991); Kulle v. INS, 825 F. 2d 1188, 1192
(7th Cir. 1987).
The definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' are contained in the Torture Victim Protection Act,
which served as the implementing legislation when the United
States joined the United Nations' ``Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.'' This Convention entered into force with respect
to the United States on November 20, 1992 and imposes an
affirmative duty on the United States to prosecute torturers
within its jurisdiction. The Torture Victim Protection Act
provides both criminal liability and civil liability for
persons who, acting outside the United States and under
actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any
foreign nation, commit torture or extrajudicial killing.
The criminal provision passed as part of the Torture Victim
Protection Act defines ``torture'' to mean ``an act committed
by a person acting under the color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1). ``Severe mental pain or
suffering'' is further defined to mean the ``prolonged mental
harm caused by or resulting from (A) the international
infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain
or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or
threatened administration or application, of mind-altering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the threat of
imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will
imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or
suffering, or the administration or application of mind-
altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2340(2).
The bill also incorporates the definition of
``extrajudicial killing'' from section 3(a) of the Torture
Victim Protection Act. This law establishes civil liability
for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or
apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation .
. . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which
is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by
a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term,
however, does not include any such killing that, under
international law, is lawfully carried out under the
authority of a foreign nation.''
Both definitions of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial
killing'' require that the alien be acting under color of
law. A criminal conviction, criminal charge or a confession
are not required for an alien to be inadmissible or removable
under the new grounds added in this subsection of the bill.
The final paragraph in subsection (a) would modify the
subparagraph heading to clarify the expansion of the grounds
for in admissibility from ``participation in Nazi persecution
or genocide'' to cover ``torture or extrajudicial killing.''
Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4)(D) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D), which enumerates grounds for
deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present
in the United States. The same conduct that would constitute
a basis of inadmissibility under subsection (a) is a ground
for deportability under this subsection of the bill. Under
current law, assisting in Nazi persecution and engaging in
genocide are already grounds for deportation. The bill would
provide that aliens who have committed any act of torture or
extrajudicial killing would also be subject to deportation.
In any deportation proceeding, the burden would remain on the
government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
alien's conduct brings the alien within a particular ground
of deportation.
Subsection (c) regarding the ``effective date'' clearly
states that these provisions apply to acts committed before,
on, or after the date this legislation is enacted. These
provisions apply to all cases after enactment, even where the
acts in question occurred or where adjudication procedures
within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or
the Executive Office of Immigration Review were initiated
prior to the time of enactment.

SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVABILITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

This section of the bill would amend section 212(a)(2)(G)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G), which was added as
part of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(IFRA), to expand the grounds for inadmissibility and
removability of aliens who commit particularly severe
violations of religious freedom. Current law bars the
admission of an individual who, while serving as a foreign
government official, was responsible for or directly carried
out particularly severe violations of religious freedom
within the last 24 months. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(c)(2)(G). The
existing provision also bars from admission the individual's
spouse and children, if any. ``Particularly severe violations
of religious freedom'' is defined in section 3 of IFRA to
mean ``systematic, ongoing, egregious violation of religious
freedom, including violations such as (a) torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (B) prolonged
detention without charges; (C) causing the disappearance of
persons or clandestine detention of those persons; or (D)
other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the
security of persons. While IRFA contains numerous provisions
to promote religious freedom and to prevent violations of
religious freedom throughout the world, including a wide
range of diplomatic sanctions and other formal expressions of
disapproval, section 212(a)(2)(G) is the only provision which
specifically targets individual abusers.
Subsection (a) would delete the 24-month restriction in
section 212(a)(2)(G) since it limits the accountability, for
purposes of admission, to a two-year period. This limitation
is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States
to promote religious freedom throughout the world.
Individuals who have committed particularly severe violations
of religious freedom should be held accountable for their
actions and should be admissible to the United States
regardless of when the conduct occurred.
In addition, this subsection would amend the law to remove
the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a
foreign government official who has been involved in
particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The bar
of inadmissibility is a serious sanction that should not
apply to individuals because of familiar relationships that
are not within an individual's control. None of the other
grounds relating to serious human rights abuse prevent the
spouse or child of an abuser from entering or remaining
lawfully in the United States. Moreover, the purpose of these
amendments is to make those who have participated in
atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not
served by holding the family members of such individuals
accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no
control.
Subsection (b) would amend section 237(a)(4) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1227(A)(4), which enumerates grounds for
deporting aliens who have been admitted into or are present
in the United States, to add a new clause (E), which provides
for the deportation of aliens described in subsection (a) of
the bill.
The bill does not change the effective date for this
provision set forth in the original IFRA, which applies the
operation of the amendment to aliens ``seeking to enter the
United States on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.''

SEC. 4. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE COMMITTED ACTS
OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

This section of the bill would amend section 101(f) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(f), which provides the current
definition of ``good moral character,'' to make clear that
aliens who have committed torture, extrajudicial killing--
severe violation of religious freedom abroad do not qualify.
Good moral character

[[Page S4840]]

is a prerequisite for certain forms of immigration relief,
including naturalization, cancellation of removal for
nonpermanent residents, and voluntary departure at the
conclusion of removal proceedings. Aliens who have committed
torture or extrajudicial killing, or severe violations of
religious freedom abroad cannot establish good moral
character. Accordingly, this amendment prevents aliens
covered by the amendments made in sections 2 and 3 of the
bill from becoming United States citizens or benefitting from
cancellation of removal or voluntary departure. Absent such
an amendment there is no statutory bar to naturalization for
aliens covered by the proposed new grounds for
inadmissibility and deportation.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within
the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
consolidating within it all `investigative and litigation
activities involving individuals, who prior to and during
World War II, under the supervision of or in association with
the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other
affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the
persecution of any person because of race, religion, national
origin, or political opinion.'' (Att'y Gen. Order No. 851-
79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that
Attorney General Order.
This section would amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to
establish an Office of Special Investigations within the
Department of Justice with authorization to investigate,
remove, denaturalize, prosecute or extradite any alien who
has participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, torture or
extrajudical killing abroad. This would expand OSI's current
authorized mission. In order to fulfill the United States'
obligation under the ``Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' to hold
accountable torturers found in this country, the bill
expressly directs the Department of Justice to consider the
availability of prosecution under United States laws for any
conduct that forms the basis for removal and
denaturalization. In addition, the Department is directed to
consider deportation to foreign jurisdictions that are
prepared to undertake such a prosecution. Statutory and
regulatory provisions to implement Article 3 of that
Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the removal of
any person to a country where he or she would be tortured,
may also be part of this consideration. Additional funds are
authorized for these expanded duties to ensure that OSI
fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war
criminals.

SEC. 6. REPORT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT

This section of the bill would direct the Attorney General,
in consultations with the INS Commissioner to report within
six months on implementation of the Act, including procedures
for referral of matters to OSI, any revisions made to INS
forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the
procedures developed, with adequate due process protection,
to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien
is deemed inadmissible under the bill.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 865. A bill to provide small businesses certain protections from
litigation excesses and to limit the product liability of
nonmanufacturer product sellers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 865

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small
Business Liability Reform Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS LAWSUIT ABUSE PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Limitation on punitive damages for small businesses.
Sec. 104. Limitation on joint and several liability for noneconomic
loss for small businesses.
Sec. 105. Exceptions to limitations on liability.
Sec. 106. Preemption and election of State nonapplicability.

TITLE II--PRODUCT SELLER FAIR TREATMENT

Sec. 201. Findings; purposes.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Applicability; preemption.
Sec. 204. Liability rules applicable to product sellers, renters, and
lessors.
Sec. 205. Federal cause of action precluded.

TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.

TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS LAWSUIT ABUSE PROTECTION

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the United States civil justice system is inefficient,
unpredictable, unfair, costly, and impedes competitiveness in
the marketplace for goods, services, business, and employees;
(2) the defects in the United States civil justice system
have a direct and undesirable effect on interstate commerce
by decreasing the availability of goods and services in
commerce;
(3) there is a need to restore rationality, certainty, and
fairness to the legal system;
(4) the spiralling costs of litigation and the magnitude
and unpredictability of punitive damage awards and
noneconomic damage awards have continued unabated for at
least the past 30 years;
(5) the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized
that a punitive damage award can be unconstitutional if the
award is grossly excessive in relation to the legitimate
interest of the government in the punishment and deterrence
of unlawful conduct;
(6) just as punitive damage awards can be grossly
excessive, so can it be grossly excessive in some
circumstances for a party to be held responsible under the
doctrine of joint and several liability for damages that
party did not cause;
(7) as a result of joint and several liability, entities
including small businesses are often brought into litigation
despite the fact that their conduct may have little or
nothing to do with the accident or transaction giving rise to
the lawsuit, and may therefore face increased and unjust
costs due to the possibility or result of unfair and
disproportionate damage awards;
(8) the costs imposed by the civil justice system on small
businesses are particularly acute, since small businesses
often lack the resources to bear those costs and to challenge
unwarranted lawsuits;
(9) due to high liability costs and unwarranted litigation
costs, small businesses face higher costs in purchasing
insurance through interstate insurance markets to cover their
activities;
(10) liability reform for small businesses will promote the
free flow of goods and services, lessen burdens on interstate
commerce, and decrease litigiousness; and
(11) legislation to address these concerns is an
appropriate exercise of the powers of Congress under clauses
3, 9, and 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of
the United States, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Crime of violence.--The term ``crime of violence'' has
the same meaning as in section 16 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Drug.--The term ``drug'' means any controlled substance
(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 802)) that was not legally prescribed for use by
the defendant or that was taken by the defendant other than
in accordance with the terms of a lawfully issued
prescription.
(3) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any
pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of
earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical
expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death,
burial costs, and loss of business or employment
opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is
allowed under applicable State law.
(4) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any physical injury,
illness, disease, or death or damage to property.
(5) Hate crime.--The term ``hate crime'' means a crime
described under section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act
(28 U.S.C. 534 note).
(6) International terrorism.--The term ``international
terrorism'' has the same meaning as in section 2331 of title
18, United States Code.
(7) Noneconomic loss.--The term ``noneconomic loss'' means
loss for physical or emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), injury to reputation, or any other
nonpecuniary loss of any kind or nature.
(8) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, joint stock company, or any other entity (including
any governmental entity).
(9) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means
damages awarded against any person or entity to punish or
deter such person, entity, or others from engaging in similar
behavior in the future. Such term does not include any civil
penalties, fines, or treble damages that are assessed or
enforced by an agency of State or Federal government pursuant
to a State or Federal statute.
(10) Small business.--
(A) In general.--The term ``small business'' means any
unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation,
association, unit of local government, or organization that
has fewer than 25 full-time employees as determined on the
date the civil action involving the small business is filed.
(B) Calculation of number of employees.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the number of employees of a subsidiary of
a wholly owned corporation includes the employees of--

[[Page S4841]]

(i) a parent corporation; and
(ii) any other subsidiary corporation of that parent
corporation.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, commonwealth, territory, or possession.

SEC. 103. LIMITATION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.

(a) General Rule.--Except as provided in section 105, in
any civil action against a small business, punitive damages
may, to the extent permitted by applicable Federal or State
law, be awarded against the small business only if the
claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that
conduct carried out by that defendant with a conscious,
flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others was
the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject of the
action.
(b) Limitation on Amount.--In any civil action against a
small business, punitive damages awarded against a small
business shall not exceed the lesser of--
(1) three times the total amount awarded to the claimant
for economic and noneconomic losses; or
(2) $250,000,

except that the court may make this subsection inapplicable
if the court finds that the plaintiff established by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with
specific intent to cause the type of harm for which the
action was brought.
(c) Application by the Court.--The limitation prescribed by
this section shall be applied by the court and shall not be
disclosed to the jury.

SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR
NONECONOMIC LOSS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

(a) General Rule.--Except as provided in section 105, in
any civil action against a small business, the liability of
each defendant that is a small business, or the agent of a
small business, for noneconomic loss shall be determined in
accordance with subsection (b).
(b) Amount of Liability.--
(1) In general.--In any civil action described in
subsection (a)--
(A) each defendant described in that subsection shall be
liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to
that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance
with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect
to which that defendant is liable; and
(B) the court shall render a separate judgment against each
defendant described in that subsection in an amount
determined under subparagraph (A).
(2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of
determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a
defendant under this section, the trier of fact shall
determine the percentage of responsibility of each person
responsible for the harm to the claimant, regardless of
whether or not the person is a party to the action.

SEC. 105. EXCEPTIONS TO LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.

The limitations on liability under sections 103 and 104 do
not apply--
(1) to any defendant whose misconduct--
(A) constitutes--
(i) a crime of violence;
(ii) an act of international terrorism; or
(iii) a hate crime;
(B) results in liability for damages relating to the injury
to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural
resources described in--
(i) section 1002(b)(2)(A) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A)); or
(ii) section 107(a)(4)(C) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(C));
(C) involves--
(i) a sexual offense, as defined by applicable State law;
or
(ii) a violation of a Federal or State civil rights law; or
(D) occurred at the time the defendant was under the
influence (as determined under applicable State law) of
intoxicating alcohol or a drug, and the fact that the
defendant was under the influence was the cause of any harm
alleged by the plaintiff in the subject action; or
(2) to any cause of action which is brought under the
provisions of title 31, United States Code, relating to false
claims (31 U.S.C. 3729 through 3733) or to any other cause of
action brought by the United States relating to fraud or
false statements.

SEC. 106. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Preemption.--Subject to subsection (b), this title
preempts the laws of any State to the extent that State laws
are inconsistent with this title.
(b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This
title does not apply to any action in a State court against a
small business in which all parties are citizens of the
State, if the State enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this title
does not apply as of a date certain to such actions in the
State; and
(3) containing no other provision.

TITLE II--PRODUCT SELLER FAIR TREATMENT

SEC. 201. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) although damage awards in product liability actions may
encourage the production of safer products, they may also
have a direct effect on interstate commerce and consumers of
the United States by increasing the cost of, and decreasing
the availability of, products;
(2) some of the rules of law governing product liability
actions are inconsistent within and among the States,
resulting in differences in State laws that may be
inequitable with respect to plaintiffs and defendants and may
impose burdens on interstate commerce;
(3) product liability awards may jeopardize the financial
well-being of individuals and industries, particularly the
small businesses of the United States;
(4) because the product liability laws of a State may have
adverse effects on consumers and businesses in many other
States, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to enact
national, uniform product liability laws that preempt State
laws; and
(5) under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the United
States Constitution, it is the constitutional role of the
Federal Government to remove barriers to interstate commerce.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title, based on the
powers of the United States under clause 3 of section 8 of
article I of the United States Constitution, are to promote
the free flow of goods and services and lessen the burdens on
interstate commerce, by--
(1) establishing certain uniform legal principles of
product liability that provide a fair balance among the
interests of all parties in the chain of production,
distribution, and use of products; and
(2) reducing the unacceptable costs and delays in product
liability actions caused by excessive litigation that harms
both plaintiffs and defendants.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Alcohol product.--The term ``alcohol product'' includes
any product that contains not less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of
alcohol by volume and is intended for human consumption.
(2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who
brings an action covered by this title and any person on
whose behalf such an action is brought. If such an action is
brought through or on behalf of an estate, the term includes
the claimant's decedent. If such an action is brought through
or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the
claimant's legal guardian.
(3) Commercial loss.--The term ``commercial loss'' means--
(A) any loss or damage solely to a product itself;
(B) loss relating to a dispute over the value of a product;
or
(C) consequential economic loss, the recovery of which is
governed by applicable State commercial or contract laws that
are similar to the Uniform Commercial Code.
(4) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory
damages'' means damages awarded for economic and noneconomic
losses.
(5) Dram-shop.--The term ``dram-shop'' means a drinking
establishment where alcoholic beverages are sold to be
consumed on the premises.
(6) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any
pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of
earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical
expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death,
burial costs, and loss of business or employment
opportunities) to the extent recovery for that loss is
allowed under applicable State law.
(7) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any physical injury,
illness, disease, or death or damage to property caused by a
product. The term does not include commercial loss.
(8) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means--
(A) any person who--
(i) is engaged in a business to produce, create, make, or
construct any product (or component part of a product); and
(ii)(I) designs or formulates the product (or component
part of the product); or
(II) has engaged another person to design or formulate the
product (or component part of the product);
(B) a product seller, but only with respect to those
aspects of a product (or component part of a product) that
are created or affected when, before placing the product in
the stream of commerce, the product seller--
(i) produces, creates, makes, constructs and designs, or
formulates an aspect of the product (or component part of the
product) made by another person; or
(ii) has engaged another person to design or formulate an
aspect of the product (or component part of the product) made
by another person; or
(C) any product seller not described in subparagraph (B)
that holds itself out as a manufacturer to the user of the
product.
(9) Noneconomic loss.--The term ``noneconomic loss'' means
loss for physical or emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), injury to reputation, or any other
nonpecuniary loss of any kind or nature.
(10) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, joint stock company, or any other entity (including
any governmental entity).

[[Page S4842]]

(11) Product.--
(A) In general.--The term ``product'' means any object,
substance, mixture, or raw material in a gaseous, liquid, or
solid state that--
(i) is capable of delivery itself or as an assembled whole,
in a mixed or combined state, or as a component part or
ingredient;
(ii) is produced for introduction into trade or commerce;
(iii) has intrinsic economic value; and
(iv) is intended for sale or lease to persons for
commercial or personal use.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``product'' does not include--
(i) tissue, organs, blood, and blood products used for
therapeutic or medical purposes, except to the extent that
such tissue, organs, blood, and blood products (or the
provision thereof) are subject, under applicable State law,
to a standard of liability other than negligence; or
(ii) electricity, water delivered by a utility, natural
gas, or steam.
(12) Product liability action.--
(A) General rule.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``product liability action'' means a civil action
brought on any theory for a claim for any physical injury,
illness, disease, death, or damage to property that is caused
by a product.
(B) The following claims are not included in the term
``product liability action'':
(i) Negligent entrustment.--A claim for negligent
entrustment.
(ii) Negligence per se.--A claim brought under a theory of
negligence per se.
(iii) Dram-shop.--A claim brought under a theory of dram-
shop or third-party liability arising out of the sale or
providing of an alcoholic product to an intoxicated person or
minor.
(13) Product seller.--
(A) In general.--The term ``product seller'' means a person
who in the course of a business conducted for that purpose--
(i) sells, distributes, rents, leases, prepares, blends,
packages, labels, or otherwise is involved in placing a
product in the stream of commerce; or
(ii) installs, repairs, refurbishes, reconditions, or
maintains the harm-causing aspect of the product.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``product seller'' does not
include--
(i) a seller or lessor of real property;
(ii) a provider of professional services in any case in
which the sale or use of a product is incidental to the
transaction and the essence of the transaction is the
furnishing of judgment, skill, or services; or
(iii) any person who--

(I) acts in only a financial capacity with respect to the
sale of a product; or
(II) leases a product under a lease arrangement in which
the lessor does not initially select the leased product and
does not during the lease term ordinarily control the daily
operations and maintenance of the product.

(14) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, commonwealth, territory, or possession.

SEC. 203. APPLICABILITY; PREEMPTION.

(a) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
title governs any product liability action brought in any
Federal or State court.
(2) Actions for commercial loss.--A civil action brought
for commercial loss shall be governed only by applicable
State commercial or contract laws that are similar to the
Uniform Commercial Code.
(b) Relationship to State Law.--This title supersedes a
State law only to the extent that the State law applies to an
issue covered by this title. Any issue that is not governed
by this title, including any standard of liability applicable
to a manufacturer, shall be governed by any applicable
Federal or State law.
(c) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to--
(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity
asserted by any State under any State law;
(2) supersede or alter any Federal law;
(3) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity
asserted by the United States;
(4) affect the applicability of any provision of chapter 97
of title 28, United States Code;
(5) preempt State choice-of-law rules with respect to
claims brought by a foreign nation or a citizen of a foreign
nation;
(6) affect the right of any court to transfer venue or to
apply the law of a foreign nation or to dismiss a claim of a
foreign nation or of a citizen of a foreign nation on the
ground of inconvenient forum; or
(7) supersede or modify any statutory or common law,
including any law providing for an action to abate a
nuisance, that authorizes a person to institute an action for
civil damages or civil penalties, cleanup costs, injunctions,
restitution, cost recovery, punitive damages, or any other
form of relief, for remediation of the environment (as
defined in section 101(8) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(8))).

SEC. 204. LIABILITY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCT SELLERS,
RENTERS, AND LESSORS.

(a) General Rule.--
(1) In general.--In any product liability action covered
under this title, a product seller other than a manufacturer
shall be liable to a claimant only if the claimant
establishes that--
(A)(i) the product that allegedly caused the harm that is
the subject of the complaint was sold, rented, or leased by
the product seller;
(ii) the product seller failed to exercise reasonable care
with respect to the product; and
(iii) the failure to exercise reasonable care was a
proximate cause of the harm to the claimant;
(B)(i) the product seller made an express warranty
applicable to the product that allegedly caused the harm that
is the subject of the complaint, independent of any express
warranty made by a manufacturer as to the same product;
(ii) the product failed to conform to the warranty; and
(iii) the failure of the product to conform to the warranty
caused the harm to the claimant; or
(C)(i) the product seller engaged in intentional
wrongdoing, as determined under applicable State law; and
(ii) the intentional wrongdoing caused the harm that is the
subject of the complaint.
(2) Reasonable opportunity for inspection.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(A)(ii), a product seller shall not be
considered to have failed to exercise reasonable care with
respect to a product based upon an alleged failure to inspect
the product, if--
(A) the failure occurred because there was no reasonable
opportunity to inspect the product; or
(B) the inspection, in the exercise of reasonable care,
would not have revealed the aspect of the product that
allegedly caused the claimant's harm.
(b) Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--A product seller shall be deemed to be
liable as a manufacturer of a product for harm caused by the
product, if--
(A) the manufacturer is not subject to service of process
under the laws of any State in which the action may be
brought; or
(B) the court determines that the claimant is or would be
unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer.
(2) Statute of limitations.--For purposes of this
subsection only, the statute of limitations applicable to
claims asserting liability of a product seller as a
manufacturer shall be tolled from the date of the filing of a
complaint against the manufacturer to the date that judgment
is entered against the manufacturer.
(c) Rented or Leased Products.--
(1) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (2), and for
determining the applicability of this title to any person
subject to that paragraph, the term ``product liability
action'' means a civil action brought on any theory for harm
caused by a product or product use.
(2) Liability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
any person engaged in the business of renting or leasing a
product (other than a person excluded from the definition of
product seller under section 202(13)(B)) shall be subject to
liability in a product liability action under subsection (a),
but any person engaged in the business of renting or leasing
a product shall not be liable to a claimant for the tortious
act of another solely by reason of ownership of that product.

SEC. 205. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION PRECLUDED.

The district courts of the United States shall not have
jurisdiction under this title based on section 1331 or 1337
of title 28, United States Code.

TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect with respect to any civil action
commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act without
regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the action
occurred before such date.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Warner)
S. 866. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
a national media campaign to reduce and prevent underage drinking in
the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and
colleague Senator Warner because I am deeply concerned with the
underage drinking occurring in America. Alcohol is currently the number
1 drug problem for America's youth. Alcohol kills 6.5 times more young
people in America than all other illicit drugs combined, Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation.
Drinking under the age of 21 is illegal in all 50 states, yet 10.4
million kids in America consume alcohol illegally, starting on average
at just 13 years of age, Health People 2010 Study, Health and Human
Services. In my own state of Nevada, there has been a 3-percent
increase since 1997 in the number of teens who report drinking.
Nevada's youth, ages 12-17 are ranked third nationally in reported
illicit drug or alcohol dependence and 5th in binge alcohol use,
National Household Survey, 1999.

[[Page S4843]]

Alcohol is a major contributing factor in approximately half of all
youth homicides, suicides, motor vehicle crashes, death and disability
in Nevada, Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 1999. Alcohol is clearly
the drug of choice for teenagers throughout America.
Specifically in Nevada, 73 percent of 10th graders have tried
alcohol, while 33 percent drink monthly. The numbers are even greater
for high school seniors, 75 percent and 41 percent respectively, Nevada
Safe and Drug Free Schools Survey.
The purpose of our bill the ``National Media Campaign to Prevent
Underage Drinking Act of 2001'' is to establish a national campaign to
reduce and prevent underage drinking in America and will be conducted
by the Department of Health and Human Services.
This bipartisan legislation will educate America's youth and their
parents about the dangers and consequences of underage drinking. It
will use television, print, radio and Internet advertisements to
highlight the facts and the negative consequence of underage drinking.
Our bill addresses a need for a comprehensive public education
campaign aimed at underage drinking. MADD reports that underage
drinking contributes to increased motor vehicle crashes, crime,
violence, unprotected sex, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted
diseases, depression, suicide, alcohol dependence, and other drug use.
Young people who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more
likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking
after age 21, National Institutes of Health. The more America's youth
drink, the more likely they are to drink and drive, American Academy of
Pediatrics. Over 16,000 Americans were killed in alcohol-related motor
vehicle crashes in 1999 and nearly one million were injured. In 1999,
over 2,000 young people between the ages of 15-20 lost their lives to
alcohol-related crashes.
Senator Warner and I have chosen to introduce this legislation today
because Prom season, graduation parties, and summer vacations are all
rapidly approaching. And that means a lot of parents are focused on the
threat of teen drinking, and drunk driving. It is however, important
that we do not focus on underage drinking only during these types of
events. This is something we should address every day of the year, year
after year. That is what this legislation does.
Additionally, as you all know Mother's Day is this Sunday. I want to
ask that all of you young Americans consider giving your mother a very
special gift this year. Promise her that you won't drink and drive--at
your prom, or at your graduation.
This independent campaign should be established and should be
conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services. Modeled after the Anti-Drug Campaign, the National Media
Campaign to Prevent Underage Drinking will be separately funded and
conducted by the Office of Public Health and Science, in conjunction
with the Surgeon General, and will be based on scientific research.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the National Media Campaign
to Prevent Underage Drinking Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 866

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 ``National Media Campaign to
Prevent Underage Drinking Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SCIENCE; PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL
MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.

Title XVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1711. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE
DRINKING.

``(a) Requirement To Conduct a National Media Campaign.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, implement,
and conduct a national media campaign in accordance with this
section for the purpose of reducing and preventing underage
drinking in the United States.
``(2) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section through the Office of Public Health and Science and
in consultation with the Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service.
``(3) Based on science.--The Secretary shall develop,
implement, and conduct the national media campaign based upon
reputable academic and scientific research on youth attitudes
and the prevalence of underage drinking in the United States,
as well as on the science and research on mass media
prevention campaigns.
``(4) Supplement; not supplant.--In developing,
implementing, and conducting the national media campaign, the
Secretary shall supplement (and not supplant) existing
efforts by State, local, private, and nonprofit entities to
reduce and prevent underage drinking in the United States and
shall coordinate with other Federal agencies and departments,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Department of
Justice, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy.
``(5) Targeting.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum
extent feasible, use amounts available under subsection (e)
for media that focuses on, or includes specific information
on, prevention or treatment resources for consumers within
specific geographic local areas. The Secretary shall ensure
that the national media campaign includes messages that are
language-appropriate and culturally competent to reach
minority groups.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Advertising.--Of the amounts available under
subsection (e), the Secretary shall devote sufficient funds
to the advertising portion of the national media campaign to
meet the stated reach and frequency goals of the campaign.
``(2) Authorized uses.--
``(A) In general.--Amounts available under subsection (e)
for the national media campaign may only be used for the
development of the campaign and--
``(i) the development of a comprehensive strategy planning
document;
``(ii) the purchase of media time and space;
``(iii) talent reuse payments;
``(iv) out-of-pocket advertising production costs;
``(v) testing and evaluation of advertising;
``(vi) evaluation of the effectiveness of the media
campaign; and
``(vii) the negotiated fees for the winning bidder on
request for proposals issued by the Assistant Secretary for
Health.
``(B) Certain uses.--In support of the primary goal of
developing, implementing and conducting an effective
advertising campaign, funds available under subsection (e)
may be used for--
``(i) partnerships with community, civic, and professional
groups, and government organizations related to the media
campaign; and
``(ii) entertainment industry collaborations to fashion
underage-drinking prevention messages in motion pictures,
television programming, popular music, interactive (Internet
and new) media projects and activities, public information,
news media outreach, and corporate sponsorship and
participation.
``(3) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts available under
subsection (e) may be obligated or expended--
``(A) to supplant efforts of community-based coalitions to
reduce and prevent underage drinking;
``(B) to supplant current pro bono public service time
donated by national and local broadcasting networks;
``(C) for partisan political purposes;
``(D) to fund media campaigns that feature any elected
officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet level
officials, or other Federal officials employed pursuant to
section 213 of schedule C of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, unless the Assistant Secretary for Health
provides advance notice to the appropriations committees, the
oversight committees, and the appropriate authorizing
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate; or
``(E) to fund or support advertising messages bearing any
company or brand logos or other identifying corporate or
trade information.
``(4) Matching requirement.--As a condition of each
purchase of media time or space for the national media
campaign, the Secretary shall require that the seller of the
time or space provide non-Federal contributions to the
national media campaign in an amount equal to 50 percent of
the purchase price of the time or space, which may be
contributions of funds, or in-kind contributions in the form
of public service announcements specifically directed to
reducing and preventing underage drinking.
``(c) Reports to Congress.--
``(1) Comprehensive strategy.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy
that identifies the nature and extent of the problem of
underage drinking, the scientific basis for the strategy,
including a review of the existing scientific research,
target audiences, goals and objectives of the campaign,
message points that will be effective in changing attitudes
and behavior, a campaign outline and implementation plan, an
evaluation plan, and the estimated costs of implementation.
``(2) Annual reports.--The Secretary shall annually submit
to Congress a report on the

[[Page S4844]]

activities for which amounts available under subsection (e)
were obligated during the preceding year, including
information for each quarter of such year, and on the
specific parameters of the national media campaign including
whether the campaign is achieving identified performance
goals based on an independent evaluation.
``(3) Progress report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report on the progress of the national media
campaign based on measurable outcomes previously provided to
Congress.
``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`underage drinking' means any consumption of alcoholic
beverages by individuals who have not attained the age at
which (in the State involved) it is legal to purchase such
beverages.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2007.
``(2) Limitation regarding comprehensive strategy
activities.--Of the amounts appropriated under paragraph (1),
the Secretary may not expend more than $1,000,000 to carry
out subsection (c)(1).''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 868. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage and
group health plans provide coverage and group health plans provide
coverage of cancer screening; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
require health insurance plans to cover screening tests for cancer.
Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney and Sue Kelly are introducing a companion
bill in the House today.
The bill requires plans to cover screening tests including
mammography and clinical breast examinations for breast cancer, ``pap''
tests and pelvic examinations for gynecological cancers, colorectal
screening for colon and rectum cancers, and prostate screening for
prostate cancer.
To address future changes in scientific knowledge and medical
practice, the bill allows the Secretary to change the requirements upon
the Secretary's initiative or upon petition by a private individual or
group. This provision is included because we do not yet have screening
tests for many cancers, including brain tumors, leukemia Hodgkin's
disease, and ovarian, liver and pancreatic cancers. These are often not
detected until they produce symptoms, at which point the cancer may
have advanced significantly.
The American Cancer Society has described ``screening'' as ``the
search for disease in persons who do not have disease or who do not
recognize that they have symptoms of disease,'' Screening, as defined
by the American medical Association, is ``health care services or
products provided to an individual without apparent signs or symptoms
of an illness, injury, or disease for the purpose of identifying or
excluding an undiagnosed illness, disease or condition.'' One of the
most common screening procedures is the mammogram, which millions of
women get annually to determine if there are suspicious lesions or
lumps in their breasts.
A major way to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths and to
increase survival is to increase cancer screening rates. The American
Cancer Society, (ACS), predicts that 563,100 Americans will die of
cancer this year. With appropriate screening, one-third of cancer
deaths could be prevented, says ACS.
Screening is the greatest single tool for finding cancers early.
Cancers found early are cancers that do not grow or metastasize and are
cancers that can be treated more successfully than those that are found
late. Early detection can extend life, reduce treatment, and improve
the quality of life. For example, people can have colon cancer long
before they know it. They may not have any symptoms, Patients diagnosed
by a colon cancer screening have a 90 percent chance of survival while
patients not diagnosed until symptoms are apparent only have a 8
percent change of survival.
Screening-accessible cancers, such as cancers of the breast, tongue,
mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, and skin, account for
approximately half of all new cancer cases. If all Americans had
regular cancer screenings, the five-year survival rate for cancers of
the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis and
skin could grow from 81 percent to 95 percent.
Screening costs less than treatment. For example, Medicare pays from
$100 to $400 for a colorectal cancer screening test. The cost of
treating colorectal cancer from diagnosis to death costs over $51,000,
according to the Institute of Medicine.
To put cancer deaths in perspective, the number of Americans that die
each year from cancer exceeds the total number of Americans lost to all
wars that we have fought in this century. The American Cancer Society
says that over 1.3 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the
U.S. this year.
Despite our increasing understanding of cancer, unless we act with
urgency, the cost to the United States is likely to become unmanageable
in the next 10-20 years. The incidence rate of cancer in 2010 is
estimated to increase by 29 percent for new cases, and cancer deaths
are estimated to increase by 25 percent. Cancer will surpass heart
disease as the leading fatal disease in the U.S. by 2010. With our
aging U.S. population, unless we act now to change current cancer
incidence and death rates, according to the September 1998 report from
the Cancer March Research. Task Force, we can expect over 2.0 million
new cancer cases and 1.0 million deaths per year by 2025. Listen to
these startling statistics: One out of every four deaths in the U.S. is
caused by cancer. That more than 1,500 Americans will die each day from
cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimates that approximately 8.2
million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. One out of
every two men, one out of every three women will be diagnosed with
cancer at some point in their lifetime.

One of the tragedies of cancer is that we have tools available which
can prevent much unnecessary suffering and death. But cancer must be
prevented and it must be found early.
Deaths from colorectal cancer could be cut in half if most people
over 50 had refuting screenings, for a disease that claims 56,700 a
year.
Experts cite several barriers that prevent many Americans from
getting cancer screenings. These include a lack of insurance coverage,
inadequate insurance coverage, inability to pay for screenings, a fear
of discomfort, and the fact that most of American health care is
complaint drive, not preventive.
Insurance coverage is a major factor in whether people have
preventive screenings. In other words, when screenings are covered by
plans, people are more likely to get them. In California, screening
rates for cervical and breast cancer are lower for uninsured women, who
are less likely to have had a recent screening and more likely to have
gone longer without being screened than women with coverage. In
Medicare, for example, a study reported in Public Health Reports in
October 1997, found that Medicare coverage increased the use
of mammograms.

According to an University of California-Los Angeles Center for
Health Policy Research study from February 1998, in California women
ages 18-64, 63 percent of uninsured women had not had a Pap test during
1997 versus 40 percent of insured women. Additionally, approximately 67
percent of uninsured Californian women ages 30-64 had not had a
clinical breast examination during 1997, compared to 40 percent for
insured women in the same age group.
The bill we are introducing, by requiring plans to cover screenings,
can reduce death, reduce suffering and reduce costs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
A summary of the bill follows:

Summary of the Comprehensive Cancer Screening Act of 2001

Requires private health insurance plans to cover cancer
screenings consistent with professionally-developed and
recognized medical guidelines, specifically: mammograms and
clinical breast examinations (for breast cancer); ``pap''
tests and pelvic examinations (for gynecological cancers);
colorectal screening (for colon and rectum cancers); prostate
cancer screening (for prostate cancers).
Authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Health an Human Services
by regulation to modify or update the coverage requirements
to reflect advances in medical practice or new scientific
knowledge, for all cancers as screenings are developed, based
on the Secretary's own initiative or upon the petition of an
individual or organization.

[[Page S4845]]

Prohibits health insurance plans from: denying eligibility
for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the bill;
providing monetary payments to encourage individuals to
accept less than the minimum protections available;
penalizing or reducing reimbursement because a provider
provides care consistent with these requirements; providing
incentives to a provider to encourage the provider to provide
care inconsistent with the requirements.
Requires plans to provide subscribers full information on
the extent of coverage, including covered benefits, cost-
sharing requirements, and the extent of choice of providers.
______

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 870. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax incentives for public-private partnerships in financing
of highway, mass transit, high speed rail, and intermodal transfer
facilities projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce
the Multi Modal Transportation Financing Act. The United States faces a
significant shortfall in funding for our highway and bridge
infrastructure needs. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and
innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address these
significant needs. This bill will lift the existing restrictions on
tax-exempt bond financing for public agencies seeking greater private
sector participation in a variety of transportation projects. This
financing tool will serve to manage congestion, build more
transportation options, and encourage technological innovation.
This bill will adjust the tax code in order to remove a barrier to
needed transportation infrastructure investment. Under current Federal
tax law, highways built by government can be financed through the use
of tax exempt bonds--but those built by the private sector are not
eligible to use this valuable financing tool, even though this tool is
currently available to the private sector for the construction of
seaports, airports and other public infrastructure facilities. Tax-
exempt bonds can reduce interest rates as much as two percentage points
below rates on comparable taxable bond issues and can reduce financing
costs by 20-25 percent. While this has been a huge benefit for other
infrastructure needs, once the private sector seeks to participate in
the development or operation of a government-owned highway or intercity
rail project, tax-exempt financing is no longer available. Yet these
transportation projects costing from $100 million to over $1 billion
are rendered financially infeasible when subjected to taxable bond
financing, forcing the private sector out of transportation project
development.
As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway
facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential
efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such
arrangements. By depending solely on public sector tax-exempt
financing, some projects will not be built at all, while projects that
still get built are done so much later, at higher cost,
greater inefficiency and public sector risk.

Private sector participation in these transportation projects will
provide access to new expertise, greater operating efficiencies, new
sources of investment capital, and private sector risk sharing. This
practice of private sector involvement has already been successfully
implemented in a number of other countries. U.S. companies are
currently investing billions of dollars in foreign infrastructure
projects that are not subject to the United States tax code
discrimination against similar private investment. Increasing the
private sector's role in these countries has offered opportunities for
construction cost savings and more efficient operation.
The effort to enhance private sector participation began a few years
ago by my predecessor as chairman of the environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator John Chafee. While his legislation did pass the
Senate, it never made it to the President's desk. It is time for this
long over due private sector encouragement to become law.
I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to
meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be
one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to
design, build, and operate the nation's transportation infrastructure.
We should begin by knocking down barriers that discourage the private
sector from unleashing its full resources to help build this nation's
transportation network. I urge my colleague to join me in supporting
this vital 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. 870

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 ``Multimodal Transportation
Financing Act''.

SEC. 2. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF QUALIFIED HIGHWAY
INFRASTRUCTURE.

(a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of
section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
exempt facility bond) is amended by striking ``or'' at the
end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following:
``(13) qualified highway infrastructure projects.''.
(b) Qualified Highway Infrastructure Projects.--Section 142
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(k) Qualified Highway Infrastructure Projects.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the
term `qualified highway infrastructure project' means a
project--
``(A) for the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance
of a highway, including related startup costs, and
``(B) meeting the requirements of paragraph (2).
``(2) Project requirements.--A project meets the
requirements of this paragraph if the project--
``(A) serves the general public,
``(B) is located on publicly-owned rights-of-way, and
``(C) is publicly owned or the ownership of the highway
constructed, reconstructed, or maintained under the project
reverts to the public.''
(c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph
(3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or
(13)'', and
(2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of
hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting
``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating
facilities, and qualified highway infrastructure projects''.
(d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land
Acquisition.--Section 147(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to exception for certain land acquired for
environmental purposes, etc.) is amended by striking ``or
wharf'' both places it appears and inserting ``wharf, or
qualified highway infrastructure project''.
(e) Treatment of Certain Refunding Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 149(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain private
activity bonds) is amended by inserting ``or any exempt
facility bond issued as part of an issue described in
paragraph (13) of section 142(a) (relating to qualified
highway infrastructure projects)'' after ``other than a
qualified 501(c)(3) bond''.
(2) Special rules.--Paragraph (6) of section 149(d) of such
Code is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Special rules for purposes of paragraph (3).--For
purposes of paragraph (3)--
``(A) bonds issued before October 22, 1986, shall be taken
into account under subparagraph (A)(i) thereof except--
``(i) a refunding which occurred before 1986 shall be
treated as an advance refunding only if the refunding bond
was issued more than 180 days before the redemption of the
refunded bond, and
``(ii) a bond issued before 1986, shall be treated as
advance refunded no more than once before March 15, 1986, and
``(B) a bond issued as part of an issue that is either the
1st or 2nd advance refunding of the original bond shall be
treated as only the 1st advance refunding of the original
bond if--
``(i) at least 95 percent or more of the net proceeds of
the original bond issue are to be used to finance a highway
infrastructure project (regardless of whether the original
bond was issued as a private activity bond),
``(ii) the original bonds and applicable refunding bonds
are or are reasonably expected to be primarily secured by
project-based revenues, and
``(iii) in any case in which--

``(I) the original bonds or applicable refunding bonds are
private activity bonds issued as part of an issue at least 95
percent or more of the net proceeds of which are to be used
to finance a qualified highway infrastructure project
described in section 142(a)(13), the refunding bonds of the
issue and original bonds of the issue satisfy the
requirements of section 147(b), or
``(II) the original bonds and applicable refunding bonds
are not private activity bonds, the second generation advance
refunding

[[Page S4846]]

bonds of the issue (and any future bonds of the issue
refunding such bonds) satisfy the requirements of section
147(b).''.

(3) Special rule relating to maturity limitation.--Section
147(b) of such Code (relating to maturity limitations) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Special rule for certain highway infrastructure
projects.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of bonds of an issue
described in section 149(d)(6)(B), the limit described in
paragraph (1)(B) shall be reduced--
``(i) in any case in which the original bonds or applicable
refunding bonds are private activity bonds, by the remaining
weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds with respect
to both the first and second generation advance refunding,
and
``(ii) in any case in which the original bonds and
applicable refunding bonds are not private activity bonds, by
the remaining weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds
with respect to the second generation advance refunding.
``(B) Remaining weighted average maturity of escrowed
bonds.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the remaining
weighted average maturity of the escrowed bonds is equal to
the weighted average maturity, calculated as of the
applicable refunding bond issue date--
``(i) with respect to subparagraph (A)(i), of the
applicable bonds advance refunded, and
``(ii) with respect to subparagraph (A)(ii), of the
applicable bonds directly refunded by the second generation
advance refunding bonds, and
treating any date of actual early redemption as a maturity
date for this purpose.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 3. MASS COMMUTING FACILITIES.

(a) Exemption From State Volume Cap.--Section 146(g)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for
certain bonds), as amended by section 2, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(3),'' after ``(2),'', and
(2) by inserting ``mass commuting facilities,'' after
``wharves,''.
(b) Inclusion of Rolling Stock.--Section 142(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to airports, docks
and wharves, mass commuting facilities and high-speed
intercity rail facilities) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Mass commuting facilities.--The term `mass commuting
facilities' includes rolling stock related to such
facilities.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY
RAIL FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 142(i)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining high-speed intercity rail facilities)
is amended by striking `` and their baggage'' and all that
follows and inserting ``on high speed rail corridors
designated under section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States
Code, or on corridors using magnetic levitation
technology.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 5. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF INTERMODAL TRANSFER
FACILITIES.

(a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of
section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
exempt facility bond), as amended by section 2(a), is amended
by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (12), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``,
or'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(14) intermodal transfer facilities.''.
(b) Intermodal Transfer Facilities.--Section 142 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 2(b), is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Intermodal Transfer Facilities.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(14), the term `intermodal transfer facilities'
means any facility for the transfer of people or goods
between the same or different transportation modes.''.
(c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph
(3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to exception for certain bonds), as amended by
section 2(c), is amended--
(1) by striking ``or (13)'' and inserting ``(13), or
(14)'', and
(2) by striking ``and qualified highway infrastructure
projects'' and inserting ``qualified highway infrastructure
projects, and intermodal transfer facilities''.
(d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land
Acquisition.--Section 147(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to exception for certain land acquired for
environmental purposes, etc.), as amended by section 2(d), is
amended by striking ``or qualified highway infrastructure
project'' both places it appears and inserting ``qualified
highway infrastructure project, or intermodal transfer
facility''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (c) of section 142
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``or (11)'' both places it appears in
paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``, (11), or (14)'', and
(2) by striking ``and High-Speed Intercity Rail
Facilities'' in the heading thereof and inserting ``, High-
Speed Intercity Rail Facilities, and Intermodal Transfer
Facilities''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment of
this Act.

____________________