[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5969-S5985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, 
        Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 994. A bill to amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to 
extend authorities under that Act; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Extension Act, which extends American 
sanctions against foreign companies which invest in Iran and Libya's 
oil sectors for 5 years.
  At a time when many people in Washington are seeking to review 
America's sanctions policies, this bill--with its 74 original 
cosponsors--says that sanctions against the world's worst rogue states 
will remain firmly in place. I hope that President Bush will recognize 
the message sent by the overwhelming support for this legislation, and 
will put to rest the idea that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act might 
expire or be weakened.
  ILSA has been one of America's best weapons in our war against 
terrorism, because it is aimed at cutting off the flow of money that 
terrorist groups depend on to fund their attacks and operations.
  Over the past 5 years, ILSA has effectively deterred foreign 
investment in Iran's oil fields: of the 55 projects for which Iran 
sought foreign investment, only 6 have been funded, and none have been 
completed.
  That's what ILSA's all about: it limits the ability of Iran and Libya 
to reap oil profits that can be spent funding terrorism and for weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Even with ILSA in place, Iran continues to supply upwards of $100 
million to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas--which claimed 
responsibility for the suicide bombing last week in Tel Aviv that 
killed 20 Israeli children.
  Can you imagine how much more Iran would be spending on terrorism

[[Page S5970]]

and weapons of mass destruction if they had billions more in oil 
profits rolling in?
  The truth is, ILSA is needed now more than ever.
  Despite the election of the so-called ``moderate'' President Mohammad 
Khatami in 1997, Iran remains the world's most active state sponsor of 
terrorism, and has been feverishly seeking to develop weapons of mass 
destruction.
  And on the eve of another election in Iran, Khatami continues to 
vilify the United States, and in his most recent call for the 
destruction of Israel, referred to Israel as ``a parasite in the heart 
of the Muslim world.'' These are not the words of a moderate, worthy of 
American concessions.
  As far as Libya is concerned, we all learned recently that the Libyan 
government was directly involved in the bombing of Pan Am 103--one of 
the most heinous acts of terrorism in history.
  Yet Libya obstinately refuses to abide by U.N. Security Council 
resolutions requiring it to formally renounce terrorism, accept 
responsibility for the government officials convicted of masterminding 
the bombing, and compensate the victims' families.
  Some say we should lift sanctions on rogue nations like Iran and 
Libya first, and decent, moral, internationally-acceptable behavior 
will follow.
  I say that is twisted logic.
  If these nations are serious about entering the community of nations, 
and seeing their economies benefit from global integration, they must 
change their behavior first.
  They must adapt to the world community, the world community does not 
need to adapt to them.
  The bottom line is that these sanctions must remain in place until 
Iran ends its support of international terrorism, and ends its 
dangerous quest for catastrophic weapons.
  For Libya, it means full acceptance of responsibility for the Pan Am 
103 bombing and full compensation for the families of the victims.
  If that day arrives, ILSA will no longer be needed and will be 
terminated. Unfortunately, that day is not yet in sight.
  Finally, I would urge the Bush Administration, as it reviews American 
sanctions policies, to consider that letting ILSA expire would send the 
wrong message to Iran and Libya.
  This is not the time to weaken sanctions and permit investment that 
can be used to fund terrorist acts like the one we saw in Israel last 
week.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of 
renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to protect American interests in 
the Middle East. Despite promising changes within Iranian society, 
Iran's external behavior remains provocative and destabilizing. Iran 
continues to aggressively foment terrorism beyond its borders and 
develop weapons of mass destruction as a matter of national policy. 
Consistent calls from its leaders for Israel's destruction, and the 
Iranian government's bankrolling of murderous behavior by Hezbollah, 
Hamas, and other terrorist groups, should make clear to all friends of 
peace where Iran stands, and what role it has played, in the 
conflagration that threatens to consume an entire region.
  Of grave concern are recent revelations that implicate Iran's most 
senior leaders in the 1996 terrorist attack on Khobar Towers, which 
took the lives of 19 U.S. service men. If true, America's response 
should extend far beyond renewing ILSA.
  The successful conclusion of the Lockerbie trial, which explicitly 
implicated Libya's intelligence services in the attack, does not 
absolve Libya of its obligations to meet fully the terms of the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions governing the multilateral sanctions 
regime against it. Libya has not done so. Libya's support for state 
terrorism, as certified again this year by our State Department, and 
its aggressive efforts to develop chemical and potentially nuclear 
weapons, exclude Libya from the ranks of law-abiding nations.
  Lifting sanctions on Iran and Libya at this time would be premature 
and would unjustly reward their continuing hostility to basic 
international norms of behavior. Overwhelming Congressional support for 
renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act reflects a clear, majority 
consensus on U.S. relations with these rogue regimes. Were the foreign 
and national security policies of Iran and Libya truly responsive to 
the will of their people, our relationship with their nations would be 
far different. But Libya's Qaddafi and Iran's ruling clerics hold their 
citizens hostage by their iron grip on power. Supporting their 
replacement by leaders elected by and accountable to their people 
should be a priority of American policy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 995. A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to 
clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited 
personnel practices, require a statement in non-disclosure policies, 
forms, and agreements that such policies, forms and agreements conform 
with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the 
Special Counsel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing amendments to the 
Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, that will strengthen protections for 
federal employees who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse. I am proud to 
be joined by Senators Levin and Grassley, two of the Senate's leaders 
in protecting employees from retaliatory actions. The Senators from 
Michigan and Iowa were the primary sponsors of the original 1989 Act, 
as well as the 1994 amendments, both of which were passed unanimously 
by Congress.
  One of the basic obligations of public service is to disclose waste, 
fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. The WPA was 
intended to protect federal employees, those often closest to 
wrongdoing, from workplace retaliation as a result of making such 
disclosures. The right of federal employees to be free from workplace 
retaliation, however, has been diminished by a pattern of court rulings 
that have narrowly defined who qualifies as a whistleblower under the 
WPA, and what statements are considered protected disclosures. These 
rulings are inconsistent with congressional intent. There is little 
incentive for federal employees to come forward because doing so could 
put their careers at substantial risk.
  The bill we introduce today will restore congressional intent 
regarding who is entitled to relief under the WPA, and what disclosures 
are protected. In addition, it codifies certain anti-gag rules, extends 
independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, 
and ends the sole jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit over whistleblower cases.
  In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, CSRA, Congress included 
statutory whistleblower rights for ``a'' disclosure evidencing a 
reasonable belief of specified misconduct, with certain listed 
statutory exceptions--classified or other information whose release was 
specifically barred by other statutes. Unexpectedly, the court and 
administrative agencies created several loopholes that limited employee 
protections. With the WPA, Congress closed these loopholes by changing 
protection of ``a'' disclosure to ``any'' disclosure meeting the law's 
standards. However, in both formal and informal interpretations of the 
Act, loopholes continued to proliferate.
  Congress strengthened its scope and protections by passing 1994 
amendments to the WPA. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the 
1994 amendments refuted prior interpretations by the Federal Circuit 
and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, as well as subsequent 
enforcement action by the Office of Special Counsel that there were 
exceptions to ``any.'' The Committee report concluded, ``The plain 
language of the Whistleblower Protection Act extends to retaliation for 
`any disclosure,' regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form 
of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made.''
  Since the 1994 amendments, both OSC and MSPB generally have honored 
congressional boundaries. However, the Federal Circuit continues to 
disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such 
as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an 
employee's job duties.

[[Page S5971]]

  In order to protect the statute's foundation that ``any'' lawful 
disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is 
credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is 
covered by the WPA, our bill codifies the repeated and unconditional 
statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It amends 
sections 2302(b)(8)(A) and 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., to cover 
any disclosure of information ``without restriction to time, place, 
form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an 
employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary 
course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant 
reasonably believes is credible evidence of'' any violation of any law, 
rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in section 
2302(b)(8).
  The bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has 
passed annually since 1988 as part of the appropriations process. It 
bans agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, 
form or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving 
open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower 
Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits 
discrimination against government employees who communicate with 
Congress. Gag orders imposed as a precondition for employment and 
resolution of disputes, as well as general agency policies barring 
employees from communicating directly with Congress or the public, are 
a prior restraint that not only has a severe chilling effect, but 
strikes at the heart of this body's ability to perform its oversight 
duties. Congress repeatedly has reaffirmed its intent that employees 
should not be forced to sign agreements that supercede an employee's 
rights under good government statutes. Moreover, Congress unanimously 
has supported the concept that federal employees should not be subject 
to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing nor suffer retaliation 
for speaking out.
  The measure also provides the Special Counsel with greater litigating 
authority for merit system principles that the office is responsible to 
protect. Under current law, the OSC plays a central role as public 
prosecutor in cases before the MSPB, but cannot choose to defend the 
merit system in court. Our legislation recognizes that providing the 
Special Counsel this authority to seek such review, in precedential 
cases, is crucial to ensuring the promotion of the public interests 
furthered by these statutes.
  Lastly, the bill would end the Federal Circuit's monopoly over 
whistleblower cases by allowing appeals to be filed in the Federal 
Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. This restores 
normal judicial review, and provides employees in states such as my 
home state of Hawaii, the option of a more convenient forum, rather 
than necessitating a 10,000 mile round trip from Hawaii to Washington, 
D.C.
  This bill will begin the needed dialogue to guarantee that any 
disclosures within the boundaries of the statutory language are 
protected. As the Chairman of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I plan 
to hold a hearing on the Whistleblower Protection Act and the 
amendments we are proposing today.
  Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort. 
Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed 
unanimous bicameral support, and I am pleased that Representatives 
Morella and Gilman will introduce identical legislation in the House of 
Representatives in the near future. I also wish to note that our bill 
enjoys the strong support of the Government Accountability Project and 
the National Whistleblower Center, and I commend both of these 
organizations for their efforts in protecting the public interest and 
promoting government accountability by defending whistleblowers.
  I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to ensure that the 
congressional intent embodied in the Whistleblower Protection Act is 
codified and that the law is not weakened further. I ask unanimous 
consent that letters in support of our bill from the National 
Whistleblower Center and the Government Accountability Project and the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 995

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

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION 
                   BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--Section 
     2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior 
     disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, 
     including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an 
     employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably 
     believes is credible evidence of''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior 
     disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, 
     including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an 
     employee's duties to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector 
     General of an agency or another employee designated by the 
     head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of 
     information that the employee or applicant reasonably 
     believes is credible evidence of''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a disclosure that--
       ``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information 
     required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the 
     interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is 
     credible evidence of--

       ``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
       ``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety; or
       ``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of 
     material fact; and

       ``(ii) is made to--

       ``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary 
     responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or 
     element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed 
     information relates;
       ``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to 
     receive information of the type disclosed; or
       ``(III) an employee of the executive branch or Congress who 
     has the appropriate security clearance for access to the 
     information disclosed.''.

       (b) Covered Disclosures.--Section 2302(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter following paragraph (12), by striking 
     ``This subsection'' and inserting the following:
       ``This subsection''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``In this subsection, the term `disclosure' means a formal 
     or informal communication or transmission.''.
       (c) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
       (1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; 
     and
       (B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xii) and 
     inserting after clause (x) the following:
       ``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement; and''.
       (2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form, 
     or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not 
     contain the following statement:
       `` `These provisions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code (governing disclosure to Congress by 
     members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, 
     United States Code (governing disclosures of illegality, 
     waste, fraud, abuse, or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosures that could compromise national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). 
     The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, 
     sanctions, and liabilities created by such Executive order 
     and such statutory provisions are incorporated into this 
     agreement and are controlling.' ''.
       (d) Authority of Special Counsel Relating to Civil 
     Actions.--

[[Page S5972]]

       (1) Representation of special counsel.--Section 1212 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(h) Except as provided in section 518 of title 28, 
     relating to litigation before the Supreme Court, attorneys 
     designated by the Special Counsel may appear for the Special 
     Counsel and represent the Special Counsel in any civil action 
     brought in connection with section 2302(b)(8) or subchapter 
     III of chapter 73, or as otherwise authorized by law.''.
       (2) Judicial review of merit systems protection board 
     decisions.--Section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) The Special Counsel may obtain review of any final 
     order or decision of the Board by filing a petition for 
     judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Federal Circuit if the Special Counsel determines, in the 
     discretion of the Special Counsel, that the Board erred in 
     deciding a case arising under section 2302(b)(8) or 
     subchapter III of chapter 73 and that the Board's decision 
     will have a substantial impact on the enforcement of section 
     2302(b)(8) or subchapter III of chapter 73. If the Special 
     Counsel was not a party or did not intervene in a matter 
     before the Board, the Special Counsel may not petition for 
     review of a Board decision under this section unless the 
     Special Counsel first petitions the Board for reconsideration 
     of its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to 
     the named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the 
     proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear 
     in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. The granting 
     of the petition for judicial review shall be at the 
     discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
       (e) Judicial Review.--Section 7703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1) by inserting 
     before the period ``or the United States court of appeals for 
     the circuit in which the petitioner resides''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit'' and inserting 
     ``any appellate court of competent jurisdiction as provided 
     under subsection (b)(2)''; and
       (B) in the third and fourth sentences by striking ``Court 
     of Appeals'' each place it appears and inserting ``court of 
     appeals'' in each such place.
                                  ____



                                National Whistleblower Center,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2001.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, 
         Proliferation, and Federal Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Whistleblower Center is 
     pleased to announce its support for your bill to update and 
     strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). We would 
     like to commend your leadership in introducing this 
     significant and important legislation.
       The National Whistleblower Center was established because 
     of the critical role that credible whistleblowers play in the 
     effective functioning of our system of checks and balances. 
     Despite this critical role, federal whistleblowers have not 
     always enjoyed the same rights as other citizens. The Center 
     has therefore maintained an on-going vigilance and commitment 
     to preserving the integrity of the whistleblower process.
       In recent years, protections for whistleblowers have 
     eroded. This is mainly due to recent decisions in cases 
     before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
     which presently holds a monopoly on appeals under the WPA. 
     The Center is therefore enthusiastic in its support of the 
     provision in your bill that offers employees an additional 
     venue for appeals.
       Your bill would also codify so-called ``anti-gag'' language 
     that has been included each year for the past twelve years in 
     appropriations bills. The language has been needed to avoid 
     ambiguity in the government's efforts to prevent improper 
     disclosures of information. The ambiguity created a chilling 
     effect for employees who otherwise had the right to make 
     proper disclosures to Congress and elsewhere. This provision 
     would clear a major hurdle in protecting the rights of 
     employees to disclose instances of wrongdoing by government 
     officials.
       The Center is concerned that, in the larger picture, 
     improvements in the whistleblower protection system require 
     more fundamental changes. For instance, there should be 
     tougher provisions to hold accountable those managers who 
     retaliate against whistleblowers. In addition, those who 
     bring their cases under laws other than the WPA have had much 
     greater success. This is in part because of adverse decisions 
     by the Federal Circuit, but it also suggests that the WPA is 
     not as whistleblower-friendly in practice as we hoped it 
     would be when we passed and amended the WPA. These are issues 
     to be addressed down the road, and the Center would be happy 
     to provide you the benefit of our experience in these 
     matters.
       Nonetheless, your bill, if passed, would make an important 
     and necessary contribution toward improvements in the 
     protection of whistleblowers under the WPA. Again, we commend 
     your leadership in the introduction of this bill, and we look 
     forward to working with you and your co-sponsors during the 
     hearing process and throughout the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kris J. Kolesnik,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                            Government Accountability Project,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, 
         Proliferation and Federal Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Government Accountability Project 
     (GAP) commends your leadership in sponsoring legislation to 
     revive and strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). 
     This is the primary civil service law applying merit system 
     rights to good government safeguards. Your initiative is 
     indispensable to restore legitimacy for the law's unanimous 
     congressional mandate, both in 1989 when it was passed 
     originally and in 1994 when it was unanimously strengthened. 
     We similarly appreciate the partnership of original 
     cosponsors Senators Levin and Grassley. They remain visible 
     leaders from the pioneer campaigns that earned this 
     legislative mandate.
       GAP is a non-partisan, non-profit public interest 
     organization whose mission is supporting whistleblowers, 
     those employees who exercise free speech rights to challenge 
     betrayals of the public trust about which they learn on the 
     job. We advocated initial passage of whistleblower rights as 
     part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and have led 
     outside campaigns for passage of the WPA, as well as 
     analogous laws for military service members, state, municipal 
     and corporate employees in industries ranging from airlines 
     to nuclear energy. Last year GAP drafted a model 
     whistleblower law approved by the Organization of American 
     States (OAS) for implementation of the Inter-American 
     Convention Against Corruption.
       Unfortunately, your leadership is a necessity for the Act 
     to regain legitimacy. In 1994 on paper it reflected the state 
     of the art for whistleblower rights. Despite pride in helping 
     to win its passage, GAP now must warn those seeking help that 
     the law is more likely to undermine than reinforce their 
     rights. This is because the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 
     which has a monopoly on appellate judicial review, has 
     functionally erased basic statutory language and implicitly 
     added new provisions that threaten those seeking help. Your 
     legislation both solves the specific problems, and includes 
     structural reform to prevent their recurrence by restoring 
     normal judicial review. Congress had to approve both the 1989 
     and 1994 legislation to cancel previous instances of judicial 
     activism by this same court. This pattern must end for the 
     law again to become functional.
       Your bill also incorporates an appropriations rider 
     approved for the last 13 years, known as the ``anti-gag 
     statute.'' This provision requires agencies to notify 
     employees that any restrictions on disclosures do not 
     override their rights under the WPA, or other open government 
     laws such as the Lloyd Lafollette Act protecting 
     communications with Congress. The rider has worked. It has 
     proven effective and practical against agency attempts to 
     impose secrecy through orders or nondisclosure agreements 
     that cancel Congress and the public's right to know. It is 
     time to institutionalize this success story.
       Even if implemented as intended, the 1989 and 1994 
     legislation was a beginning, rather than a panacea. More work 
     is necessary to disrupt the deeply ingrained tradition of 
     harassing whistleblowers. Based on our experience, issues 
     such as the following must be addressed for the law to 
     fulfill its promise--closing the ``security clearance 
     loophole'' that permits merit system rights to be 
     circumvented through removing clearances that are a condition 
     for employment; providing meaningful relief for those who win 
     their cases; preventing retaliation by creating personal 
     accountability for those who violate the merit system; and 
     giving whistleblowers access to jury trials to enforce their 
     rights.
       Your legislation is a reasonable and essential first step 
     on the road to recovery for whistleblower rights in the merit 
     system. It sends a clear message that congress was serious 
     when it passed this law in 1989 and strengthened it in 1994. 
     Congressional persistence is a prerequisite for those who 
     defend the public to have a decent chance of defending 
     themselves. We look forward to working with you and your co-
     sponsors in passing this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Devine,
       Legal Director.
     Doug Hartnett,
       National Security Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka and 
Grassley today in sponsoring amendments to the Whistleblower Protection 
Act that will strengthen the law protecting employees who blow the 
whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. I sponsored the 
Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified 
the intent of whistleblower rights in the merit system. But recent 
holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional 
clarifying language is sorely needed. The Federal Circuit has seriously 
misinterpreted key provisions of the whistleblower law, and the bill we 
are introducing today is intended to correct those misinterpretations.
  Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a 
Federal

[[Page S5973]]

employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a Federal 
program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or 
mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the 
sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it 
is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want Federal 
employees to identify problems in our programs so we can fix them, and 
if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to 
protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the 
taxpayer. We need to encourage, not discourage, disclosures of fraud, 
waste and abuse.
  Today, however, the effect of the Federal Circuit decisions is to 
discourage the Federal employee whistleblower and overturn 
Congressional intent. The Federal Circuit has misinterpreted the plain 
language of the law on what constitutes protected disclosure under the 
Whistleblower Protection Act. Most notably, in the case of Lachance 
versus White, decided on May 14, 1999, the Federal Circuit imposed an 
unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee 
whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was 
an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new 
educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for 
schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new 
system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously 
reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making 
these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, removing his 
duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent 
management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled 
the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in 
1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since.
  The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding 
that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection 
Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision 
and remanded it back to the administrative judge holding that since 
White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross 
mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand, 
the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the 
Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White 
to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the 
administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review 
of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB's 
decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a 
violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit 
held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at 
issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief 
was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the 
``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board 
must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the 
disclosures revealed misbehavior [by the Air Force] . . .'' The court 
went on to say:

       In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and 
     implementation via the QES standards might well show them to 
     be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, 
     this review would start out with a ``presumption that public 
     officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good 
     faith, and in accordance with the law and governing 
     regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there 
     is `irrefragable proof to the contrary'.''

  The fact that the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the MSPB to 
have the MSPB reconsider whether it was reasonable to believe that what 
the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement was 
appropriate. But, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly 
erroneous and excessive standard on the employee in proving 
``reasonable belief,'' requiring ``irrefragable'' proof that there was 
gross mismanagement. Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, 
incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal 
employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross 
mismanagement? Moreover, there is nothing in the law or the legislative 
history that even suggests such a standard with respect to the 
Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for the 
employee to act as an investigator and compile evidence to have 
``irrefragable'' proof that there is fraud, waste or abuse. The 
employee, under the clear language of the statue, need only have ``a 
reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring 
before making a protected disclosure. This bill will clarify the law so 
this misinterpretation will not happen again.
  The bill addresses a number of other important issues as well. For 
example, the bill adds a provision to the Whistleblower Protection Act 
that provides specific protection to a whistleblower who discloses 
evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse involving classified information if 
that disclosure is made to the appropriate committee of Congress or 
Federal executive branch employee authorized to receive the classified 
information.
  In closing, I want to thank Senator Akaka for his leadership in this 
area.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with determination to join 
Senators Akaka and Levin introducing legislation on an issue that 
should concern us all: the integrity of the Whistleblower Protection 
Act of 1989. I enclose editorials and op-ed commentaries, ranging from 
the New York Times to the Washington Times highlighting the needs for 
this law to be reborn so that it achieves its potential for public 
service. Unfortunately, it has become a Trojan horse that may well be 
creating more reprisal victims than it protects. The impact for 
taxpayers could be to increase silent observers who passively conceal 
fraud, waste and abuse. That is unacceptable.
  I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of this law when it was 
passed unanimously by Congress in 1989, and when it was unanimously 
strengthened in 1994. Both were largely passed to overturn a series of 
hostile decisions by administrative agencies and an activist court with 
a monopoly on the statute's judicial review, the Federal Circuit Court 
of Appeals. The administrative agencies, the U.S. Office of Special 
Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, appear to have gotten 
the point. They have been operating largely within statutory 
boundaries. Despite the repeated unanimous congressional mandates, 
however, the Federal Circuit has stepped up its attacks on the 
Whistleblower Protection Act. Enough is enough.
  The legislation we are introducing today has four cornerstones, 
closing loopholes in the scope of WPA protection; restoring a realistic 
test for when reprisal protection is warranted; restoring the normal 
structure for judicial review; and codifying the anti-gag statute 
passed as an appropriations rider for the last 13 years. Each is 
summarized below.
  As part of 1994 amendments unanimously passed by Congress to 
strengthen the Act, the legislative history emphasized, ``[I]t also is 
not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 
2302(b)(8) that protection for `any' whistleblowing disclosure truly 
means `any.' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an 
employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and 
may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the 
agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.''
  Somehow the Federal Circuit did not hear our unanimous voice. Without 
commenting on numerous committee reports and floor statements 
emphasizing this cornerstone, it has been creating new loopholes at an 
accelerated pace. Its precedents have shrunk the scope of protected 
whistleblowing to exclude disclosures made as part of an employee's job 
duties, to a co-worker, boss, others up the chain of command, or even 
the suspected wrongdoer to check facts. Under these judicial loopholes, 
the law does not cover agency misconduct with the largest impact, 
policies that institutionalize illegality or waste and mismanagement. 
Last December it renewed a pre-WPA loophole that Congress has 
specifically outlawed. The court decreed that the law only covers the 
first person to place evidence of given misconduct on the record, 
excluding those who challenge long term abuses, witnesses whose 
testimony supports pioneer whistleblowers, or anyone who is not the 
Christopher Columbus for any given scandal.

  There is no legal basis for any of these loopholes. None of these 
loopholes came from Congress. In fact, all

[[Page S5974]]

contradict express congressional intent. Since 1978, the point of 
Federal whistleblower protection has been to give agencies the first 
crack at cleaning their own houses. These loopholes force them to 
either remain silent, sacrifice their rights, or go behind the back of 
institutions and individuals if they want to preserve their rights when 
challenging perceived misconduct. They proceed at their own risk if 
they exercise their professional expertise to challenge problems on the 
job. They can only challenge anecdotal misconduct on a personal level, 
rather than institutionalized.
  Our legislation addresses the problem by codifying the congressional 
``no exceptions'' definition for lawful, significant disclosures. The 
legislation also reaffirms the right of whistleblowers to disclose 
classified information about wrongdoing to Congress. National security 
secrecy must not cancel Congress' right to know about betrayals of the 
public trust.
  In a 1999 decision, the Federal Circuit functionally overturned the 
standard by which whistleblowers demonstrate their disclosures deserve 
protection: lawful disclosures which evidence a ``reasonable belief'' 
of specific misconduct. Congress did not change this standard in 1989 
or 1994 for a simple reason: it has worked by setting a fair balance to 
protect responsible exercises of free speech. Ultimate proof of 
misconduct has never been a prerequisite for protection. Summarized in 
lay terms, ``reasonable belief'' has meant that if information would be 
accepted for the record of related litigation, government 
investigations or enforcement actions, it is illegal to fire the 
employee who bears witness by contributing that evidence.
  That realistic test no longer exists. In Lachance v. White, the 
Federal Circuit overturned the victory of an Air Force education 
specialist challenging a pork barrel program whose concerns were so 
valid that after an independent management review, the Air Force agreed 
and canceled the program. Unfortunately, local base officials held a 
grudge, reassigning Mr. White and stripping him of his duties. He 
appealed under the WPA and won before the Merit Systems Protection 
Board. The Federal Circuit, however, held that he did not demonstrated 
a ``reasonable belief'' and sent the case back. That raises questions 
on its face, since agencies seldom agree with whistleblowers.
  The court accomplished this result disingenuously. While endorsing 
the existing standard, it added another hurdle. It held that to have a 
reasonable belief, an employee must overcome the presumption that the 
government acts fairly, lawfully, properly and in good faith. They must 
do so by ``irrefragable'' proof. The dictionary defines 
``irrefragable'' as ``uncontestable, incontrovertible, undeniable, or 
incapable of being overthrown.'' The bottom line is that, in the 
absence of a confession, there is no such thing as a reasonable belief. 
If there is no disagreement about alleged misconduct, there is no need 
for whistleblowers.

  The court even added a routine threat for employees asserting their 
rights. Although Congress has repeatedly warned that motives are 
irrelevant to assess protected speech, the court ordered the MSPB to 
conduct factfinding for anyone filing a whistleblower reprisal claim, 
to check if the employee had a conflict of interest for disclosing 
alleged misconduct in the first place. This means that while 
whistleblowers have almost no chance of prevailing, they are guaranteed 
to be placed under investigation for challenging harassment. 
Ironically, in 1994 Congress outlawed retaliatory investigations, which 
have now been institutionalized by the court.
  In the aftermath, whistleblower support groups like the Government 
Accountability Project must warn those seeking guidance that if they 
assert rights, they will be placed under investigation and any eventual 
legal ruling on the merits inevitably will conclude they deserve 
punishment and formally endorse the retaliation they suffered. The 
White case is a decisive reason for those who witness fraud, waste and 
abuse to remain silent, instead of speaking out. Profiles in Courage 
are the exception, rather than the rule. Our legislation ends the 
presumptions of ``irrefragable proof'' and protects any reasonable 
belief as demonstrated by credible evidence.
  This is the third time Congress has had to reenact a unanimous good 
government mandate thrown out by the Federal Circuit. This is also 
three strikes for the Federal Circuit's monopoly authority to 
interpret, and repeatedly veto, this law. It is time to end the broken 
record syndrome.
  The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 contained normal ``all 
circuits'' court of appeals judicial review under the Administrative 
Procedures Act. This was the same structure as all other employment 
anti-reprisal or anti-discrimination statutes. In 1982, the Federal 
Circuit was created, with a unique monopoly on appellate review of 
civil service, patent and copyright, and International Trade Commission 
decisions. Unfortunately, this experiment has failed. Our amendment 
restores the normal process of balanced review. Hopefully, that will 
restore normal respect for the legislative process.
  In 1988, I was proud to introduce an appropriations rider to the 
Treasury, Postal and General Government bill which has been referred to 
as the ``anti-gag statute.'' It has survived constitutional challenge 
through the Supreme Court, and been unanimously approved in each of the 
last 13 appropriations bills. This provision makes it illegal to 
enforce agency nondisclosure policies or agreements unless there is a 
specific, express addendum informing employees that the disclosure 
restrictions do not override their right to communicate with Congress 
under the Lloyd Lafollette Act or other good government laws such as 
the Whistleblower Protection Act.
  The provision originally was in response to a new, open-ended concept 
called ``classifiable.'' That term was defined as any information that 
``could or should have been classified,'' or ``virtually anything,'' 
even if it were not market secret. This effectively ended anonymous 
whistleblowing disclosures, imposed blanket prior restraint, and 
legalized after-the-fact classification as a device to cover up fraud 
or misconduct. Since employees no longer were entitled to prior notice 
that information was secret, the only way they could act safely was a 
prior inquiry to the agency whether information was classified. That 
was a neat structure to lock in secrecy when its only purpose is to 
thwart congressional or public oversight. I am proud that the anti-gag 
statute has worked, and the strange concept of ``classifiable'' is 
history. After 13 years and over 6,000 individual congressional votes 
without dissent, it is time to institutionalize this merit system 
principle.
  It should be beyond debate that the price of liberty is eternal 
vigilance. I want to recognize the efforts of those whose stamina 
defending freedom of speech has applied that principle in practice. 
Senator Levin has been my Senate partner from the beginning of 
legislative initiatives on this issue. His leadership has proved that 
whistleblower protection is not an issue reserved for conservatives or 
liberals, Democrats or Republicans. Like the First Amendment, 
whistleblower protection is a cornerstone right for Americans.
  Nongovernmental organizations have made significant contributions as 
well. The Government Accountability Project, a non-profit, non-partisan 
whistleblower support group, has been a relentless watchdog of merit 
system whistleblower rights since they were created by statute in 1978. 
Thanks to GAP, my staff has not been taken by surprise as judicial 
activism threatened this good government law. Kris Kolesnick, formerly 
with my staff and now with the National Whistleblower Center, worked on 
the original legislation while on my staff and continues to work in 
partnership with me.
  In the decade since Congress unanimously passed this law, it has been 
a Taxpayer Protection Act. My office has been privileged to work with 
public servants who exposed indefensible waste and mismanagement at the 
Pentagon, as well as indefensible abuses of power at the Department of 
Justice. I keep learning that whistleblowers proceed at their own risk 
when defending the public. In case after case I have seen the proof of 
Admiral Rickover's insight that unlike God, the bureaucracy does not 
forgive. Nor does it forget.
  It also has been confirmed repeatedly that whistleblowers must prove 
their commitment to stamina and persistence in order to make a 
difference

[[Page S5975]]

against ingrained fraud, waste and abuse. There should be no question 
about Congress', or this Senator's commitment. Congress was serious 
when it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act unanimously. It is not 
mere window dressing. As long as whistleblowers are defending the 
public, we must defend credible free speech rights for genuine 
whistleblowers. Those who have something to hide, the champions of 
secrecy, cannot outlast or defeat the right to know both for Congress, 
law enforcement agencies and the taxpayers. Every time judicial or 
bureaucratic activists attempt to kill this law, we must revive it in 
stronger terms. Congress can not watch passively as this law is gutted, 
or tolerate gaping holes in the shield protecting public servants. The 
taxpayers are on the other side of the shield, with the whistleblowers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 13, 1999 
article from The Washington Times and the May 1, 1999 article from The 
New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Oct. 13, 1999]

                         Silent Whistleblowers


                  worker protections are under attack

               (By Tom Devine and Martin Edwin Anderson)

       Judicial activism is always suspect, but when it overturns 
     laws protecting the public's interest in order to shield 
     bureaucratic secrecy, it makes a mockery of the legal system 
     itself.
       The issue has become a front-burner in Congress as it takes 
     a new look at a significant good-government law that twice 
     won unanimous passage. In the aftermath of extremist judicial 
     activism that functionally overturned the statute, a crucial 
     campaign has been launched this week on the Hill to enlist 
     members as friends of the court in a brief seeking Supreme 
     Court review of the circuit court decision.
       At issue is a ruling made final in July by the Federal 
     Circuit Court of Appeals, which disingenuously overturned two 
     laws unanimously passed by Congress--the code of Ethics for 
     Government Service and the Whistleblower Protection Act. The 
     decision, White vs. Lachance, was the handiwork of a chief 
     judge whose previous job involved swinging the ax against 
     federal workers who dared to commit the truth.
       At issue is the fate of Air Force whistleblower John White, 
     who lost his job in 1991 after successfully challenging a 
     pork-barrel ``quality management'' training program as 
     mismanagement. Government and private sector experts 
     concurred with Mr. White, and universities affected by it 
     began heading for the door. Even the Air Force agreed, 
     canceling it after outside experts agreed with Mr. White.
       Thrice the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an 
     independent federal agency, ruled in Mr. White's favor. Each 
     time the Justice Department appealed on technicalities. Now 
     the federal court went further than asked while speculating 
     that Mr. White's disclosures may not have evidenced a 
     ``reasonable belief''--the test for disclosures to be 
     protected.
       The court camouflaged its death-knell for the whistleblower 
     law in banal legalese, defining ``reasonable belief'' as, 
     ``Could a disinterested observer with knowledge of the 
     essential facts reasonably conclude gross mismanagement?'' 
     But the bland explanatory guidance exposed a feudalistic duty 
     of loyalty to shield misconduct by bureaucratic bosses: 
     ``Policymakers have every right to expect loyal, professional 
     service from subordinates.'' So much for the Code of Ethics 
     for Government Service, which establishes the fundamental 
     duty of federal employees to ``put loyalty to the highest 
     moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, 
     party or Government department.''
       The court also disarmed the whistleblower law, claiming it 
     ``is not a weapon in arguments over policy.'' Yet when it 
     unanimously approved 1994 amendments, Congress explicitly 
     instructed, ``A protected disclosure may concern policy or 
     individual misconduct.''
       Worse was a court-ordered ``review'' as a prerequisite to 
     find a ``reasonable belief'' of wrongdoing. It must begin 
     with the ``presumption that public officers perform their 
     duties correctly, fairly, in good faith and in accordance 
     with the law. . . . [T]his presumption stands unless there is 
     `irrefragable' proof to the contrary.''
       ``Irrefragable,'' according to Webster's Dictionary, means 
     ``incapable of being overthrown, incontestable, undeniable, 
     incontrovertible.'' The court's decision kills freedom of 
     speech if there are two rational sides to a dispute--leaving 
     it easier to convict a criminal than for a whistleblower to 
     be eligible for protection. The irrefragable presumption of 
     government perfection creates a thick shield protecting big 
     government abuses--precisely the opposite of why the law was 
     passed.
       Finally, the court ordered the MSPB to facilitate routine 
     illegality by seeking evidence of a whistleblower's conflict 
     of interest during every review. Retaliatory investigations--
     those taken ``because of'' whistleblowing activities--are 
     tantamount to witch-hunts and were outlawed by Congress in 
     1994. For federal employees, the Big Brother of George 
     Orwell's ``1984'' has arrived 15 years late.
       Key to understanding the decision is the role played by 
     Chief Judge Robert Mayer. Previously, Judge Mayer served as 
     deputy special counsel in an era when MSPB's Office of 
     Special Counsel (under its Chief Alex Kozinski, now a 9th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals judge) tutored managers and taught 
     courses on how to fire whistleblowers without leaving 
     fingerprints. Congress passed the WPA in part to deal with 
     these abuses.
       Now Judge Mayer's judicial revenge is a near-perfect 
     gambit, as his court has a virtual monopoly on judicial 
     review of MSPB whistleblower decisions.
       Congress must act quickly to pass a legislative definition 
     of ``reasonable belief'' that eliminates the certainty of 
     professional suicide for whistleblowers and restores the 
     law's good-government mandate. It also needs to provide 
     federal workers the same legal access enjoyed by private 
     citizens; jury trials and all circuits judicial review in the 
     appeals courts.
       It is unrealistic to expect federal workers with second-
     class rights to provide first-class public service. Returning 
     federal workers to the Dark Ages is an inauspicious way to 
     usher in a new millennium.
                                  ____


                 [From the New York Times, May 1, 1999]

                    Helping Whistle-Blowers Survive

       Jennifer Long, the Internal Revenue Service agent who 
     nearly lost her job two weeks ago after publicly blowing the 
     whistle on abuses at the agency, was rescued at the last 
     minute by the intervention of an influential United States 
     Senator. But the fact that her employers had no inhibitions 
     about harassing her is clear evidence that the laws 
     protecting whistle-blowers need to be strengthened. As they 
     stand, these laws merely invite the kind of retaliation that 
     Mrs. Long endured.
       A career tax auditor, Mrs. Long was the star witness at 
     Senate Finance Committee hearings convened in 1997 by William 
     Roth of Delaware to investigate complaints against the I.R.S. 
     She was the only I.R.S. witness who did not sit behind a 
     curtain and use a voice distortion device to hide her 
     identity. She accused the agency of preying on weaker 
     taxpayers and ignoring cheating by those with the resources 
     to fight back. She has since said that she was subject to 
     petty harassments from the moment she arrived back at her 
     district office in Houston. Then, on April 15 of this year, 
     she was given what amounted to a termination notice, at which 
     point Mr. Roth intervened with the I.R.S. commissioner and 
     saved her job--at least for now.
       Had he not intervened, Mrs. Long's only hope of vindication 
     would have been the remedies provided by the Civil Service 
     Reform Act of 1978 and the Whistle-Blower Protection Act of 
     1989. These two statutes prescribe a tortuous and uncertain 
     appeals process that in theory guarantees a whistle-blower 
     free speech without fear of retaliation, but in practice is 
     an exercise in frustration. Despite recent improvements, only 
     a handful of Federal employees, out of some 1,500 who 
     appealed in the last four years, have prevailed in rulings 
     issued by the Government's administrative tribunal, the Merit 
     System Protection Board. Overwhelmingly, the rest of the 
     cases were screened out on technical grounds or were settled 
     informally with token relief.
       A few prominent whistle-blowers have won redemption outside 
     the system. Frederic Whitehurst, the chemist who was 
     dismissed after disclosing sloppiness and possible dishonesty 
     in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's crime laboratory, 
     won a sizable cash settlement because he had a first-class 
     attorney who mounted an artful public relations campaign. 
     Ernest Fitzgerald, the Pentagon employee who disclosed 
     massive cost overruns, survived because he was almost 
     inhumanly persistent and because his cause, like Mrs. Long's, 
     attracted allies in high places. But the prominence of an 
     issue does not guarantee survival for the employee who 
     discloses it. Notra Trulock, the senior intelligence official 
     at the Energy Department who tried to alert his superiors to 
     Chinese espionage at a Government weapons laboratory, has 
     since been demoted.
       Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been 
     seeking ways to strengthen the 1989 law with the help of the 
     Government Accountability Project, a Washington advocacy 
     group that assists whistle-blowers. One obvious improvement 
     would be to give whistle-blowers the option to press their 
     claims in the Federal courts, where their cases could be 
     decided by a jury. To guard against clogging the system with 
     frivolous litigation, the cases would first be reviewed by a 
     nongovernment administrative panel. But the point is to give 
     whistle-blowers an avenue of appeal outside the closed loop 
     in which they are now trapped.
       A reform bill along these lines passed the House in 1994 
     but died in the Senate. With Mrs. Long's case fresh in mind, 
     the time has come for both Houses to re-examine the issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 996. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the

[[Page S5976]]

Colorado Springs, Colorado, metropolitan area; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Colorado Springs, Colorado 
metropolitan area is the home of the United States Air Force Academy, 
the North American Aerospace Defense Command, United States Space 
Command, Ft. Carson Army Base, Peterson Air Force Base, and Shriever 
Air Force Base. There are over 30,000 active duty and reserve military 
personnel in the city. There are nearly 23,000 retired personnel in the 
5th Congressional District, which is based around Colorado Springs, the 
third largest DoD retired community in any Congressional District in 
the country. There is, however, no National Military Cemetery.
  The bill I am introducing today is a companion piece to legislation 
introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Joel Hefley. At my 
annual town meeting in El Paso County on June 1, I discussed this 
matter with my constituents. There are many of them who feel strongly 
that a cemetery is needed and I agree. This bill will allow the 
thousands of eligible Colorado Springs military personnel, both active 
duty and retired, to have a chance to find their final resting place in 
the city so many of them love.
  I am aware that the Veterans Administration is not known for prompt 
and easy cemetery construction. I am aware that there are some areas of 
the country deemed to have cemetery needs more critical than Colorado 
Springs. But I do not think that should mean that the people of 
Colorado Springs are denied the ability to chose a cemetery for 
themselves and their loved ones that properly honors their 
contributions to the nation.
  I look forward to working on this bill and seeing its eventual 
passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 997. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct 
research, monitoring, management, treatment, and outreach activities 
relating to sudden oak death syndrome and to establish a Sudden Oak 
Death Syndrome Advisory Committee; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill that 
addresses an emerging ecological crisis in California that quite 
literally threatens to change the face of my State, and perhaps others.
  California's beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black 
oak, coastal live oak, tan and Shreve's oak trees, among the most 
familiar and best loved features of California's landscape are dying 
from a newly discovered disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, 
SODS.
  Caused by an exotic species of the Phytophthora fungus, the fungus 
responsible for the Irish potato famine, SODS first struck a small 
number of tan oaks in Marin County in 1995. Now the disease has spread 
to other oak species from Big Sur in the south to Humboldt County in 
the north. In Marin, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, desperate local 
officials are predicting oak mortality rates of 70 to 90 percent unless 
the deadly fungus is eradicated or its spread is arrested.
  The loss of trees is fast approaching epidemic proportions, with tens 
of thousands of dead trees appearing in thousands of acres of forests, 
parks, and gardens. As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest, some 
adjacent to residential areas, are subject to extreme fire hazards. 
Residents who built their homes around or among oak trees are in 
particular danger.
  Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is already having serious economic and 
environmental impacts. Both Oregon and Canada have imposed quarantines 
on the importation of oak products and some nursery stock from 
California. According to the U.S. Forest Service, removal of dead trees 
can cost $2,000 or more apiece, and loss of oaks can reduce property 
values by 3 percent or more. In Marin County alone, tree removal and 
additional fire fighting needs are expected to cost over $6 million.
  Nor is the spread of the Phytophthora fungus limited to oak trees. 
The fungus has also been found on rhododendron plants in California 
nurseries, on bay and madrone trees, and on wild huckleberry plants. 
Due to genetic similarities, this fungus potentially endangers Red and 
Pin oak trees on the East coast as well as the Northeast's lucrative 
commercial blueberry and cranberry industries.
  If left unchecked, SODS could also cause a broad and severe 
ecological crisis, with major damage to biodiversity, wildlife habitat, 
water supplies, forest productivity, and hillside stability. 
California's oak woodlands provide shelter, habitat and food to over 
300 wildlife species. They reduce soil erosion. They help moderate 
extremes in temperature. And, they aid with nutrient cycling, which 
ensures that organic matter is broken down and made available for use 
by other living organisms.
  Very little is known about this new species of Phytophthora fungus. 
Scientists are struggling to better understand Sudden Oak Death 
Syndrome, how the disease is transmitted, and what the best treatment 
options might be. The U.S. Forest Service, the University of 
California, the State Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection, and 
County Agricultural Commissioners have created an Oak Mortality Task 
Force in an attempt to half SODS's frightening march across California 
and into adjoining states.
  The Task Force has established a series of objectives leading to the 
elimination of SODS, but very little can be accomplished without 
adequate support for ongoing research, monitoring, treatment and 
education.
  In September of last year, I called on the Department of Agriculture, 
USDA, to provide financial assistance and to create its own task force 
to work with California's Oak Mortality Task Force. Outgoing 
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman answered the call by releasing $2.1 
million in emergency funding and establishing a top-flight task force 
under the direction of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, APHIS. This was a good first step, but it was just that.
  That is why I am introducing today the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome 
Control Act of 2001. This legislation would authorize over $14 million 
each year for the next five years in critically needed funding to fight 
the SODS epidemic. Combined with the efforts of state and local 
officials, this legislation will help to prevent the dire predictions 
from becoming a terrible reality.
  This bill is endorsed by the California Oak Mortality Task Force, the 
Marin County Board of Supervisors, the Trust for Public Land, 
California Releaf, and the International Society of Arboriculturists, 
Western Chapter.
  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. 997

       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 ``Sudden Oak Death Syndrome 
     Control Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) tan oak, coast live oak, Shreve's oak, and black oak 
     trees are among the most beloved features of the topography 
     of California and the Pacific Northwest and efforts should be 
     made to protect those trees from disease;
       (2) the die-off of those trees, as a result of the exotic 
     Phytophthora fungus, is approaching epidemic proportions;
       (3) very little is known about the new species of 
     Phytophthora, and scientists are struggling to understand the 
     causes of sudden oak death syndrome, the methods of 
     transmittal, and how sudden oak death syndrome can best be 
     treated;
       (4) the Phytophthora fungus has been found on--
       (A) Rhododendron plants in nurseries in California; and
       (B) wild huckleberry plants, potentially endangering the 
     commercial blueberry and cranberry industries;
       (5) sudden oak death syndrome threatens to create major 
     economic and environmental problems in California, the 
     Pacific Northwest, and other regions, including--
       (A) the increased threat of fire and fallen trees;
       (B) the cost of tree removal and a reduction in property 
     values; and
       (C) loss of revenue due to--
       (i) restrictions on imports of oak products and nursery 
     stock; and
       (ii) the impact on the commercial rhododendron, blueberry, 
     and cranberry industries; and
       (6) Oregon and Canada have imposed an emergency quarantine 
     on the importation of oak trees, oak products, and certain 
     nursery plants from California.

[[Page S5977]]

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND TREATMENT OF SUDDEN OAK 
                   DEATH SYNDROME.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a sudden 
     oak death syndrome research, monitoring, and treatment 
     program to develop methods to control, manage, or eradicate 
     sudden oak death syndrome from oak trees on both public and 
     private land.
       (b) Research, Monitoring, and Treatment Activities.--In 
     carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) conduct open space, roadside, and aerial surveys;
       (2) provide monitoring technique workshops;
       (3) develop baseline information on the distribution, 
     condition, and mortality rates of oaks in California and the 
     Pacific Northwest;
       (4) maintain a geographic information system database;
       (5) conduct research activities, including research on 
     forest pathology, Phytophthora ecology, forest insects 
     associated with oak decline, urban forestry, arboriculture, 
     forest ecology, fire management, silviculture, landscape 
     ecology, and epidemiology;
       (6) evaluate the susceptibility of oaks and other 
     vulnerable species throughout the United States; and
       (7) develop and apply treatments.

     SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT, REGULATION, AND FIRE PREVENTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct sudden oak 
     death syndrome management, regulation, and fire prevention 
     activities to reduce the threat of fire and fallen trees 
     killed by sudden oak death syndrome.
       (b) Management, Regulation, and Fire Prevention 
     Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) conduct hazard tree assessments;
       (2) provide grants to local units of government for hazard 
     tree removal, disposal and recycling, assessment and 
     management of restoration and mitigation projects, green 
     waste treatment facilities, reforestation, resistant tree 
     breeding, and exotic weed control;
       (3) increase and improve firefighting and emergency 
     response capabilities in areas where fire hazard has 
     increased due to oak die-off;
       (4) treat vegetation to prevent fire, and assessment of 
     fire risk, in areas heavily infected with sudden oak death 
     syndrome;
       (5) conduct national surveys and inspections of--
       (A) commercial rhododendron and blueberry nurseries; and
       (B) native rhododendron and huckleberry plants;
       (6) provide for monitoring of oaks and other vulnerable 
     species throughout the United States to ensure early 
     detection; and
       (7) provide diagnostic services.

     SEC. 5. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct education and 
     outreach activities to make information available to the 
     public on sudden death oak syndrome.
       (b) Education and Outreach Activities.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may--
       (1) develop and distribute educational materials for 
     homeowners, arborists, urban foresters, park managers, public 
     works personnel, recreationists, nursery workers, 
     landscapers, naturists, firefighting personnel, and other 
     individuals, as the Secretary determines appropriate;
       (2) design and maintain a website to provide information on 
     sudden oak death syndrome; and
       (3) provide financial and technical support to States, 
     local governments, and nonprofit organizations providing 
     information on sudden oak death syndrome.

     SEC. 6. SUDDEN OAK DEATH SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Sudden Oak 
     Death Syndrome Advisory Committee (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Committee'') to assist the Secretary in 
     carrying out this Act.
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) Composition.--The Committee shall consist of--
       (i) 1 representative of the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, to be appointed by the Administrator of 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
       (ii) 1 representative of the Forest Service, to be 
     appointed by the Chief of the Forest Service;
       (iii) 2 individuals appointed by the Secretary from each of 
     the States affected by sudden oak death syndrome; and
       (iv) any individual, to be appointed by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Governors of the affected States, that 
     the Secretary determines--

       (I) has an interest or expertise in sudden oak death 
     syndrome; and
       (II) would contribute to the Committee.

       (B) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Committee shall be made not later than 90 days after the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Committee have been appointed, 
     the Committee shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Committee.
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) Implementation plan.--The Committee shall prepare a 
     comprehensive implementation plan to address the management, 
     control, and eradication of sudden oak death syndrome.
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) Interim report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Committee shall submit to 
     Congress the implementation plan prepared under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Final report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Committee shall submit to Congress 
     a report that contains--
       (i) a summary of the activities of the Committee;
       (ii) an accounting of funds received and expended by the 
     Committee; and
       (iii) findings and recommendations of the Committee.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2007--
       (1) to carry out section 3, $7,500,000, of which up to 
     $1,500,000 shall be used for treatment;
       (2) to carry out section 4, $6,000,000;
       (3) to carry out section 5, $500,000; and
       (4) to carry out section 6, $250,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 998. A bill to expand the availability of oral health services by 
strengthening the dental workforce in designated underserved areas; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing 
legislation to improve access to oral health care by strengthening the 
dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.
  Oral and general health are inseparable, and good dental care is 
critical to our overall physical health and well-being. Dental health 
encompasses far more than cavities and gum disease. The recent U.S. 
Surgeon General report Oral Health in America states that ``the mouth 
acts as a mirror of health and disease'' that can help diagnose 
disorders such as diabetes, leukemia, heart disease, or anemia.
  While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 
50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all 
sectors of our population, particularly among low-income individuals 
and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care. 
While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the 
progression of dental health problems, an estimated 25 million 
Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a 
consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not 
being implemented in many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as 
eleven percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to the 
dentist.
  This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce 
is graying and the overall ratio of dentists to population is 
declining. In Maine, there currently are 393 active dentists, 241 of 
whom are 45 or older. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will 
retire in the next ten years and the number of dental graduates by 2015 
may not be enough to replace these retirees.
  As a consequence, Maine, like many States, is currently facing a 
serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. While there 
is one general practice dentist for every 2,286 people in the Portland 
area, the numbers drop off dramatically in western and northern Maine. 
In Aroostook County, where I'm from, there's only one dentist for every 
5,507 people. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay is the most 
prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer than ten 
specialists in pediatric dentistry, and most of these are located in 
the southern part of the State.
  This dental workforce shortage is exacerbated by the fact that Maine 
currently does not have a dental school or even a dental residency 
program. Dental schools can provide a critical safety net for the oral 
health needs of a state, and dental education clinics can provide the 
surrounding communities with care that otherwise would be unavailable 
to disadvantaged and underinsured populations. Maine is just one of a 
number of predominantly rural States that lacks this important 
component of a dental safety net.

  Maine, like many States, is exploring a number of innovative ideas 
for increasing access to dental care in underserved areas. In an effort 
to supplement and encourage these efforts, we

[[Page S5978]]

are introducing legislation today to establish a new State grant 
program designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and 
underserved areas. The legislation authorizes $50 million over five 
years for grants to States to help them develop innovative dental 
workforce development programs specific to their individual needs.
  States could use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For 
example, they could use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment 
programs for dentists practicing in underserved ares. They could also 
use them to provide grants and low- or no-interest loans to help 
practitioners to establish or expand practices in these underserved 
areas. States, like Maine, that do not have a dental school could use 
the funds to establish a dental residency program. Other States might 
want to use the grant funding to establish or expand community or 
school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental 
clinics.
  To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could 
also use the funds for placement and support of dental students, 
residents, and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they could use the 
grant funds for continuing dental education, including distance-based 
education, and practice support through teledentistry.
  Other programs that could be funded through the grants include: 
community-based prevention services such as water fluoridation and 
dental sealant programs; school programs to encourage children to go 
into oral health or science professions; the establishment or expansion 
of a State dental office to coordinate oral health and access issues; 
and any other activities that are determined to be appropriate by the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  The National Health Service Corps is helping to meet the oral health 
needs of underserved communities by placing dentists and dental 
hygienists in some of America's most difficult-to-place inner city, 
rural, and frontier areas. Unfortunately, however, the number of 
dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the 
National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total 
identified need. According to the Surgeon General, only about 6 percent 
of the dental need in America's rural and underserved communities is 
currently being met by the National Health Service Corps.

  In my state, approximately 173,000 Mainers live in designated dental 
health professional shortage areas. While the National Health Service 
Corps estimates that it will take 33 dental clinicians to meet this 
need, it currently has only three serving in my State.
  The bill we are introducing today would make some needed improvements 
in this critically important program so that it can better respond to 
our nation's oral health needs.
  First, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of 
dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps 
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
  It would also allow National Health Service Corps scholarship and 
loan repayment program recipients to fulfill their commitment on a 
part-time basis. Many small rural communities may not have sufficient 
populations to support a full-time dentist or dental hygienist. This 
would give the National Health Service Corps additional flexibility to 
meet the needs of these communities. Moreover, some practitioners may 
find part-time service more attractive, which in turn could improve 
both recruitment and retention in these communities.
  Last year, after a six-year hiatus, the National Health Service Corps 
began a two-year pilot program to award scholarships to dental 
students. While this is a step in the right direction, these 
scholarships are only being awarded to students attending certain 
dental schools, none of which are in New England. Moreover, the pilot 
project requires the participating dental schools to encourage Corps 
dental scholars to practice in communities near their educational 
institutions. As a consequence, this program will do nothing to help 
relieve the dental shortage in Maine and other areas of New England.
  The bill we are introducing today would address this problem by 
expanding the National Health Service Corps Pilot Scholarship Program 
so that dental students attending any of the 55 U.S. dental schools can 
apply and require that placements for these scholars be based strictly 
on community need.
  It would also improve the process for designating dental health 
professional shortage areas and ensure that the criteria for making 
such designations provides a more accurate reflection of oral health 
need, particularly in rural areas.
  Mr. President, the Dental Health Improvement Act will make critically 
important oral health care services more accessible in our Nation's 
rural and underserved communities, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
sign on as cosponsors. I also ask unanimous consent that letters 
endorsing the bill from the American Dental Association and the 
American Dental Education Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                  American Dental Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washingtion, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Dental 
     Association and our 144,000 member dentists, I am delighted 
     to endorse the ``Dental Health Improvement Act,'' which you 
     introduced today. The Association is proud that the oral 
     health of Americans continues to improve, and that Americans 
     have access to the best oral health care in the world.
       Having said that, we agree that dental care has not reached 
     every corner of American society to the extent it has reached 
     the majority of Americans. For those Americans who are unable 
     to pay for care, and those with special needs, such as 
     disabled individuals, those with congenital conditions, and 
     non-ambulatory patients, obtaining dental care can be 
     difficult.
       Your legislation recognizes several of these problems and 
     goes a long way towards addressing them in a targeted and 
     meaningful way. The section on grant proposals offers states 
     the opportunity to be innovative in their approaches to 
     address specific geographical dental workforce issues. You 
     recognize the need to provide incentives to increase faculty 
     recruitment in accredited dental training institutions, and 
     your support for increasing loan repayment and scholarship 
     programs will provide the appropriate incentives to increase 
     the dental workforce in ``safety net'' organizations.
       The ADA is very grateful for your leadership on these 
     issues. Thank you for introducing this legislation. We want 
     to continue to work with you on dental access issues in 
     general and on this legislation as it moves through the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert M. Anderton,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   American Dental


                                        Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins, I am writing on behalf of the dental 
     education community to commend you for developing and 
     introducing the Dental Health Improvement Act. This 
     legislation, when enacted into law, will expand the 
     availability of oral health care services for the nation's 
     underserved populations, strengthen the dental workforce, as 
     well as maintain the ability of dental schools to produce the 
     necessary manpower to provide oral health care to all 
     Americans.
       The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) represents 
     the nation's 55 dental schools, as well as hospital-based 
     dental and advanced dental education programs, allied dental 
     programs and schools, dental research institutions, and the 
     faculty and students at these institutions. ADEA's member 
     schools are dedicated to providing the highest quality 
     education to their students, conducting research and 
     providing oral health care services to Americans from 
     medically unserved and underserved areas, the majority of 
     whom are uninsured or who are from low-income families. 
     Recent downward trends in student enrollment and a growing 
     shortage in dental faculty have caused ADEA serious concern 
     about our ability to fully and competently address these 
     responsibilities.
       Therefore, I was delighted to see that the Dental Health 
     Improvement Act directly responds to many of these concerns. 
     If implemented, the Act would expand access to oral health 
     care to thousands of Americans for the first time. When 
     enacted, the provisions of the bill can be instrumental in 
     helping the more than 31 million Americans living in areas 
     that lack access to adequate oral health care services. It 
     can provide much needed help to dental education institutions 
     as we seek to address faculty shortages.
       As you know, dental education institutions face a major 
     crisis in the graying of its faculty which threatens the 
     quality of dental education, oral, dental and craniofacial 
     research, and ultimately will adversely impact the health of 
     all Americans. Currently, there are approximately 400 faculty 
     vacancies. Retirements are expected to accelerate in both

[[Page S5979]]

     private practice as well as teaching faculties in the 
     nation's 55 dental schools. There is a significant decrease 
     in the number of men and women choosing careers in dentistry, 
     teaching and research. Your personal experience in Maine is a 
     perfect example.
       Educational debt has increased, affecting both career 
     choices and practice location. Your bill will provide funds 
     to help with recruitment and retention efforts and helps 
     expand dental residency training programs to the 27 states 
     that do not currently have dental schools.
       Also important are the incentives you have proposed to 
     expand or establish community-based dental facilities linked 
     with dental education institutions. The need for this is 
     obvious. More than two-thirds of patients visiting dental 
     school clinics are members of families whose annual income is 
     estimated to be $15,000 or below. About half of these 
     patients are on Medicare or Medicaid, while more than a third 
     have no insurance coverage or government assistance program 
     to help them pay for their dental care.
       Dental academic institutions are committed to their patient 
     care mission, not only by improving the management and 
     efficiency of patient centered care delivery at the dental 
     school, but through increasing affiliations with and use of 
     satellite clinics. All dental schools maintain at least one 
     dental clinic on-site, and approximately 70% of U.S. dental 
     schools have school sponsored satellite clinics. Delivering 
     patient care in diverse settings demonstrates professional 
     responsibility to the oral health of the public.
       Dental schools and other academic dental institutions 
     provide oral health care to underserved and disadvantaged 
     populations. Yet more than 11 percent of the nation's rural 
     population has never been to see a dentist. This bill can 
     have a positive impact on the population by establishing 
     access to oral health care at community based dental 
     facilities and consolidated health center that are linked to 
     dental schools. 100 million Americans presently do not have 
     access to fluoridated water. The bill provides for community-
     based prevention services such as fluoride and sealants that 
     can cause a dramatic change for nearly a third of the 
     nations's population.
       Thank you again for taking such a leadership role in the 
     area of oral health. Please be assured that ADEA looks 
     forward to working closely with you to bring the far-reaching 
     potential of the Dental Health improvement Act to fruition.
           Sincerely,
                                            Richard W. Valachovic,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 999. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
a Korea Defense Service Medal to be issued to members of the Armed 
Forces who participated in operations in Korea after the end of the 
Korean War; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, 
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, to introduce a bill that would award the 
Korean Defense Service Medal to all members of the Armed Forces who 
participated in operations in Korea after the end of the Korean War. 
Fifty years ago, American men and women were fighting a very tough war 
in Korea. We commemorate their heroism in many ways half a century 
later, and pause at the beautiful memorial to those who served in that 
conflict located here in Washington. That war and those heroes, 
however, are only the first part of the story. The rest of the story is 
about the more than 40,000 members of the United States armed forces 
who have served in Korea since the signing of the cease-fire agreement 
in July 1953.
  Technically speaking, North and South Korea remain at war to this 
day, and during the intervening cease fire, the uncertain ``peace'' has 
been challenged many many times. According to statistics I have read, 
the North Koreans have breached the cease-fire agreement more than 
40,000 times since 1954 using virtually every method of limited attacks 
you could think of. Some 1,239 U.S. service personnel have been killed 
in Korea during the past 47 years; 87 have been captured, held 
prisoner, and in many cases, tortured.
  During the past five decades, our service men and women in Korea have 
performed their duties in a virtual tinderbox waiting for a match. 
There is no question about the danger of their assignment. Some 70 
percent of North Korea's active military force, including about 700,000 
troops, more than 8,000 artillery systems, and 2000 tanks are within 90 
miles of the Demilitarized Zone, DMZ. Military experts estimate that a 
massive North Korean attack could overrun South Korea's capital at 
Seoul in a matter of hours or days. A potential frontal assault by 
North Korean troops would have the backing of more than 500 short range 
ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction in 
addition to conventional warheads.
  It is amazing to me to have discovered that despite all of these 
facts, the Department of Defense has not awarded service awards to 
those who served in Korea during the Cold War. It should be noted that 
there have been more casualties in Korea since 1954 that in Sinai, 
Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Kuwait, and yet 
service awards have been presented to participants in each of those 
operations, but not to those who have served in Korea. General Thomas 
Schwartz, current Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces Korea has 
recognized this injustice and supports the award I am proposing today.
  Representative Elton Gallegly from California introduced this bill in 
the House recently, and I am honored to do so here in the Senate. I 
urge my colleagues to join with me to attain swift passage of this 
measure which is a long overdue expression of recognition and gratitude 
to the thousands of American men and women in uniform who have put 
their lives literally on the front line for peace and freedom.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Kerry, and Mr. Corzine).
  S. 1000. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Act of 1990 to provide incentive grants to improve the quality of child 
care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care 
Quality Incentive Act of 2001, which seeks to provide incentive grants 
to improve the quality of child care in this country.
  The child care system in this country is in crisis; the need for 
affordable and accessible high quality child care far exceeds the 
supply.
  As long as an estimated 14 million children under age six, including 
six million infants and toddlers, spend some part of every day in child 
care, the availability of quality programs and settings will continue 
to be a serious issue facing this Nation.
  With full-day child care costing as much as $4,000 to $10,000 per 
year, per child, and with Federal assistance severely limited, many 
working families cannot afford quality child care. For low-income 
families with young children, the cost of child care can consume 
anywhere from 25 to 45 percent of their monthly income.
  And the demand for all types of child care is likely to increase, as 
maternal employment continues to rise, as well as the need to meet the 
requirements of welfare reform. At the same time the need for care is 
growing, we must focus on the quality of care provided for our 
children.
  Many studies, including research findings from the National Institute 
for Child Health and Development, show that quality early care and 
education leads to increased cognitive abilities, positive classroom 
learning behavior, an increased likelihood of long-term school success, 
and consequently, a greater likelihood of long-term and social self-
sufficiency.
  High quality child care not only prepares children for school, it 
helps them succeed in life. We must therefore be more diligent in our 
efforts to improve the quality of child care in this country.
  Quality of care means providing a safe, healthy environment for our 
children; well-trained providers; good staff-to-child ratios so staff 
can interact with the children in a developmental setting; low staff 
turnover that fosters a sense of security for the children; and age-
appropriate activities that enhance learning.
  When we look at the quality of our current system, the findings are 
appalling. A study of Federal, nonprofit, for-profit, and in-home child 
care settings conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
found that two-thirds of these child care settings had at least one 
major safety hazard. The study documented at least 56 deaths among 
children in child care settings since 1990, and reported that in 1997, 
31,000 children ages four and younger received emergency room treatment 
for injuries in child care centers or schools.

[[Page S5980]]

  Another study in four States found that only 1 in 7 child care 
centers provide care that promotes healthy development, while 1 in 8 
child care centers provide care that actually threatens the safety and 
health of children.
  The results of a very recent study conducted by the Center for the 
Child Care Workforce are also startling. It finds that the child care 
industry is losing well-educated teaching staff and administrators at 
an alarming rate and hiring replacement teachers with less training and 
education.
  This study, conducted over a six-year period from 1994 to 2000, found 
that 76 percent of the teaching staff employed in the centers surveyed 
in 1996, and 82 percent of those working in the centers in 1994 were no 
longer on the job in 2000. And of those teaching staff who left, nearly 
half had completed a bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of 
the new teachers who replaced them.

  Furthermore, the study found that director turnover rates were 
exceedingly high, contributing to staff instability. Teaching staff and 
directors reported that high turnover among their colleagues negatively 
affected their ability to do their jobs.
  We frequently hear of the critical shortage of qualified elementary 
and secondary school teachers. In contrast, the staffing crisis in 
early care barely registers in the public awareness, but is equally 
important and worthy of our attention.
  The inability of many child care centers to offer competitive 
salaries is a serious obstacle to attracting and retaining qualified 
staff. Despite recognition that higher wages contribute to greater 
staff stability, compensation for the majority of teaching positions 
has not kept pace with the cost of living over the last six years.
  Wages, when adjusted for inflation, have actually decreased six 
percent for day care teaching staff, and K-12 teachers earn up to twice 
as much as child care providers with equivalent education and 
experience. At present, there is little economic incentive to begin or 
continue a career in child care.
  Researchers have consistently found that the cornerstone of quality 
child care is the presence of sensitive, consistent, well-trained and 
well-compensated caregivers. Yet many centers are unable to provide 
children with even this most essential component of early care.
  This high rate of safety hazards and unstable workforce results 
significantly from low payment or reimbursement rates for the provision 
of child care. Prior to October 1996, states were required to make 
payments to (or subsidize) child care providers based on the 75th 
percentile of the market rate, or the level at which parents can afford 
75 out of 100 local providers.
  However, with the passage of welfare reform legislation, this 
requirement, which had not been effectively enforced in the first 
place, completely vanished. Currently, federal Child Care Development 
Fund regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every 
other year, but there is no requirement for States to actually use the 
market rate surveys to set payment rates.
  Indeed, according to a February 1998 report by the Department of 
Health and Human Services, 29 out of the 50 States and the District of 
Columbia did not make payment rates that were based on the 75th 
percentile of the current market rate, often asserting that budget 
constraints prevented them from doing so.
  Furthermore, a January 1998 General Accounting Office report noted 
that while states conduct biennial market surveys, some set 
reimbursement rates based on older surveys. And when States set 
reimbursement rates significantly lower than actual costs, child care 
choices for families become severely limited.
  When States set low rates or fail to update rates, they force working 
families into a difficult dilemma, they must either place their 
children into lower cost, lower quality child care programs that will 
accept the State subsidy or come up with extra dollars to supplement 
the State subsidy and buy better quality child care.
  The Children's Defense Fund, in a March 1998 report entitled, 
``Locked Doors: States Struggling to Meet the Child Care Needs of Low-
Income Working Families,'' noted that when rates are set below the 
market rate, child care providers are forced to cut corners ``in ways 
that lower the quality of care for children.''
  And when rates fall below the real cost of providing care, child care 
providers who do not choose to reduce staff or lower salaries and 
benefits, allow physical conditions to deteriorate, forgo educational 
book, toy, and equipment purchases, may simply not accept children with 
subsidies, or may go out of business. These dilemmas can be avoided if 
we help States set payment rates that keep up with the market.
  Recently, Rhode Island and many other States celebrated the sixth 
annual national Provider Appreciation Day, which presented us with an 
opportunity to honor one of the most under-recognized and under-
compensated professions. I am therefore pleased to be joined by Senator 
Chris Dodd, a leader in improving child care, along with Senators 
Kennedy, Murray, Kerry, and Corzine in introducing the Child Care 
Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts 
and renew the child care partnership with the states by providing 
incentive funding for States to increase payment rates.
  Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under 
the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, 
coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the 
foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the 
provision of quality child care.
  Increasing payment rates for the provision of child care is the key 
to quality. Better payment rates lead to higher quality child care as 
child care providers are able to attract and retain qualified staff, 
maintain a safe and healthy environment, and purchase age-appropriate 
educational materials.
  At the same time, increased payment rates expand the number of 
choices parents have in finding quality child care, as providers are 
able to accept children whose parents had previously been unable to 
afford the cost of care.
  While there is currently money available through the CCDBG that may 
be spent for quality initiatives, most states opt to expand 
availability of care rather than focus on quality. This bill allows 
funding to be used only for quality initiatives.
  We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child 
care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, the 
Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the 
National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and 
agencies across the country.
  Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. 
We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, 
buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children 
need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and 
well-being of children in this country. But as we approach the 21st 
century, we need to do more. If we are serious about putting parents to 
work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help 
for families.
  Our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, our children, deserve 
better from us. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, 
Murray, Kerry, Corzine, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality 
of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act.
  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. 1000

       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 ``Child Care Quality Incentive 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Recent research on early brain development reveals that 
     much of a child's growth is determined by early learning and 
     nurturing care. Research also shows that quality early care 
     and education leads to increased cognitive abilities, 
     positive classroom learning behavior, increased likelihood of 
     long-term school success, and greater

[[Page S5981]]

     likelihood of long-term economic and social self-sufficiency.
       (2) Each day an estimated 13,000,000 children, including 
     6,000,000 infants and toddlers, spend some part of their day 
     in child care. However, a study in 4 States found that only 1 
     in 7 child care centers provide care that promotes healthy 
     development, while 1 in 8 child care centers provide care 
     that threatens the safety and health of children.
       (3) Full-day child care can cost $4,000 to $10,000 per 
     year.
       (4) Although Federal assistance is available for child 
     care, funding is severely limited. Even with Federal 
     subsidies, many families cannot afford child care. For 
     families with young children and a monthly income under 
     $1,200, the cost of child care typically consumes 25 percent 
     of their income.
       (5) Payment (or reimbursement) rates, which determine the 
     maximum the State will reimburse a child care provider for 
     the care of a child who receives a subsidy, are too low to 
     ensure that quality care is accessible to all families.
       (6) Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care 
     children get and whether families can find quality child care 
     in their communities. In many instances, low payment rates 
     force child care providers to cut corners in ways that lower 
     the quality of care for children, including reducing number 
     of staff, eliminating staff training opportunities, and 
     cutting enriching educational activities and services.
       (7) Children in low quality child care are more likely to 
     have delayed reading and language skills, and display more 
     aggression toward other children and adults.
       (8) Increased payment rates lead to higher quality child 
     care as child care providers are able to attract and retain 
     qualified staff, provide salary increases and professional 
     training, maintain a safe and healthy environment, and 
     purchase basic supplies and developmentally appropriate 
     educational materials.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to improve the 
     quality of, and access to, child care by increasing child 
     care payment rates.

     SEC. 3. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD 
                   CARE.

       (a) Funding.--Section 658B of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``There'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(other than section 
     658H)'' after ``this subchapter''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Appropriation of Funds for Grants To Improve the 
     Quality of Child Care.--Out of any funds in the Treasury that 
     are not otherwise appropriated, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated and there are appropriated, $500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year, for the purpose of making grants 
     under section 658H.''.
       (b) Use of Block Grant Funds.--Section 658E(c)(3) of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858c(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``under this 
     subchapter'' and inserting ``from funds appropriated under 
     section 658B(a)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``(other than section 
     658H)'' after ``under this subchapter''.
       (c) Establishment of Program.--Section 658G(a) of the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858e(a)) is amended by inserting ``(other than section 
     658H)'' after ``this subchapter''.
       (d) Grants To Improve the Quality of Child Care.--The Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 
     et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 658G the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 658H. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the amount 
     appropriated under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year to make 
     grants to eligible States in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Annual payments.--The Secretary shall make an annual 
     payment for such a grant to each eligible State out of the 
     allotment for that State determined under subsection (c).
       ``(b) Eligible States.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     State' means a State that--
       ``(A) has conducted a survey of the market rates for child 
     care services in the State within the 2 years preceding the 
     date of the submission of an application under paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(B) submits an application in accordance with paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Application.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information, in addition to the information required 
     under subparagraph (B), as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Information required.--Each application submitted for 
     a grant under this section shall--
       ``(i) detail the methodology and results of the State 
     market rates survey conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A);
       ``(ii) describe the State's plan to increase payment rates 
     from the initial baseline determined under clause (i); and
       ``(iii) describe how the State will increase payment rates 
     in accordance with the market survey results.
       ``(3) Continuing eligibility requirement.--The Secretary 
     may make an annual payment under this section to an eligible 
     State only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the State has made 
     progress, through the activities assisted under this 
     subchapter, in maintaining increased payment rates; and
       ``(B) at least once every 2 years, the State conducts an 
     update of the survey described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(4) Requirement of matching funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, the State shall agree to make available State 
     contributions from State sources toward the costs of the 
     activities to be carried out by a State pursuant to 
     subsection (d) in an amount that is not less than 25 percent 
     of such costs.
       ``(B) Determination of state contributions.--State 
     contributions shall be in cash. Amounts provided by the 
     Federal Government may not be included in determining the 
     amount of such State contributions.
       ``(c) Allotments to Eligible States.--The amount 
     appropriated under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year shall be 
     allotted among the eligible States in the same manner as 
     amounts are allotted under section 658O(b).
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Priority use.--An eligible State that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the funds received to 
     significantly increase the payment rate for the provision of 
     child care assistance in accordance with this subchapter up 
     to the 100th percentile of the market rate survey described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Additional uses.--An eligible State that demonstrates 
     to the Secretary that the State has achieved a payment rate 
     of the 100th percentile of the market rate survey described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A) may use funds received under a grant 
     made under this section for any other activity that the State 
     demonstrates to the Secretary will enhance the quality of 
     child care services provided in the State.
       ``(3) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts paid to a State 
     under this section shall be used to supplement and not 
     supplant other Federal, State, or local funds provided to the 
     State under this subchapter or any other provision of law.
       ``(e) Evaluations and Reports.--
       ``(1) State evaluations.--Each eligible State shall submit 
     to the Secretary, at such time and in such form and manner as 
     the Secretary may require, information regarding the State's 
     efforts to increase payment rates and the impact increased 
     rates are having on the quality of, and accessibility to, 
     child care in the State.
       ``(2) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall submit 
     biennial reports to Congress on the information described in 
     paragraph (1). Such reports shall include data from the 
     applications submitted under subsection (b)(2) as a baseline 
     for determining the progress of each eligible State in 
     maintaining increased payment rates.
       ``(f) Payment Rate.--In this section, the term `payment 
     rate' means the rate of reimbursement to providers for 
     subsidized child care.''.
       (e) Payments.--Section 658J(a) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858h(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``from funds appropriated under section 
     658B(a)'' after ``section 658O''.
       (f) Allotment.--Section 658O of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``this subchapter'' and 
     inserting ``section 658B(a)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 658B'' and 
     inserting ``section 658B(a)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by inserting ``each subsection of'' before 
     ``section 658B''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the allotment under 
     subsection (b)'' and inserting ``an allotment made under 
     subsection (b)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``corresponding'' before 
     ``allotment''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Miller, Mr. Craig, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1002. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
certain provisions relating to the treatment of forestry activities; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation 
Tax Credit Incentives Act of 2001, and I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Breaux, Hutchinson, Miller, Craig, 
Landrieu, Gordon Smith, and Collins.
  The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the 
U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an 
annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten 
manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine 
where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, 
future

[[Page S5982]]

growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners 
will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value 
such as development. The loss of a healthy and strong forest products 
industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and 
the environment.
  The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance 
between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax 
treatment, reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals 
and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the 
reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or 
previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture.
  Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more 
typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower 
faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which 
are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by 
providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based 
on the number of years the asset is held.
  The bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for 
timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent 
for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50 
percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 10 percent for 
non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations.
  Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, 
making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the 
ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and 
inflationary gain in timber. In 1986, the capital gains tax was 
repealed for all taxpayers. The 1997 tax bill reinstituted the lower 
capital gains rate for individuals, but not for businesses. As a 
result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 20 percent, 
while businesses face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical 
asset.
  As this difference in rates implies, private timberland owners 
receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate 
owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are 
also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the 
disparity that companies face.
  Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate 
in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. 
domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive 
intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber 
costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations 
who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While 
there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, 
Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes 
to taxation.
  This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage 
in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to receive 
a tax credit. The legislation removes the current dollar limitation of 
the $10,000 amount of reforestation expenses that are eligible for the 
ten percent tax credit and that are allowed to be deducted, and 
decreases from 7 to 5 years the amortization period over which these 
expenses can be deducted.
  Eligible reforestation expenses would be the initial expenses to 
establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of 
the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to 
care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of 
equipment used in reforestation.
  The planting of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by 
our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the 
environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, 
providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide 
from the atmosphere, the major greenhouse gas causing climate change 
according to the majority of renowned international scientists.
  Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease 
pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, 
allowing these public lands to be protected.
  I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for 
the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of 
our economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1003. A bill to ensure the safety of children placed in child care 
centers in Federal facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1004. A bill to provide for the construction and renovation of 
child care facilities; and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a great need to improve child 
care in this country. America lags far behind all other industrialized 
nations in caring for and educating our pre-school aged children. We 
have the opportunity to make improvements, and we need to act now. I 
rise today, to introduce two small, but vitally important child care 
bills: the Child Care Construction and Renovation Act and the Federal 
Employees Child Care Act.
  The Child Care Construction and Renovation Act is as much a small 
business assistance bill as it is a child care bill. Child care 
providers are small business owners. Almost every child care provider 
that I have talked with over the past few years wants the opportunity 
to expand their services, increase their skills, and improve their 
facilities. But the child care business is a financially unstable 
endeavor. Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it 
increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies 
and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to 
keep their doors open.
  The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed a couple of years 
ago because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of 
all family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care 
close each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too 
often that is barely enough to keep a child care provider in business.
  This legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the 
renovation and construction of child care facilities. First, it amends 
the National Housing Act to provide mortgage insurance on new and 
rehabilitated child care facilities. It creates a revolving fund to 
help with the purchase or refinancing of existing child care 
facilities. Second, it provides funds for local, non-profit community 
development organizations to provide technical assistance and small 
grants to child care providers to help them improve and expand their 
center- or home-based child care facilities.
  Without some government help, child care providers cannot expand 
their services to provide care for many families seeking affordable, 
quality care for their children. They cannot upgrade their equipment or 
make improvements to better ensure the safety of children in their 
care. Just as the government provides funds and services to encourage 
the building and renovation of low-income housing, child care, with its 
low-profit potential needs a similar helping hand.
  The second bill which I am introducing today is the Federal Employees 
Child Care Act. The Federal Government is the largest American provider 
or employer-sponsored, on-site child care. Congress has acted 
affirmatively with an extensive commitment to on-site child care for 
its employees. The General Services Administration, (GSA), has 
developed considerable expertise in helping agencies start and maintain 
quality child care services for the children of Federal employees.
  However, there are some problems which we, as an employer, need to 
address. As you know, federal property is exempt from state and local 
laws, regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care 
centers located on that property is that state and local health and 
safety standards do not and cannot apply. This might not be a problem 
if federally-owned or leased child care centers met enforceable health 
and safety standards. I think most parents who place their children in 
federal child care would assume that this would be the case. However, I 
think Federal employees will find it very surprising to learn, as I 
did, that, at many centers, no such health and safety apply.
  I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our Federal employees 
a bill of

[[Page S5983]]

goods when federally-owed leased child care cannot guarantee that their 
children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government should set the 
example when it comes to providing safe child care. It should not turn 
an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards simply because state 
and local regulations do not apply to them.
  In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted 
executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a 
portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child 
care services for federal employees. The General Services 
Administration, (GSA), was given the authority to provide guidance, 
assistance, and oversight to Federal agencies for the development of 
child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was 
passed, hundreds of Federal facilities throughout the nation have 
established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to 
our employees.
  The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of 
helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong 
standards for those centers located in GSA leased or owned space. 
However, there are over 100 child care centers located in Federal 
facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws, 
rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for 
our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child 
care center, assume that some standards are in place, assume that the 
centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules 
and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to 
independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety 
of the premises.

  Yet, that is not the case. In a case where a Federal employee had 
strong reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee 
of a child care center located in a Federal facility, local child 
protective services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to 
the premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. 
Another employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care 
providers under contract with a Federal agency to provide on-site child 
care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety 
measures were taken, current law says they were not required to do so, 
even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred.
  It is time to get our own house in order. We must safeguard and 
protect the children receiving services in child care centers housed in 
Federal facilities. Our employees should not be denied some assurance 
that the centers in which they place their children are accountable for 
meeting basic health and safety standards.
  The Federal Employees Child Care Act will require all child care 
services located in Federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the 
same level of health and safety standards required of other child care 
centers in the same geographical area. That sounds like common sense, 
but as we all know too well, common sense is not always reflected in 
the law. This bill will make that clear.
  Further, this legislation demands that Federal child care centers 
begin working to meet these standards now. Not next year, not in two 
years, but now. Under this bill, after six months we will look at the 
Federal child care centers again, and if a center is not meeting 
minimal state and local health and safety regulations at that time, 
that child care facility will be closed until it does. I can think of 
no stronger incentive to get centers to comply.
  The legislation makes it clear that State and local standards should 
be a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of 
the Federal Government, and, I like to think, of the United States 
Congress in particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to 
lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the 
highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national 
accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that 
almost all of its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously 
working to get there. This is the kind of tough standard we should 
strive for in all of our Federal child care facilities.
  Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on 
a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide 
safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making 
sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal 
employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can do better.
  I urge swift passage of these important child care bills and hope 
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Cleland, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1005. A bill to provide assistance to mobilize and support United 
States communities in carrying out community-based youth development 
programs that assure that all youth have access to programs and 
services that build the competencies and character development needed 
to fully prepare the youth to become adults and effective citizens, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Stevens, 
Kennedy, Cleland, and Dodd to introduce the Younger American's Act. We 
launched this effort at the end of the last Congress, with the help of 
General Colin Powell. This legislation embraces the belief that youth 
are our Nation's most important responsibility and that their needs 
must be moved to a higher priority on our Nation's agenda.
  It is not enough that government responds to youth when they get into 
trouble with drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence. We need to strengthen 
the positive rather than simply respond to the negative. Positive youth 
development, the framework for the Younger American's Act, is not just 
about preventing bad things from happening, but giving a nudge to help 
good things happen. And we know that it works.
  Evaluations of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, 
mentoring, and other youth development programs have consistently 
demonstrated how well these programs work. These programs lead to 
significant increases in parental involvement, youth participation in 
constructive education, social and recreation activities, enrollment in 
post-secondary education, and community involvement. Just as important, 
youth actively participating in youth development programs show 
decreased rates of school failure and absenteeism, teen pregnancy, 
delinquency, substance abuse, and violent behavior.
  We also know that risk taking behavior increases with age. One-third 
of the high school juniors and seniors participate in two or more 
health risk behaviors. That is why it is important to build a youth 
development infrastructure that engages youth as they enter pre-
adolescence and keeps them engaged throughout their teen years. The 
Younger American's Act is targeted to youth aged 10 to 19. This 
encompasses both the critical middle-school years, as well as the 
increasingly risky high school years.
  The Younger American's Act is about creating a national policy on 
youth. Up until now, government has responded to kids after they have 
gotten into trouble. We must take a new tack. Instead of just treating 
problems, we have to promote healthy development. We have to remember 
that just because a kid stays out of trouble, it doesn't mean that he 
or she is ready to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. Kids want 
direction, they want close bonds with parents and other adult mentors. 
And I believe we owe them that. Ideally, this comes from strong 
families, but communities and government can help.
  In order to keep kids engaged in positive activities, youth must be 
viewed as resources; as active participants in finding solutions to 
their own problems. Parents also must be part of those solutions. This 
legislation requires that youth and parents be part of the decision-
making process.
  The United States does not have a cohesive federal policy on youth. 
Creating an Office on National Youth Policy within the White House not 
only raises the priority of youth on the Federal agenda, but provides 
an opportunity to more effectively coordinate existing Federal youth 
programs to increase their impact on the lives of

[[Page S5984]]

young Americans. The efforts of the Office of National Youth Policy in 
advocating for the needs of youth, and the Department of Health and 
Human Services in implementing the Younger American's Act will be 
helped by the Council on National Youth Policy. This Council, comprised 
of youth, parents, experts in youth development, and representatives 
from the business community, will help ensure that this initiative 
continually responds to the changing needs of youth and their 
communities. It will bring a ``real world'' perspective to the Federal 
efforts.
  The Younger American's Act provides communities with the funding 
necessary to adequately ensure that youth have access to five core 
resources: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with 
structured activities in which to grow and learn; services that promote 
healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and 
mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and 
competencies; and opportunities for community service and civic 
participation.
  Block grant funds will be used to expand existing resources, create 
new ones where none existed before, overcome barriers to accessing 
those resources, and fill gaps to create a cohesive network for youth. 
The funds will be funneled through States, based on an allocation 
formula that equally weighs population and poverty measures, to 
communities where the primary decisions regarding the use of the funds 
will take place. Thirty percent of the local funds are set aside to 
address the needs of youth who are particularly vulnerable, such as 
those who are in out-of-home placements, abused or neglected, living in 
high poverty areas, or living in rural areas where there are usually 
fewer resources. Dividing the State into regions, or ``planning and 
mobilization areas,'' ensures that funds will be equitably distributed 
throughout a State. Empowering community boards, comprised of youth, 
parents, and other members of the community, to supervise decisions 
regarding the use of the block grant funds ensures that the programs, 
services, and activities supported by the Act will be responsive to 
local needs.
  Accountability is integral to any effective Federal program. The 
Younger American's Act provides the Department of Health and Human 
Services with the responsibility and funding to conduct research and 
evaluate the effectiveness of funded initiatives. States and the 
Department are charged with monitoring the use of funds by grantees, 
and empowered to withhold or reduce funds if problems arise.
  The Younger American's Act will help kids gain the skills and 
experience they need to successfully navigate the rough waters of 
adolescence. My twenty-first century community learning centers 
initiative supports the efforts of schools to operate after school 
programs that emphasize academic enrichment. It's time to get the rest 
of the community involved. It's time to give the same level of support 
to the thousands of youth development and youth-serving organizations 
that struggle to keep their doors open every day.
  I remember a young man, Brad Luck, who testified before the H.E.L.P. 
Committee several years ago. As a 14-year-old, Brad embarked on a two-
year mission to open a teen center in his home town of Essex Junction, 
Vermont. He formed a student board of directors, sought 501(c)(3) 
status and gave over 25 community presentations to convince the town to 
back the program. Demonstrating the tenacity of youth, he then spear-
headed a successful drive to raise $30,000 in 30 days to fund the 
start-up of the center. Today, the center is thriving in its town-
donated space. This is an example of the type of community asset 
building supported by the Younger American's Act.
  The Younger American's Act is about an investment in our youth, our 
communities, and our future. I want to thank America's Promise, the 
United Way, and the National Collaboration for Youth for their work in 
providing the original framework for the legislation. I am proud and 
excited to be part of this important initiative.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his 
leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join 
him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four 
youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth 
and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They 
have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need 
for a positive national strategy for youth.
  Our goal in introducing the The Younger Americans Act is to establish 
a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as 
problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended 
to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide 
programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of 
adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans 
Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will 
provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that 
assure that all youth have access to the skills and character 
development needed to become good citizens.
  In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head 
Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have 
created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school-
age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up 
to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start. 
It's time to do the same thing for adolescents.
  Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in 
initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth 
development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in 
1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool 
Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth 
development programs at the community level produce powerful and 
positive results.
  In his report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth 
Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin, 
professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to 
rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly 
during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement 
is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet 
the needs of today's youth.
  Effective community-based youth development programs build on five 
core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core 
resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need 
ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured 
activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, 
opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for 
community service and community participation.
  The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to 
give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to 
involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide 
$5.75 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth 
development programs that recognize the primary role of the family, 
promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community, 
and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance 
and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates 
an Office on National Youth Policy and a Council on National Youth 
Policy which includes youth and ensures their participation in finding 
solutions to their own problems.
  Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not 
their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative 
message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with 
negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a 
positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish 
this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the 
strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop 
positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and 
community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and 
youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families.
  The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth 
and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the 
resources to implement positive and

[[Page S5985]]

practical programs effectively without creating duplicate programs. It 
is important that we tie together all publicly funded existing youth 
development programs and build on their success. This bill complements 
other existing programs, like the Work Force Investment Program, in 
helping young people become productive members of society. Investing in 
youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and 
our country. I urge all Members of Congress to join in supporting this 
important legislation.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to once again join 
Senator Jeffords as a cosponsor of the Younger Americans Act. The 
Senator from Vermont has done yeoman's work on this legislation, which 
seeks to offer the same kind of comprehensive and coordinated support 
to America's young people that the landmark 1965 Older Americans Act 
provides to our nation's seniors. By creating an Office of National 
Youth Policy in the White House, by authorizing over $5 billion over 
the next five years to help local community organizations provide 
needed services and supports to their youth, the Younger Americans Act 
forges a national youth policy which prioritizes the needs of our young 
people and helps to provide them with the critical resources they need 
to achieve their full potential and become contributing members of 
their communities.
  The recently released 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book, a State-by-State 
report on the conditions facing America's children, found that the 
well-being of our youth improved over the past decade on seven of ten 
key KIDS COUNT measures. The national rate of teen deaths by accident, 
homicide and suicide fell by a substantial 24 percent. The number of 
teens ages 16-19 who dropped out of high school declined from 10 
percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1998. And there has been a steady 
decline in the rate of teenage births, which fell by a significant 19 
percent between 1990 and 1998.
  On the other hand, the 2001 KIDS COUNT Data Book also reports that 
more than 16 million children have parents who, despite being employed 
full time, struggle from paycheck to paycheck. In addition, the report 
finds that the number of single parent households in this country is on 
the rise. In 1998, 27 percent of families with children were headed by 
a single parent, up from 24 percent in 1990--and every State but three 
experienced an increase.
  According to the 2000 Census, there was a 14 percent increase in the 
number of children in America in the last decade--the largest increase 
in the number of children living in this country since the decade of 
the 1950s. This significant increase in the under-18 population will 
undoubtedly mean new challenges and new demands on ``our already 
struggling public education, child care, and family support systems,'' 
as Douglas Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation which 
publishes the KIDS COUNT report, points out. The Younger Americans Act 
will help this nation meet these new demands by providing a framework 
which fosters the positive development of all our nation's youth. This 
is a strategy in marked contrast to previous government policies which 
respond to youngsters only after they have gotten into trouble. It is a 
significant fact that more than 200 young people took part in drafting 
the original legislation. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, 
these youngsters were telling us that it is time to redirect our focus 
on what is right with our young people, not what is wrong.
  The Younger Americans Act will support community-based efforts that 
provide young people access to five core resources: ongoing 
relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured 
activities; services that promote healthy lifestyles; opportunities to 
acquire marketable skills; and opportunities for community service and 
civic participation. Such a positive support system ideally comes from 
strong families, but communities and government can play a part. The 
successful Head Start and 21st Century Community Leaning Centers 
programs have provided support systems for parents of America's younger 
children. The Younger Americans Act will provide support structure for 
our adolescents during the vulnerable years between ages 10 and 19. It 
stresses the pivotal role of the family and emphasizes the critical 
importance of parental involvement.
  James Agee once said: ``As in every child who is born, under no 
matter what circumstances and of no matter what parents, the 
potentiality of the human race is born again.'' The Younger Americans 
Act recognizes and affirms that an investment in our children is an 
investment in America's future.

                          ____________________