[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5891-S5903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow,
and Mr. Reid):
S. 989. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise along with the Senator from
New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton,
and others, to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. This
bill is a package of steps to eliminate racial profiling once and for
all. Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to walk,
drive, or travel on our streets and highways and through our airports
free of discrimination. It is time for us to act.
I am very pleased to be joined by a number of distinguished
colleagues. I simply have to point out that I think almost minutes
after Senators Corzine and Clinton were sworn in, they were already
talking to me and Representative Conyers of the House about how we
could introduce a strong bill to deal with this problem. I thank them
and appreciate the strong work and support they have given. They have
made significant contributions and have offered good ideas to
strengthen the legislation.
I also acknowledge our long-time leader on this issue, Representative
John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He
is introducing the companion bill in the House today. This is the third
Congress in which Representative Conyers has introduced legislation on
racial profiling. He has fought long and hard to educate the Congress
and all Americans about racial profiling. Before he took on the issue,
I don't think many of us knew what racial profiling was. I thank
Representative Conyers for his tremendous leadership. It is an honor to
be working with him on this bill.
Those who have experienced racial profiling suffer great harm. They
are unfairly treated as suspect, humiliated, and can feel fear, anxiety
or even anger. It is a grave indignity.
U.S. Army Sergeant Rossano Gerald testified during a hearing in the
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last year about his personal
experience as a victim of racial profiling. Sergeant Gerald is a
veteran of the Persian Gulf war and a law-abiding citizen. In August
1998, he was driving along a major highway in Oklahoma with his 12-
year-old son when he was pulled over and handcuffed. Both he and his
son were thrown into the back seat of a state trooper's car while the
trooper extensively searched Sergeant Gerald's car. When the entire
episode was over, the trooper gave Sergeant Gerald a warning ticket for
changing lanes without signaling and left his car with over $1,000 of
damage.
In moving testimony before the subcommittee, a hearing which then-
Senator Ashcroft chaired and has said influenced his thinking on the
issue, Sergeant Gerald said,
I was very humiliated by this experience. I was embarrassed
and ashamed that people driving by would think I had
committed a serious crime. It was particularly horrible to
[[Page S5892]]
be treated like a criminal in front of my impressionable
young son.
Robert Wilkins also testified before the subcommittee. He and his
family were stopped along a highway in Maryland. He described his
experience as ``humiliating and degrading.'' He said:
So there we were. Standing outside the car in the rain,
lined up along the road, with police lights flashing,
officers standing guard, and a German Shepard jumping on top
of, underneath, and sniffing every inch of our vehicle. We
were criminal suspects; yet we were just trying to use the
interstate highway to travel from our homes to a funeral. It
is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when
people presume you to be guilty for no good reason and you
know that you are innocent. I particularly remember a car
driving past with two young children in the back seat, noses
pressed against the window. They were looking at the
policemen, the flashing lights, the German Shepard and us. In
this moment of education that each of us receives through
real world experiences, those children were putting two and
two together and getting five. They saw some black people
standing along the road who certainly must have been bad
people who had done something wrong, for why else would the
police have them there? They were getting an untrue, negative
picture of me, and there was nothing in the world that I
could do about it.
Mr. President, as Americans, we take great pride in our freedom and
independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief
that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move
about as we please, and free from the intrusion of the government in
that movement.
Immigrants came to our nation's shores to escape arbitrary
government. Fleeing the British Government's discrimination based on
religion in the 1600s, Puritans came to Massachusetts, Quakers came to
New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, Catholics came to Maryland, and Jews
came to Rhode Island.
And responding to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted by
the British, our Founders adopted the fourth amendment, which states:
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated . . . .''
It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law
that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens
arbitrarily or without cause.
But this is not the case for all Americans today. Some Americans
still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free
from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not
receive the full benefit of their civil rights.
Although many did come to these shores as immigrants, many came in
chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their descendants
endured our nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination.
Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more
likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be
searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned.
Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement
agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally, without bias,
and protect the safety of their communities. But I also believe that
racial profiling is a very real problem. The use by law enforcement
officers of race, ethnicity or national origin in deciding which
persons should be subject to traffic stops, stop and frisks,
questioning, searches and seizures is a problematic law enforcement
tactic.
Mr. President, the bill that Representative Conyers first introduced
in the 105th Congress, and which we introduced again in the 106th
Congress, was a traffic stops study bill. It would have required the
Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops based
on existing data and a sampling of jurisdictions that would provide
additional data to the Attorney General. We proposed a study bill
because, at that time, there was still very much education that needed
to take place in Congress and America. We thought that a study would
provide the facts to show people that racial profiling indeed is very
real in America today.
Mr. President, we no longer need, just a study. We now have facts
that show us that racial profiling is a problem. Statistical evidence
from a number of jurisdictions across the country demonstrates that
racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. For example, data
collected under a federal court consent decree revealed that between
January 1995 and 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched
by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were black, while only
17.5 percent of drivers and speeders were black.
A 1992 study of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida revealed
that 70 percent of those stopped on a particular interstate highway in
central Florida were black or Hispanic, although only 5 percent of the
motorists on that highway were black or Hispanic. Further, minorities
were detained for longer periods of time per stop than whites, and were
80 percent of those whose cars were searched after being stopped.
We also know that racial profiling is a problem not only for
motorists on our nation's highways. Racial profiling, unfortunately,
extends to racial and ethnic minority Americans as pedestrians or
travelers through our nation's airports.
A December 1999 report by New York's Attorney General on the use of
``stop and frisk'' tactics by the New York City Police Department
revealed that between January 1998 through March 1999, 84 percent of
the almost 175,000 people stopped by NYPD were black or Hispanic,
despite the fact that these two groups comprised less than half of the
city's population.
A March 2000 GAO report on the U.S. Customs Service found that black,
Asian, and Hispanic female U.S. citizens were 4 to 9 times more likely
than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to X-rays after being
frisked or patted down.
Many of those who deny that racial profiling is a problem have argued
that these discrepancies can be justified by the fact that blacks and
other minorities are more likely to commit crimes--especially drug-
related crimes--than whites, and that profiling therefore amounts to a
rational law enforcement tactic. The statistics refute this argument.
Although black motorists were disproportionately stopped on I-95 by
the Maryland State Police, the instances in which police actually found
drugs were the same per capita for white and black motorists.
In Volusia County, Florida, where 70 percent of more than 1000
traffic stops of motorists on an interstate highway were of minority
drivers, only 9 stops resulted in so much as a traffic ticket.
The New York Attorney General's report on NYPD stop and frisk tactics
revealed that stops of minorities were less likely to lead to arrests
than stops of white New Yorkers--the NYPD arrested one white New Yorker
for every 8 stops, one Hispanic New Yorker for every 9 stops, and one
black New Yorker for every 9.5 stops.
The General Accounting Office found that while black female U.S.
citizens were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to
be subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, black females
were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white
females.
In my home state of Wisconsin, racial profiling has touched the lives
of many law abiding citizens, including African Americans, Latino
Americans, and Asian Americans. My state is home to one of the largest
Hmong and Lao populations in the country. They came to our country
seeking safety and freedom. But their dreams of freedom have somehow
been tarnished by unfair stops by police officers.
I am very pleased that during the last year, a Task Force appointed
by former Governor Tommy Thompson developed a set of recommendations
for combating racial profiling and restoring the important trust that
must exist between law enforcement officials and the communities they
are charged to protect and serve.
Because, as we know, racial profiling undermines the willingness of
people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in
Glencoe, Illinois, said: ``Who is there left to protect us? The police
just violated us.''
Mr. President, current efforts by state and local governments to
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while
laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this
problem nationwide.
During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft said:
I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's
unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I
think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are
good
[[Page S5893]]
people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share that
view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to ensure
that racial profiling does not happen.
This February in his Address to Congress, President Bush said, ``It's
wrong, and we will end it in America.'' At remarks marking Black
History Month this February in Washington, DC, President Bush said that
he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling.
Attorney General Ashcroft then wrote Congress to say that the traffic
stops statistics study bill that we wrote and supported in the last
Congress ``is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise.''
While I welcome the administration's statements, it is now no longer
time simply to study. It is time to move beyond studying whether racial
profiling exists. We know it exists. Now, let's take the right steps to
eliminate it and protect the rights of all Americans to walk or travel
free of discrimination. It is time to act. I urge the Attorney General
and President to support this bill as the best opportunity to translate
our nation's promises into action.
Representative Conyers and I have taken a fresh look at the role
Congress can play in eliminating racial profiling by all law
enforcement agencies. Our bill reflects the President's and Attorney
General's view that racial profiling is wrong and should end. This bill
has two major components. First, the bill explicitly bans racial
profiling. Second, the bill sets out several steps for federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies to take to eliminate racial
profiling. The bill takes a ``carrot and stick'' approach. It
conditions federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies on
their compliance with certain requirements, but also authorizes the
Attorney general to provide incentive grants to assist agencies with
complying with this Act. The bill requires federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial
profiling; implement complaint procedures to respond to complaints of
racial profiling effectiely; implement disciplinary procedures for
officers who engage in the practice; and collect data on stops.
Grants awarded by the Attorney general could be used for training to
prevent racial profiling; the acquisition of in-car video cameras and
other technology; and the development of procedures for receiving,
investigating, and responding to complaints of racial profiling.
Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to
congress two years after enanctment of the Act and each year thereafter
on racial profiling in the United States. These are the right steps to
take in the interest of better police practices and increased
accountability.
Mr. President, this bill is a priority for the civil rights
community. It has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil
rights and its member organizations like the NAACP, National Council of
La Raza, and ACLU. This bill reflects a new political reality: both
Republicans and Democrats can agree that racial profiling is wrong and
should be eliminated. Congress can play a role in ensuring that all
police departments do their part and give them the financial assistance
they may need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to join with
me, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy, Torricelli, Schumer, Durbin,
and Stabenow in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001.
We Americans take great pride in our freedom and independence.
Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free
to walk the paths of our choosing, free to move about as we please, and
free of the intrusion of the Government in that movement.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record immediately following my statement.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 989
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 ``End Racial
Profiling Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Best practices development grants.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE
UNITED STATES
Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue report on racial profiling in the
United States.
Sec. 402. Limitation on use of data.
TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Severability.
Sec. 503. Savings clause.
Sec. 504. Effective dates.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide
discharge their duties professionally, without bias, and
protect the safety of their communities.
(2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, or
national origin in deciding which persons should be subject
to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches,
and seizures is a problematic law enforcement tactic.
Statistical evidence from across the country demonstrates
that such racial profiling is a real and measurable
phenomenon.
(3) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had
14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice
investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and
had filed five pattern and practice lawsuits involving
allegations of racial profiling, with four of those cases
resolved through consent decrees.
(4) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and
other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, or
national origin are found to be law-abiding and therefore
racial profiling is not an effective means to uncover
criminal activity.
(5) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police
contacts in 1999 found that, although African-Americans and
Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, they
were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On
average, searches and seizures of African-American drivers
yielded evidence only eight percent of the time, searches and
seizures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent
of the time, and searches and seizures of white drivers
yielded evidence 17 percent of the time.
(6) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the
activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal
year 1998 found that black women who were United States
citizens were 9 times more likely than white women who were
United States citizens to be X-rayed after being frisked or
patted down and, on the basis of X-ray results, black women
who were United States citizens were less than half as likely
as white women who were United States citizens to be found
carrying contraband. In general, the report found that the
patterns used to select passengers for more intrusive
searches resulted in women and minorities being selected at
rates that were not consistent with the rates of finding
contraband.
(7) Current local law enforcement practices, such as ticket
and arrest quotas, and similar management practices, may have
the unintended effect of encouraging law enforcement agents
to engage in racial profiling.
(8) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it
because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger,
resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated
as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from
traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate
and intrastate commerce.
(9) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the
criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public
confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the
criminal law.
(10) Racial profiling violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, or national
origin as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the
constitutional requirement that police and other government
officials accord to all citizens the equal protection of the
law. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
(11) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through
suppression motions in criminal cases for two reasons. First,
the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a
police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does
not warrant the suppression of evidence. Second, since most
stops do not result in the discovery of contraband, there is
no criminal prosecution and no evidence to suppress.
(12) Current efforts by State and local governments to
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes,
while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient
to address this national problem.
[[Page S5894]]
(b) Purposes.--The independent purposes of this Act are--
(1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection
of the laws, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment and section 5 of
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate
travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the
Constitution of the United States; and
(4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3
of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall
engage in racial profiling.
SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by
racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action
for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State
court of general jurisdiction or in a District Court of the
United States.
(b) Parties.--In any action brought pursuant to this title,
relief may be obtained against: any governmental unit that
employed any law enforcement agent who engaged in racial
profiling; any agent of such unit who engaged in racial
profiling; and any person with supervisory authority over
such agent.
(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine investigatory
activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have
had a disparate impact on racial or ethnic minorities shall
constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this title.
(d) Attorneys' Fees.--In any action or proceeding to
enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court
may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United
States, reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs, and
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) cease existing practices that encourage racial
profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
(2) The collection of data on routine investigatory
activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents
are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data
to the Attorney General.
(3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating,
and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial
profiling by law enforcement agents of the agency.
(4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who
engage in racial profiling.
(5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--An application by a State or governmental
unit for funding under a covered program shall include a
certification that such unit and any agency to which it is
redistributing program funds--
(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) has ceased existing practices that encourage racial
profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
(2) The collection of data on routine investigatory
activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents
are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data
to the Attorney General.
(3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating,
and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial
profiling by law enforcement agents.
(4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who
engage in racial profiling.
(5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
(c) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that
a grantee is not in compliance with conditions established
pursuant to this title, the Attorney General shall withhold
the grant, in whole or in part, until the grantee establishes
compliance. The Attorney General shall provide notice
regarding State grants and opportunities for private parties
to present evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is
not in compliance with conditions established pursuant to
this title.
SEC. 302. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make
grants to States, law enforcement agencies and other
governmental units, Indian tribal governments, or other
public and private entities to develop and implement best
practice devices and systems to ensure the racially neutral
administration of justice.
(b) Uses.--The funds provided pursuant to subsection (a)
may be used to support the following activities:
(1) Development and implementation of training to prevent
racial profiling and to encourage more respectful interaction
with the public.
(2) Acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the
collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities
in order to determine if law enforcement agents are engaged
in racial profiling.
(3) Acquisition and use of technology to verify the
accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras
and portable computer systems.
(4) Development and acquisition of early warning systems
and other feedback systems that help identify officers or
units of officers engaged in or at risk of racial profiling
or other misconduct, including the technology to support such
systems.
(5) Establishment or improvement of systems and procedures
for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to
complaints alleging racial or ethnic bias by law enforcement
agents.
(6) Establishment or improvement of management systems to
ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct
of their subordinates.
(c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner
that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and
rural law enforcement agencies.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Attorney General
shall make available such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section from amounts appropriated for programs
administered by the Attorney General.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE
UNITED STATES
SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than two years after the
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling
by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the
United States.
(2) Scope.--The reports issued pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a summary of data collected pursuant to sections
201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) and any other reliable source of
information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
(B) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies
pursuant to section 201;
(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement
agencies pursuant to sections 301 and 302; and
(D) a description of any other policies and procedures that
the Attorney General believes would facilitate the
elimination of racial profiling.
(b) Data Collection.--Not later than six months after the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall by
regulation establish standards for the collection of data
pursuant to sections 201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2), including
standards for setting benchmarks against which collected data
shall be measured. Such standards shall result in the
collection of data, including data with respect to stops,
searches, seizures, and arrests, that is sufficiently
detailed to determine whether law enforcement agencies are
engaged in racial profiling and to monitor the effectiveness
of policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial
profiling.
(c) Public Access.--Data collected pursuant to section
201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) shall be available to the public.
SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.
Information released pursuant to section 401 shall not
reveal the identity of any individual who is detained or any
law enforcement officer involved in a detention.
TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means
any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds
made available under any of the following:
(A) The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Programs (part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3750 et seq.)).
(B) The ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program,
project, or other activity specified in section 1701(d)(8) of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)(8)).
(C) The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program of the
Department of Justice, as described in appropriations Acts.
(2) Governmental unit.--The term ``governmental unit''
means any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian
tribal government.
(3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a Federal,
[[Page S5895]]
State, local, or Indian tribal public agency engaged in the
prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of
criminal, immigration, or customs laws.
(4) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement
agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal
official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or
customs laws, including police officers and other agents of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means
the practice of a law enforcement agent relying, to any
degree, on race, ethnicity, or national origin in selecting
which individuals to subject to routine investigatory
activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of
law enforcement activity following the initial routine
investigatory activity, except that racial profiling does not
include reliance on such criteria in combination with other
identifying factors when the law enforcement agent is seeking
to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, or
national origin is part of the description of the suspect.
(6) Routine investigatory activities.--The term ``routine
investigatory activities'' includes the following activities
by law enforcement agents: traffic stops; pedestrian stops;
frisks and other types of body searches; consensual or
nonconsensual searches of the persons or possessions
(including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians; inspections
and interviews of entrants into the United States that are
more extensive than those customarily carried out; and
immigration-related workplace investigations.
SEC. 502. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 503. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or
administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section
210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conditions on Funding.--Section 301 shall take effect 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise on this special day to talk about
an issue that I think defines our health as a society--the issue of
racial profiling. I thank my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator
Clinton--particularly Senator Feingold, for his tremendous leadership
on this issue over several Congresses. During the last session he held
a number of hearings on racial profiling, and he and his staff have
worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue on to the
national agenda as a matter of civil rights. I also would be remiss if
I didn't mention Congressman Conyers, who has taken an equally valiant
and effective role in presenting this issue on the floor of the House.
It is one about which I think we all feel passionately.
The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's
belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people
on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color
of their skin tears at the very fabric of what it is to be an American.
We are a nation of laws, and everyone should receive equal protection
under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should
demand nothing less. There is no equal protection, there is no equal
justice, if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices
that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after
black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be
criminals.
Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is also not
effective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping
people of color adds to catching the bad guys. In fact, there is
statistical evidence which points out that singling out black and
Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher
percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to
be breaking the law than white motorists.
Unfortunately, racial profiling persists. In the last wave of
statistics from New Jersey, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent
of those searched on the New Jersey Turnpike. Even the State attorney
general admitted that State troopers were twice as likely to find drugs
or other illegal contraband when searching vehicles driven by whites.
Take the example of the March 2000 General Accounting Office report
on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and
Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to
be subjected to x rays after being frisked or patted down. On the basis
of x ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white
women to be found carrying contraband.
This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants, no probable cause.
What is the hunch based on? Race, plain and simple.
Nowhere was this more evident than in my own home State 3 Aprils ago.
Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to
North Carolina, hoping to get college basketball scholarships--were
stopped by two State troopers. Frightened, the driver lost control of
the van, and two dozens shots rang out and struck the van. Three out of
the four young men were shot.
I spoke to those kids a while ago. One of them told me he was asleep
when his van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a
bullet.''
Stories such as this should wake us all up in America. The practice
of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American
people in the institutions on which we depend to protect and defend us.
Different laws for different people do not work.
Now we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some in my
home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken
steps to combat it. I commend them for those efforts. Many law
enforcement officials believe this is the step we need to take. It is a
national problem. It is not a local problem, it is not a State problem,
it is a national problem, and it requires a Federal response applicable
to all. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this
legislation to end this practice. We want to be sure there are no more
excuses, no more bullets waking folks up on questions about what racial
profiling means.
This bill defines racial profiling clearly and then bans it; no
routine stops solely on the basis of race, national origin, or
ethnicity.
We will also require a collection of statistics to accurately measure
whether progress is being made, whether problems exist. By collecting
this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work.
We use statistics in every aspect of our life. I came from the
financial services industry. We collected statistics. If you go to a
hospital, they collect statistics. We need to do that with regard to
law enforcement so we have the information to detect problems early on.
It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does
not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected.
Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for
data collection, and he presumably will work with law enforcement in
developing those particular standards for particular situations.
Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to
establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected
data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context that
some in law enforcement rightly fear.
No, it is an indication, a benchmark, not an absolute. If the numbers
reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice
Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal
court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial
profiling.
Our bill will also put in place procedures to receive and investigate
complaints of alleged racial profiling. By the way, this mirrors
legislation that is now going through the New Jersey State Legislature
on a bipartisan basis. It will require procedures to discipline law
enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling.
Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law
enforcement with a carrot and stick. We are not trying to say that this
all be done through the law; part of this has to come from a real
cultural change.
[[Page S5896]]
First the carrot. We recognize that law enforcement should not be
expected to do this alone. It is a bigger problem. We are saying if you
do the job right, fairly and equitably, you can be eligible to receive
a best practices development grant to help pay for the programs dealing
with advanced training, to help pay for the computer technology
necessary to collect the data, such as hand-held computers in police
cars, so statistics can be collected. We will help pay for video
cameras and recorders for patrol cars, which protects the person who is
stopped and also the law enforcement officer. It has been very well
received across this country where it has been applied.
It will help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling
complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling and will help to
establish management systems to assure supervisors are held accountable
for subordinates.
If they do not do the job right, there is a stick. If State and local
law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and
prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law
enforcement funds.
Let me be clear. This bill is not about blaming law enforcement, but
we do believe we need to see change. It is not designed to prevent law
enforcement from doing its job, it is to encourage them to do a better
job. In fact, we believe it will help our law enforcement officers in
this Nation maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs.
If race is part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an
investigation, this law does not prevent them from using that
information or having that information distributed, but stopping people
on a random, race-based hunch will be outlawed.
Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with
our Constitution when the Founding Fathers argued over the rights of
southern slaves. Then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that
ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination
and Jim Crow laws continued for decades--discrimination sanctioned in
part by our own Supreme Court.
Our country's history has always been about change, about growth,
about getting better, about recognizing things that weaken us from
within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war, a war founded
on peaceful principles, a war that killed our heroes, burned our
cities, and shook us, once again, to the very core. But we advanced
with important civil rights initiatives, such as the Voting Rights Act,
the public accommodation laws. We demanded and gained like laws to
fight discrimination in employment, housing, and education.
It is time for us to take another very important step. Racial
profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism
throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law by many,
not just the offended.
I close by putting it in simple words: Racial profiling is wrong, and
it must end. Today Senator Feingold, Senator Clinton, I, and others in
the House pledge to do just that: to define it, to ban it, and then
enforce that ban.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot help but notice, as I look at
the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New Jersey, how fortunate we
are to have new Members who have immediately come to the Senate and
exerted leadership--the Presiding Officer on education, as well as
other issues; and the Senator from New Jersey, his determination and
hard work on this has been truly striking. I am just delighted to be
working with him on this.
I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in
allowing us to interrupt the education bill for this purpose.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original
cosponsor of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
bipartisan End of Racial Profiling Act of 2001. I believe it is a
thoughtful and balanced effort, designed to bring people together, not
to divide. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my esteemed
colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Corzine, for their leadership
and tremendous efforts in crafting this legislation that affects so
many communities throughout this country.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Conyers, the
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and a leader on this
issue. Representative Conyers has worked to obtain the support of both
Democrats and Republicans alike, including Republican Representatives
Asa Hutchinson, Chris Shays, Tim Johnson, Constance Morella, and Jim
Greenwood. I thank them for attending the bipartisan press conference
this morning and showing their support for this legislation. I hope we
will be able to build upon this strong bipartisan support in the
Senate.
I am also pleased that we were joined by Chief Bruce Chamberlin, an
esteemed and experienced member of the national law enforcement
community, who is the Chief of Police of Cheektowaga--in the western
part of the great state of New York.
It was important for Chief Chamberlin to be here with us today to
express his support for the bill because he recognizes, as we all do,
that racial profiling is wrong and that this bill is an important step
in bringing this practice to an end.
Racial profiling is unjust. It relegates honest, law-abiding citizens
to second-class status when they suffer the embarrassment, the
humiliation, the indignity, of being stopped or searched, and in some
cases even physically harmed simply because of their race, ethnicity or
national origin.
Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool. The
experts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and elsewhere will tell
you that the evidence is unquestionably clear, for example, that the
vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics who are stopped or searched have
committed no crime.
Indeed, racial profiling has an insidious and devastating effect on
entire communities because it increases the level of mistrust between
law enforcement and the communities it is charged with the heavy burden
to protect. That result serves no one. It fails to serve law
enforcement because a critical component of truly effective law
enforcement is strong community-police relations, partnerships in which
law enforcement and our communities are working together to reduce
crime and to make our communities as safe as they can be.
Racial profiling fails to serve prosecutors, because law-abiding
people who don't have faith that their law enforcement will protect
them properly and treat them with dignity will not have faith in law
enforcement when sitting on juries and assessing the credibility of
police officers who often play a key role in getting convictions for
criminals.
What does this bill do and what doesn't it do?
As you, my colleagues consider this legislation, understand that this
bill is not about blaming law enforcement or saying that law
enforcement is bad or doesn't do a good job. We know that this is
simply not true.
Those who uphold our Nation's laws on the streets where we live are
men and women of courage. They go to work each day without the same
degree of certainty that most of us have that they will return home
safely, because they never know when the next traffic stop, the next
domestic dispute, the next arrest will explode in their face. There is
a memorial here in Washington with the names of more than 14,000
American heroes who gave their lives to make ours a safer country.
What this bill does do is make very clear that racial profiling is
wrong and that law enforcement agencies that haven't done so already
should adopt policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial
profiling.
Some might ask, how can adopting policies and procedures help stop
racial profiling? Well, the experts at John Jay College will tell you
that in the 1960s and early 1970s, most police departments in this
country left it up to the individual officer to decide when to shoot to
kill. During that time, the racial disparity among persons shot and
killed by police was as high as eight African-Americans for every white
person, and very much higher among victims who were neither armed nor
in the process of assaulting a police officer.
[[Page S5897]]
During the 1970s and early 1980s, police departments promulgated and
enforced strict standards, basically decreeing that deadly force could
be exercised only in defense of the life of the officer or another
person. In the large police departments in this country, these changes
were accompanied by reductions of as much as 51 percent in the number
of civilians killed by police. It also resulted in the significant
reduction in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. This is
just one example of how good policies and procedures can actually save
lives without reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement.
Recognizing the importance of policies and procedures to eliminate
and prevent racial profiling, this bill provides incentives for law
enforcement to promote such policies by providing grants to state and
local law enforcement agencies to use in ways they believe will be most
effective for their communities--whether to purchase equipment and
other resources to assist in data collection or to provide training to
officers to improve community relations and build trust.
Chief Chamberlin spoke eloquently this morning about the importance
of training and building relationships between law enforcement and
communities. His actions, however, have spoken even louder than his
words. He has taken the lead in Western New York in forming the Law
Enforcement and Diversity Team or ``LEAD'' program, which exists to
enhance communication and understanding between suburban law
enforcement agencies and the diverse citizenry of Western New York. The
LEAD team, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and
Justice and the Erie County Chiefs of Police, developed one of the
Nation's leading programs--``Building Bridges'' to start a dialogue
between police officers and people of diverse cultural and racial
backgrounds.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has utilized excerpts from the
LEAD Team's ``What to do When Stopped by Police'' brochure for the
department's national publication. The program has been adopted by the
Buffalo and Cheektowaga school systems in the curriculum for high
schools students. It provides an important educational opportunity for
the entire community and assists in the development of positive
relationships between police and community by eliminating some level of
fear, distrust, and skepticism.
Other New Yorkers have also worked to improve the relationship
between communities and law enforcement. New York's Attorney General,
Elliot Spitzer, has instituted training programs in an effort to try
and prevent racial profiling. In fact, just this past February through
April, the Attorney General's office conducted in-service training of
all members of the New Rochelle, New York Police Department at the
request of that department. The training took place on Thursday
mornings and focused, among other things, on what is meant by ``racial
profiling'' and the perceptions of community members of police
encounters in order to raise awareness. The training also reported on
data collection efforts taking place across the country and the results
of those efforts.
Academia can also play a role in promoting trust between law
enforcement and the community. For example, the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice--whose Master of Public Administration Program was
ranked first in the nation among graduate schools with specializations
in Criminal Justice Policy and Management by U.S. News and World Report
for the second year in a row--has begun to conduct a six-week free
course for members of the New York City Police Department on the racial
and cultural diversity of New York City. More than 600 police officers
from across New York City have enrolled in a course entitled: ``Police
Supervision in a Multiracial and Multicultural City.''
With this bill, efforts like those currently led by Chief
Chamberlain, Attorney General Spitzer, and John Jay College will be
expanded throughout the country.
More than a year ago when I spoke about this issue at the Riverside
Church in New York City, I said, ``we must all be on the same side.'' I
am so proud that today--we are all here together--on the same side,
citizens, officers of the law, Republicans and Democrats--to say that
racial profiling is wrong and must end.
We are here to say that in fighting racial profiling, we can at the
same time forge even better relations between police and the
neighborhoods they patrol, as we wage a common effort to reduce crime
and make our communities safe.
In closing, I hope that as we move forward with the consideration of
this legislation, it will engender a positive and thoughtful dialogue
between and among members of Congress, the President, law enforcement,
and the civil rights community. And that by eliminating the practice of
racial profiling, we can begin to restore the bonds of trust between
communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S. 990. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act to improve the provisions relating to wildlife conservation and
restoration programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
a comprehensive wildlife conservation measure, the American Wildlife
Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill will help to increase conservation
efforts by promoting local control and State partnerships through
flexible, incentive driven conservation programs and increased
partnerships with local land owners. The true conservationists are
those who live on and work the land, and it is my intention to provide
the incentives to help them continue those efforts. People don't come
to New Hampshire for the malls. They come to kayak, bike, fish, swim,
hunt, hike trails, ski, and more. That's our industry. We cannot, and
should not, turn away from that. I believe that when we conserve our
wildlife and wildlife areas, we affirm our long-standing tradition of
honoring our natural American heritage. This bill is about achieving
that goal in a cooperative, partnership approach, something that
unfortunately, the Federal Government has too long neglected.
This bill will accomplish these goals by infusing additional funds
into the popular Pittman-Robertson program; establishing a new
competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to
apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on
their land; and establishing a new competitive grant fund that would
allow one or several States to apply for a grant to protect an area of
regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement
or acquisition. This measure represents our best, and most effective,
chances of addressing the growing needs for wildlife conservation in
our Nation.
Title I of this bill authorizes $350 million a year to enhance the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration program. Unlike the existing
Pittman-Robertson program, which is funded through a tax on hunting
equipment, the enhanced program would be authorized for a specific time
period, would have to compete for funds through the appropriations
process and would be held in an account that is separate from the
already established Wildlife Restoration Fund.
Funds for this enhanced program would be distributed to the States
through a formula based on land area and population, with no State
receiving less than one percent of the available funding. Projects
eligible for funding through the new program would include: acquisition
and improvement of wildlife habitat; hunter education; wildlife
population surveys; construction of facilities to improve public
access; management of wildlife areas; recreation; conservation
education; and facility development and maintenance. States would pay
for a project up front and would be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the
total cost of the project. Similar language was included in last year's
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations measure, but was authorized for
one year, at a level of $50 million. The program has been successful
since its inception, and should continue past this fiscal year. My bill
would authorize this program for five years at a level of $350 million
each year.
The State of New Hampshire ranks 44th out of 50 States in land area
and
[[Page S5898]]
41st in population. Still, the State received $487,000 out of the money
appropriated in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill.
If my bill were enacted and fully appropriated, even a small State like
New Hampshire would be eligible to receive $3.5 million. Believe me,
$3.5 million would make an incredible difference not only for New
Hampshire, but nationwide. There is not only a demonstrated need for
these additional funds, but a keen interest in seeing this infusion of
appropriations within a time-tested program, the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Program, popular with sportsmen and women and
conservationists alike.
The second title of my bill establishes a new competitive matching
grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance
to protect endangered and threatened species on their land through the
development and implementation of recovery agreements. A recovery
agreement would provide an economic incentive to protect habitat for
threatened and endangered species, list specific recovery goals,
schedule an implementation plan, and monitor the results. In return for
agreeing to carry out these activities, the landowner would receive
financial compensation. Currently any effort that a private landowner
undertakes to conserve an endangered species is paid for out-of-pocket.
Under this bill though, for the first time, private landowners will be
able to apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered or
threatened species on their property. In other words, they would be
eligible to get compensation for some of the conservation measures that
they now have to pay for themselves.
That is a big step forward. Since approximately 90-percent of the
listed endangered and threatened species inhabit non-federal lands, one
of the keys to the successful recovery of our endangered and threatened
species is the increased participation of private landowners. This is
best achieved through a collaborative, not combative, process that
provides landowners with an incentive to participate.
This title is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. This title
should not be interpreted as a vehicle for comprehensive reform, but as
a great opportunity to get dollars to those land owners who want to
protect species today. I welcome the opportunity to work with all of my
colleagues on comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act
through hearings, debate and bipartisan legislation. However, in the
meantime we need to provide private land owners the opportunity to
protect the habitat of endangered species.
The final title of my bill would establish a new competitive grant
fund that would allow one or more States to apply for a grant to
protect an area of regional or national significance through the
purchase of an easement or acquisition. Without a source of flexible
Federal funds such as this, States and local communities alone will be
unable to protect some of the Nation's most important natural areas. I
highlight the Northern Forest that spans the states of New Hampshire,
Maine, Vermont, and New York; the Central Appalachian Highlands; the
Mississippi Delta, just to name a few. This flexible funding will allow
States and communities to protect vital natural, cultural and
recreational areas without creating or expanding Federal units. Such a
funding program promotes local control and multi-state partnerships,
and is also cost-effective.
I am a firm believer in preserving our national treasures for future
generations to enjoy. I also believe that the States, local communities
and individual property owners are in the best position to identify and
protect the species and areas that are in the greatest need of
conservation. But they also need financial assistance from the Federal
Government to effectively conserve and manage the natural resources
that need either protection or restoration. This belief is strongly
reflected in my bill.
I have received a very positive response for this bill from the
interested constituencies, both in New Hampshire and nationwide. In
general, there is a growing consensus that we must act now or we will
lose many of our special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or
lost will be gone forever. It is our responsibility to act as stewards
of the environment. I have said it before and I will say it again: it
is not anti-conservative to be pro-environment.
This bill is one that should attract the interest of both sides of
the aisle. On that note, I would like to thank Senator Reid, my
counterpart on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his
leadership on the issue of wildlife conservation. In April, he chaired
a field hearing in Reno, NV, on State wildlife and conservation issues.
I know he is engaged in this matter, and I look forward to working with
him to advance the goals of the American Wildlife Enhancement Act.
I encourage my colleagues to support the American Wildlife
Enhancement Act of 2001 and ask 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. 990
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 ``American
Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
Sec. 104. Apportionment of amounts in the Account.
Sec. 105. Wildlife conservation and restoration programs.
Sec. 106. Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Sec. 107. Technical amendments.
Sec. 108. Effective date.
TITLE II--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY
Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance.
TITLE III--NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM
Sec. 301. Non-Federal land conservation grant program.
TITLE I--PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Programs Improvement Act''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Account.--The term `Account' means the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account established by section
3(a)(2).
``(2) Conservation.--
``(A) In general.--The term `conservation' means the use of
a method or procedure necessary or desirable to sustain
healthy populations of wildlife.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `conservation' includes any
activity associated with scientific resources management,
such as--
``(i) research;
``(ii) census;
``(iii) monitoring of populations;
``(iv) acquisition, improvement, and management of habitat;
``(v) live trapping and transplantation;
``(vi) wildlife damage management;
``(vii) periodic or total protection of a species or
population; and
``(viii) the taking of individuals within a wildlife stock
or population if permitted by applicable Federal law, State
law, or law of the District of Columbia or a territory.
``(3) Fund.--The term `fund' means the Federal aid to
wildlife restoration fund established by section 3(a)(1).
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(5) State fish and game department.--The term `State fish
and game department' means any department or division of a
department of another name, or commission, or 1 or more
officials, of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
territory empowered under the laws of the State, the District
of Columbia, or the territory, respectively, to exercise the
functions ordinarily exercised by a State fish and game
department or a State fish and wildlife department.
``(6) Territory.--The term `territory' means Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
``(7) Wildlife.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `wildlife' means--
``(i) any species of wild, free-ranging fauna (excluding
fish); and
``(ii) any species of fauna (excluding fish) in a captive
breeding program the object of which is to reintroduce
individuals of a depleted indigenous species into the
previously occupied range of the species.
[[Page S5899]]
``(B) Wildlife conservation and restoration program.--For
the purposes of each wildlife conservation and restoration
program, the term `wildlife' includes fish.
``(8) Wildlife-associated recreation project.--The term
`wildlife-associated recreation project' means--
``(A) a project intended to meet the demand for an outdoor
activity associated with wildlife, such as hunting, fishing,
and wildlife observation and photography;
``(B) a project such as construction or restoration of a
wildlife viewing area, observation tower, blind, platform,
land or water trail, water access route, area for field
trialing, or trail head; and
``(C) a project to provide access for a project described
in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(9) Wildlife conservation and restoration program.--The
term `wildlife conservation and restoration program' means a
program developed by a State fish and game department and
approved by the Secretary under section 12.
``(10) Wildlife conservation education project.--The term
`wildlife conservation education project' means a project,
including public outreach, that is intended to foster
responsible natural resource stewardship.
``(11) Wildlife-restoration project.--
``(A) In general.--The term `wildlife-restoration project'
means a project consisting of the selection, restoration,
rehabilitation, or improvement of an area of land or water
(including a property interest in land or water) that is
adaptable as a feeding, resting, or breeding place for
wildlife.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `wildlife-restoration project'
includes--
``(i) acquisition of an area described in subparagraph (A)
that is suitable or capable of being made suitable for
feeding, resting, or breeding by wildlife;
``(ii) construction in an area described in subparagraph
(A) of such works as are necessary to make the area available
for feeding, resting, or breeding by wildlife;
``(iii) such research into any problem of wildlife
management as is necessary for efficient administration of
wildlife resources; and
``(iv) such preliminary or incidental expenses as are
incurred with respect to activities described in this
paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The first section, section 3(a)(1), and section 12 of
the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
669, 669b(a)(1), 669i) are amended by striking ``Secretary of
Agriculture'' each place it appears and inserting
``Secretary''.
(2) The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16
U.S.C. 669 et seq.) is amended by striking ``Secretary of the
Interior'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary''.
(3) Section 3(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``(hereinafter referred to as the `fund')''.
(4) Section 6(c) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669e(c)) is amended by striking
``established by section 3 of this Act''.
(5) Section 11(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-2(b)) is amended by striking
``wildlife restoration projects'' each place it appears and
inserting ``wildlife-restoration projects''.
SEC. 103. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 3. (a)(1) An'' and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 3. FEDERAL AID TO WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund.--An'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Wildlife conservation and restoration account.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the fund an
account to be known as the `Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account'.
``(B) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Account for apportionment to States, the District of
Columbia, and territories in accordance with section 4(d)--
``(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(ii) $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2006.''; and
(3) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)(1)) is amended in the
first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after
``wildlife restoration fund''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)''.
(2) Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(I) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the
fund''; and
(II) by inserting ``(other than subsection (d) and sections
3(a)(2) and 12)'' after ``this Act''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``from the fund
(other than the Account)'' before ``under this Act''; and
(B) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking
``said fund'' and inserting ``the fund (other than the
Account)''.
(3) Section 6 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669e) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act'';
(ii) in the last sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``this Act from funds apportioned under this Act'' and
inserting ``this Act (other than sections 4(d) and 12) from
funds apportioned from the fund (other than the Account)
under this Act'';
(iii) in paragraph (2)--
(I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than
sections 4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act''; and
(II) in the last sentence, by striking ``said fund as
represents the share of the United States payable under this
Act'' and inserting ``the fund (other than the Account) as
represents the share of the United States payable from the
fund (other than the Account) under this Act''; and
(iv) in the last paragraph, by inserting ``from the fund
(other than the Account)'' before ``under this Act'' each
place it appears; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``(other than sections
4(d) and 12)'' after ``this Act'' each place it appears.
(4) Section 8A of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g-1) is amended in the first
sentence by inserting ``from the fund (other than the
Account)'' before ``under this Act''.
(5) Section 9 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669h) is amended in subsections (a) and (b)(1)
by striking ``section 4(a)(1)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``subsections (a)(1) and (d)(1) of section 4''.
(6) Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the
fund''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``but excluding any
use authorized solely by section 12'' after ``target
ranges''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``(other than sections 4(d) and 12)''.
(7) Section 11(a)(1) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-2(a)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``(other than the Account)'' after ``the fund''.
SEC. 104. APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS IN THE ACCOUNT.
Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended by striking the second subsection
(c) and subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Apportionment of Amounts in the Account.--
``(1) Deduction for administrative expenses.--For each
fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of
administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying
out activities funded from the Account, not more than 3
percent of the total amount of the Account available for
apportionment for the fiscal year.
``(2) Apportionment to district of columbia and
territories.--For each fiscal year, after making the
deduction under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall apportion
from the amount in the Account remaining available for
apportionment--
``(A) to each of the District of Columbia and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a sum equal to not more than \1/
2\ of 1 percent of that remaining amount; and
``(B) to each of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, a sum
equal to not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent of that remaining
amount.
``(3) Apportionment to states.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each
fiscal year, after making the deduction under paragraph (1)
and the apportionment under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall apportion the amount in the Account remaining available
for apportionment among States in the following manner:
``(i) \1/3\ based on the ratio that the area of each State
bears to the total area of all States.
``(ii) \2/3\ based on the ratio that the population of each
State bears to the total population of all States.
``(B) Minimum and maximum apportionments.--For each fiscal
year, the amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be
adjusted proportionately so that no State is apportioned a
sum that is--
``(i) less than 1 percent of the amount available for
apportionment under this paragraph for the fiscal year; or
``(ii) more than 5 percent of that amount.
``(4) Use.--
``(A) In general.--Apportionments under paragraphs (2) and
(3)--
``(i) shall supplement, but not supplant, funds available
to States, the District of Columbia, and territories--
``(I) from the fund; or
``(II) from the Sport Fish Restoration Account established
by section 9504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(ii) shall be used to address the unmet needs for a wide
variety of wildlife and associated habitats, including
species that are not hunted or fished, for projects
authorized
[[Page S5900]]
to be carried out as part of wildlife conservation and
restoration programs in accordance with section 12.
``(B) Prohibition on diversion.--A State, the District of
Columbia, or a territory shall not be eligible to receive an
apportionment under paragraph (2) or (3) if the Secretary
determines that the State, the District of Columbia, or the
territory, respectively, diverts funds from any source of
revenue (including interest, dividends, and other income
earned on the revenue) available to the State, the District
of Columbia, or the territory after January 1, 2000, for
conservation of wildlife for any purpose other than the
administration of the State fish and game department in
carrying out wildlife conservation activities.
``(5) Period of availability of apportionments.--
Notwithstanding section 3(a)(1), for each fiscal year, the
apportionment to a State, the District of Columbia, or a
territory from the Account under this subsection shall remain
available for obligation until the end of the second
following fiscal year.''.
SEC. 105. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 12 and 13 (16 U.S.C. 669i,
669 note) as sections 13 and 15, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 11 (16 U.S.C. 669h-2) the
following:
``SEC. 12. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS.
``(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
`State' means a State, the District of Columbia, and a
territory.
``(b) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A State, acting through the State fish
and game department, may apply to the Secretary--
``(A) for approval of a wildlife conservation and
restoration program; and
``(B) to receive funds from the apportionment to the State
under section 4(d) to develop and implement the wildlife
conservation and restoration program.
``(2) Application contents.--As part of an application
under paragraph (1), a State shall provide documentation
demonstrating that the wildlife conservation and restoration
program of the State includes--
``(A) provisions vesting in the State fish and game
department overall responsibility and accountability for the
wildlife conservation and restoration program of the State;
``(B) provisions to identify which species in the State are
in greatest need of conservation; and
``(C) provisions for the development, implementation, and
maintenance, under the wildlife conservation and restoration
program, of--
``(i) wildlife conservation projects--
``(I) that expand and support other wildlife programs; and
``(II) that are selected giving appropriate consideration
to all species of wildlife in accordance with subsection (c);
``(ii) wildlife-associated recreation projects; and
``(iii) wildlife conservation education projects.
``(3) Public participation.--A State shall provide an
opportunity for public participation in the development,
implementation, and revision of the wildlife conservation and
restoration program of the State and projects carried out
under the wildlife conservation and restoration program.
``(4) Approval for funding.--If the Secretary finds that
the application submitted by a State meets the requirements
of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall approve the wildlife
conservation and restoration program of the State.
``(5) Payment of federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (D), after the
Secretary approves a wildlife conservation and restoration
program of a State, the Secretary may use the apportionment
to the State under section 4(d) to pay the Federal share of--
``(i) the cost of implementation of the wildlife
conservation and restoration program; and
``(ii) the cost of development, implementation, and
maintenance of each project that is part of the wildlife
conservation and restoration program.
``(B) Federal share.--The Federal share shall not exceed 75
percent.
``(C) Timing of payments.--Under such regulations as the
Secretary may promulgate, the Secretary--
``(i) shall make payments to a State under subparagraph (A)
during the course of a project; and
``(ii) may advance funds to pay the Federal share of the
costs described in subparagraph (A).
``(D) Maximum amount for law enforcement activities.--
Notwithstanding section 8(a), for each fiscal year, not more
than 10 percent of the apportionment to a State under section
4(d) for the wildlife conservation and restoration program of
the State may be used for law enforcement activities.
``(6) Method of implementation of projects.--A State may
implement a project that is part of the wildlife conservation
and restoration program of the State through--
``(A) a grant made by the State to, or a contract entered
into by the State with--
``(i) any Federal, State, or local agency (including an
agency that gathers, evaluates, and disseminates information
on wildlife and wildlife habitats);
``(ii) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450b));
``(iii) a wildlife conservation organization; or
``(iv) an outdoor recreation or conservation education
entity; and
``(B) any other method determined appropriate by the State.
``(c) Wildlife Conservation Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
the initial apportionment to a State under section 4(d), to
be eligible to continue to receive funds from the
apportionment to the State under section 4(d), the State
shall, as part of the wildlife conservation and restoration
program of the State, develop and begin implementation of a
wildlife conservation strategy that is based on the best
available and appropriate scientific information.
``(2) Required elements.--A wildlife conservation strategy
shall--
``(A) use such information on the distribution and
abundance of species of wildlife as is indicative of the
diversity and health of the wildlife of the State, including
such information on species with low populations and
declining numbers of individuals as the State fish and game
department determines to be appropriate;
``(B) identify the extent and condition of wildlife
habitats and community types essential to conservation of the
species of wildlife of the State identified using information
described in subparagraph (A);
``(C)(i) identify the problems that may adversely affect--
``(I) the species identified using information described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(II) the habitats of the species identified under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) provide for high priority research and surveys to
identify factors that may assist in the restoration and more
effective conservation of--
``(I) the species identified using information described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(II) the habitats of the species identified under
subparagraph (B);
``(D)(i) describe which actions should be taken to
conserve--
``(I) the species identified using information described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(II) the habitats of the species identified under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) establish priorities for implementing those actions;
and
``(E) provide for--
``(i) periodic monitoring of--
``(I) the species identified using information described in
subparagraph (A);
``(II) the habitats of the species identified under
subparagraph (B); and
``(III) the effectiveness of the conservation actions
described under subparagraph (D); and
``(ii) adaptation of conservation actions as appropriate to
respond to new information or changing conditions.
``(3) Public participation in development of strategy.--A
State shall provide an opportunity for public participation
in the development and implementation of the wildlife
conservation strategy of the State.
``(4) Review and revision.--Not less often than once every
10 years, a State shall review the wildlife conservation
strategy of the State and make any appropriate revisions.
``(5) Coordination.--During the development,
implementation, review, and revision of the wildlife
conservation strategy of the State, a State shall provide for
coordination, to the maximum extent practicable, between--
``(A) the State fish and game department; and
``(B) Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes
that--
``(i) manage significant areas of land or water within the
State; or
``(ii) administer programs that significantly affect the
conservation of
``(I) the species identified using information described in
paragraph (2)(A); or
``(II) the habitats of the species identified under
paragraph (2)(B).
``(d) Use of Funds for New and Existing Programs and
Projects.--Funds made available from the Account to carry out
activities under this section may be used--
``(1) to carry out new programs and projects; and
``(2) to enhance existing programs and projects.
``(e) Priority for Funding.--In using funds made available
from the Account to carry out activities under this section,
a State shall give priority to species that are in greatest
need of conservation, as identified by the State.
``(f) Limitation on Use of Funds for Wildlife Conservation
Education Projects.--Funds made available from the Account to
carry out wildlife conservation education projects shall not
be used to fund, in whole or in part, any activity that
promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or
trapping of wildlife.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8(a) of the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 106. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.
(a) Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.--The
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (as amended by
section 105(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after section 13
the following:
[[Page S5901]]
``SEC. 14. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ACT.
``Coordination with State fish and game department
personnel or with personnel of any other agency of a State,
the District of Columbia, or a territory under this Act shall
not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).''.
(b) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.--The
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 15 (16 U.S.C. 777 note) as
section 16; and
(2) by inserting after section 14 (16 U.S.C. 777m) the
following:
``SEC. 15. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ACT.
``Coordination with State fish and game department
personnel or with personnel of any other State agency under
this Act shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).''.
SEC. 107. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) The first section of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669) is amended by striking ``That
the'' and inserting the following:
``SECTION 1. COOPERATION OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WITH
STATES.
``The''.
(b) Section 5 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669d) is amended by striking ``Sec. 5.'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 5. CERTIFICATION OF AMOUNTS DEDUCTED OR
APPORTIONED.''.
(c) Section 6 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669e) is amended by striking ``Sec. 6.'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 6. SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND PROJECTS.''.
(d) Section 7 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669f) is amended by striking ``Sec. 7.'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 7. PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO STATES.''.
(e) Section 8 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is amended by striking ``Sec. 8.'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 8. MAINTENANCE OF PROJECTS; FUNDING OF HUNTER SAFETY
PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC TARGET RANGES.''.
(f) Section 8A of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g-1) is amended by striking
``Sec. 8A.'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 8A. APPORTIONMENTS TO TERRITORIES.''.
(g) Section 12 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669i) is amended by striking
``Sec. 12.'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. RULES AND REGULATIONS.''.
SEC. 108. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title takes effect on October 1, 2001.
TITLE II--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY
SEC. 201. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to promote involvement by non-
Federal entities in the recovery of the endangered species
and threatened species of the United States and the habitats
on which the species depend.
SEC. 202. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY
ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 13 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (87 Stat. 902) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 13. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY
ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Small landowner.--The term `small landowner' means an
individual who owns not more than 150 acres of land.
``(2) Species recovery agreement.--The term `species
recovery agreement' means an endangered and threatened
species recovery agreement entered into under subsection (c).
``(b) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery
Assistance.--
``(1) Financial assistance.--The Secretary may provide
financial assistance to any person for development and
implementation of an endangered and threatened species
recovery agreement entered into by the Secretary and the
person under subsection (c).
``(2) Priority.--In providing financial assistance under
this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to the
development and implementation of species recovery agreements
that--
``(A) implement actions identified under recovery plans
approved by the Secretary under section 4(f);
``(B) have the greatest potential for contributing to the
recovery of an endangered species or threatened species; and
``(C) are proposed by small landowners.
``(3) Prohibition on assistance for required activities.--
The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance under
this subsection for any activity that is required--
``(A) by a permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B);
``(B) by an incidental taking statement provided under
section 7(b)(4); or
``(C) under another provision of this Act or any other
Federal law.
``(4) Payments under other programs.--
``(A) Other payments not affected.--Financial assistance
provided to a person under this subsection shall be in
addition to, and shall not affect, the total amount of
payments that the person is eligible to receive under--
``(i) the conservation reserve program established under
subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);
``(ii) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C of that chapter (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
``(iii) the environmental quality incentives program
established under chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.); or
``(iv) the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program established
under section 387 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3836a).
``(B) Limitation.--A person shall not receive financial
assistance under a species recovery agreement for any
activity for which the person receives a payment under a
program referred to in subparagraph (A) unless the species
recovery agreement imposes on the person a financial or
management obligation in addition to the obligations of the
person under that program.
``(c) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery
Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Secretary may enter into endangered and threatened species
recovery agreements.
``(2) Required terms.--The Secretary shall include in each
species recovery agreement with a person provisions that--
``(A) require the person--
``(i) to carry out on real property owned or leased by the
person activities not required by other law that contribute
to the recovery of an endangered species or threatened
species; or
``(ii) to refrain from carrying out on real property owned
or leased by the person otherwise lawful activities that
would inhibit the recovery of an endangered species or
threatened species;
``(B) describe the real property referred to in clauses (i)
and (ii) of subparagraph (A);
``(C) specify species recovery goals for the species
recovery agreement, and activities for attaining the goals;
``(D)(i) require the person to make reasonable efforts to
make measurable progress each year in achieving the species
recovery goals; and
``(ii) specify a schedule for implementation of the species
recovery agreement;
``(E) specify actions to be taken by the Secretary or the
person to monitor the effectiveness of the species recovery
agreement in attaining the species recovery goals;
``(F) require the person to notify the Secretary if any
right or obligation of the person under the species recovery
agreement is assigned to any other person;
``(G) require the person to notify the Secretary if any
term of the species recovery agreement is breached;
``(H) specify the date on which the species recovery
agreement takes effect and the period of time during which
the species recovery agreement shall remain in effect;
``(I) provide that the species recovery agreement shall not
be in effect on or after any date on which the Secretary
publishes a certification by the Secretary that the person
has not complied with the species recovery agreement; and
``(J) schedule the disbursement of financial assistance
provided under subsection (b) for implementation of the
species recovery agreement, on an annual or other basis
during the period in which the species recovery agreement is
in effect, based on the schedule for implementation required
under subparagraph (D)(ii).
``(3) Review and approval of proposed species recovery
agreements.--On submission by any person of a proposed
species recovery agreement under this subsection, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) review the proposed species recovery agreement and
determine whether the species recovery agreement--
``(i) complies with this subsection; and
``(ii) will contribute to the recovery of each endangered
species or threatened species that is the subject of the
proposed species recovery agreement;
``(B) propose to the person any additional provisions that
are necessary for the species recovery agreement to comply
with this subsection; and
``(C) if the Secretary determines that the species recovery
agreement complies with this subsection, enter into the
species recovery agreement with the person.
``(4) Monitoring of implementation of species recovery
agreements.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) periodically monitor the implementation of each
species recovery agreement; and
``(B) based on the information obtained from the
monitoring, annually or otherwise disburse financial
assistance under this section to implement the species
recovery agreement as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate under the species recovery agreement.
``(d) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--Of the
amounts made available to carry out this section for a fiscal
year, not more than 3 percent may be used to pay
administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this
section.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 15 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1542) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery
Assistance.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out section 13 $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in the
first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by striking the item relating
to section 13 and inserting the following:
[[Page S5902]]
``Sec. 13. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance.''.
TITLE III--NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM
SEC. 301. NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Partnerships for Wildlife Act (16
U.S.C. 3741 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 7106. NON-FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--In consultation with appropriate
State, regional, and other units of government, the Secretary
shall establish a competitive grant program, to be known as
the `Non-Federal Land Conservation Grant Program' (referred
to in this section as the `program'), to make grants to
States or groups of States to pay the Federal share
determined under subsection (c)(4) of the costs of
conservation of non-Federal land or water of regional or
national significance.
``(b) Ranking Criteria.--In selecting among applications
for grants for projects under the program, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) rank projects according the extent to which a
proposed project will protect watersheds and important
scenic, cultural, recreational, fish, wildlife, and other
ecological resources; and
``(2) subject to paragraph (1), give preference to proposed
projects--
``(A) that seek to protect ecosystems;
``(B) that are developed in collaboration with other
States;
``(C) with respect to which there has been public
participation in the development of the project proposal;
``(D) that are supported by communities and individuals
that are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project or that would be directly affected by the proposed
project; or
``(E) that the State considers to be a State priority.
``(c) Grants to States.--
``(1) Notice of deadline for applications.--The Secretary
shall give reasonable advance notice of each deadline for
submission of applications for grants under the program by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
``(2) Submission of applications.--
``(A) In general.--A State or group of States may submit to
the Secretary an application for a grant under the program.
``(B) Required contents of applications.--Each application
shall include--
``(i) a detailed description of each proposed project;
``(ii) a detailed analysis of project costs, including
costs associated with--
``(I) planning;
``(II) administration;
``(III) property acquisition; and
``(IV) property management;
``(iii) a statement describing how the project is of
regional or national significance; and
``(iv) a plan for stewardship of any land or water, or
interest in land or water, to be acquired under the project.
``(3) Selection of grant recipients.--Not later than 90
days after the date of receipt of an application, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) review the application; and
``(B)(i) notify the State or group of States of the
decision of the Secretary on the application; and
``(ii) if the application is denied, provide an explanation
of the reasons for the denial.
``(4) Cost sharing.--The Federal share of the costs of a
project under the program shall be--
``(A) in the case of a project to acquire the fee simple
interest in land or water, not more than 50 percent of the
costs of the project;
``(B) in the case of a project to acquire less than the fee
simple interest in land or water (including acquisition of a
conservation easement), not more than 70 percent of the costs
of the project; and
``(C) in the case of a project involving 3 or more States,
not more than 75 percent of the costs of the project.
``(5) Effect of insufficiency of funds.--If the Secretary
determines that there are insufficient funds available to
make grants with respect to all applications that meet the
requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall give
priority to those projects that best meet the ranking
criteria established under subsection (b).
``(d) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the end of each
fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives a report
describing the grants made under this section, including an
analysis of how projects were ranked under subsection (b).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7105(g)(2) of the
Partnerships for Wildlife Act (16 U.S.C. 3744(g)(2)) is
amended by striking ``this chapter'' and inserting ``this
section''.
______
By Ms. Landrieu (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Sessions):
S. 991. A bill to authorize the president to award a gold medal on
behalf of the Congress to Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously), and to
the D-day Museum in recognition of the contributions of Higgins
Industries and the more than 30,000 employees of Higgins Industries to
the Nation and to world peace during World War II; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an innovative and
patriotic American, a logger-turned-boatbuilder, who single-handedly
transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when our nation and
her Allies needed it most. Despite some bureaucratic obstacles in
America's massive World War II war-machine, Andrew Jackson Higgins
skillfully designed and engineered landing craft, eventually winning
contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time fleet of landing
craft. Andrew Jackson Higgins' story exemplifies the American Dream,
and merits this body's recognition for his ingenuity, assiduous work,
and devotion to our country.
In the late 1930's, Higgins was operating a small New Orleans work-
boat company, with less than seventy-five employees. He quickly earned
a reputation for fast, dependable work by turning out specialized
vessels for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. Biological Survey. Despite this reputation, when he presented his
plans for swift amphibious landing crafts, he met hard resistance. The
U.S. Navy had overestimated French and British abilities to secure
France's ports from German encroachment, and overruled decisions to
create landing boat crafts. When the U.S. Marine Corps finally
identified the need for mass production of amphibious vessels for use
in both the Pacific and European theaters, Marine leadership began to
lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and procure ships
from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance quality and
unprecedented speed in producing boats. In 1941, the Navy finally asked
Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry tanks. Instead of a
design, Higgins designed, built and delivered a complete working boat.
It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct this first Landing
Craft, Mechanized (LCM). The Navy was so impressed that they awarded
the contract and the Higgins firm grew to seven plants, eventually
turning out 700 boats a month, more than all other shipyards in the
Nation combined. By war's end, Higgins had produced 20,000 boats,
including the 46-foot LCVP, Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel, the
fast-moving PT boats, the rocket-firing landing craft support boats,
the 56-foot tank landing craft, the 170 foot freight supply ships and
the 27-foot airborne lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 bombers.
Able to conceive various ship designs and mass-produce vessels
quickly at affordable prices, Higgins not only transformed wartime
shipbuilding acquisition, but also sustained the universal faith in
American invention and global power projection. Higgins boats landed on
the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, 57 years ago today, the key
enablers in the greatest amphibious assault our world has ever seen. In
addition to his contributions to Allied war efforts abroad, Higgins'
manufacturing further changed the face of my own city of New Orleans,
home to most of the firm's business. I urge my colleagues to support
provisions to award Andrew Jackson Higgins the Gold Medal of Honor, in
the tradition of our great institution.
In 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting on the success
of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven Ambrose. He
remarked that Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for
us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing craft, we
never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to
change the entire strategy of the war.'' Mr. Higgins and his 20,000-
member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, and
patriotism; they deserve to be recognized for their distinguished place
in history.
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:
[[Page S5903]]
S. 991
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 ``Andrew Jackson Higgins Gold
Medal Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Andrew Jackson Higgins was born on August 28, 1886, in
Columbus, Nebraska, moved to New Orleans in 1910, and formed
Higgins Industries on September 26, 1930;
(2) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and
produced the ``Eureka'', a unique shallow draft boat, the
design of which evolved during World War II into 2 basic
classes of military craft, high speed PT boats, and types of
Higgins landing craft (LCPs, LCPLs, LCVPs, LCMs and LCSs);
(3) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and
constructed 4 major assembly line plants in New Orleans for
mass production of Higgins landing craft, and other vessels
vital to the Allied Forces' conduct of World War II;
(4) Andrew Jackson Higgins bought the entire 1940
Philippine mahogany crop and other material purely at risk
without a Government contract, anticipating that America
would join World War II and that Higgins Industries would
need the wood to build landing craft, and Higgins also bought
steel, engines, and other material necessary to construct
landing craft;
(5) Andrew Jackson Higgins, through Higgins Industries,
employed a fully integrated assembly line work force, black
and white, male and female, of up to 30,000 during World War
II, with equal pay for equal work;
(6) in 1939, the United States Navy had a total of 18
landing craft in the fleet;
(7) from November 18, 1940, when Higgins Industries was
awarded its first contract for Higgins landing craft until
the conclusion of the war, the employees of Higgins
Industries produced 12,300 Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel
(LCVP's) and nearly 8,000 other landing craft of all types;
(8) during World War II, Higgins Industries employees
produced 20,094 boats, including landing craft and Patrol
Torpedo boats, and trained 30,000 Navy, Marine, and Coast
Guard personnel on the safe operation of landing craft at the
Higgins' Boat Operators School;
(9) on Thanksgiving Day 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower
stated in an address to the Nation, ``Let us thank God for
Higgins Industries, management, and labor which has given us
the landing boats with which to conduct our campaign.'';
(10) Higgins landing craft, constructed of wood and steel,
transported fully armed troops, light tanks, field artillery,
and other mechanized equipment essential to amphibious
operations;
(11) Higgins landing craft made the amphibious assault on
D-day and the landings at Leyte, North Africa, Guadalcanal,
Sicily, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guam, and thousands of less well-
known assaults possible;
(12) Captain R.R.M. Emmett, a commander at the North Africa
amphibious landing, and later commandant of the Great Lakes
Training Station, wrote during the war, ``When the history of
this war is finally written by historians, far enough removed
from its present turmoil and clamor to be cool and impartial,
I predict that they will place Mr. (Andrew Jackson) Higgins
very high on the list of those who deserve the commendation
and gratitude of all citizens.''; and
(13) in 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told historian
Steven Ambrose, ``He (Higgins) is the man who won the war for
us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing
craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We
would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.''.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The President is authorized, on behalf of
Congress, to award a gold medal of appropriate design to--
(A) the family of Andrew Jackson Higgins, honoring Andrew
Jackson Higgins (posthumously) for his contributions to the
Nation and world peace; and
(B) the D-day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, for public
display, honoring Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously) and
the employees of Higgins Industries for their contributions
to the Nation and world peace.
(2) Modalities.--The modalities of presentation of the
medals under this Act shall be determined by the President,
after consultation with the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the
Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall strike 2
gold medals with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions,
to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medals struck under this Act, under such regulations
as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to
cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies,
use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the
gold medal.
SEC. 5. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.
The medals struck under this Act are national medals for
purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund an amount not to exceed $60,000 to pay for the cost of
the medals authorized by this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals under section 4 shall be deposited in
the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______
By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Frist, and Mr.
Torricelli):
S. 992. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the provision taxing policy holder dividends of mutual life insurance
companies and to repeal the policyholders surplus account provisions;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to simplify
the taxation of life insurance companies, along with Senator Conrad and
several of our colleagues.
Our legislation repeals section 809 and section 815 of the Internal
Revenue Code. Due to significant changes in the life insurance industry
and their taxation over the years, these provisions are no longer
relevant and their repeal will simplify the tax code.
Section 809 was enacted in 1984 as part of an overhaul of the
taxation of life insurance companies. At the time, mutual life
insurance companies were thought to be the dominant segment of the
industry, and Congress sought to ensure that stock life insurance
companies were not competitively disadvantaged. However, today, mutual
life insurance companies comprise only about ten percent of the
industry. Section 809 raises little revenue, but is very complex and
burdensome. Since the reason for its enactment no longer exists, our
bill repeals it.
Section 815 has an even longer history, dating back to 1959. Tax
changes in 1959 created an accounting mechanism called a
``policyholders surplus account'' for stock life insurance companies.
These companies were allowed to defer tax on one-half of their
underwriting income so long as it was not distributed to shareholders.
This income was accounted for through the policyholder surplus account.
In 1984, Congress eliminated the deferral of income, but they did not
address the issue of the policyholder surplus accounts. The amounts in
those accounts remain subject to tax if certain triggering events
occur. Since no company is willing to ``trigger'' the account, this
provision also raises little or no revenue, but it directly inhibits
business decisions of these companies. Our bill would also repeal this
provision.
Congress has worked hard over the last few years to modernize laws
governing the financial services industry to encourage its growth and
enhance its competitiveness. Elimination of these old, complicated tax
provisions will complement this effort and provide greater certainty to
the taxation of these companies.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in this initiative.
______
By Mrs. CARNAHAN (for herself and Mr. Bond):
S. 993. A bill to extend for 4 additional months the period for which
chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. 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. 993
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.
Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105-277,
as amended by Public Law 106-5, Public Law 106-70, and Public
Law 107-8, is amended--
(1) by striking ``June 1, 2001'' each place it appears and
inserting ``October 1, 2001''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``June 30, 2000'' and inserting ``May 31,
2001''; and
(B) by striking ``July 1, 2000'' and inserting ``June 1,
2001''.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on June
1, 2001.
____________________