[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6992-S7002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself Mr. Wellstone, Mr Kennedy, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, Mrs Murray, Mr. 
        Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Baucus, Mr. Rockefeller and Mrs. Boxer).
  S. 1107. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the 
Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in 
labor disputes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I, along with 15 of my colleagues are 
introducing a bill today that addresses an issue we haven't talked 
enough about in the Senate in recent years--but it's a critically 
important issue that we cannot continue to ignore.
  I'm talking about workers' rights--specifically the erosion of a 
worker's fundamental right to strike, to protect that right.
  Today, we are introducing the Workplace Fairness Act. This may sound 
familiar to many of my colleagues here in the Senate. It was a bill my 
good friend and former colleague Senator Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio 
introduced in the 102nd and 103rd congress.
  The Workplace Fairness Act would amend the National Labor Relations

[[Page S6993]]

Act and the Railway Labor Act by prohibiting employers from hiring 
permanent replacement workers during a strike. It would also make it an 
unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to allow a striking 
worker who has made an unconditional offer to return to go back to 
work.
  Why do we need this legislation?
  Because right now, a right to strike is a right to be permanently 
replaced--to lose your job. Every cut-rate, cutthroat employer knows 
they can break a union if they are willing to play hardball and ruin 
the lives of the people who have made their company what it is. In my 
own state of Iowa--Titan Tire Company out of Des Moines, is trying to 
drive out the union workers with permanent replacements--the union has 
been on strike for three years now.
  Over the past two decades, workers' right to strike has too often 
been undermined by the destructive practice of hiring permanent 
replacement workers. Since the 1980s, permanent replacements have been 
used again and again to break unions and to shift the balance between 
workers and management.
  Titan Tire just outside is just one of many examples.
  On May 1, 1998, the 650 members of the United Steelworkers of 
America, Local 164, who work in Des Moines Titan Tire plant, were 
forced into an Unfair Labor Practice Strike.
  During the contract negotiations preceding this strike, Titan 
International Inc. President and CEO, Morry Taylor, attempted to 
eliminate pension and medical benefits and illegally move jobs and 
equipment out of the plant. He also forced employees to work excessive 
mandatory overtime, sometimes working people as many as 26 days in a 
row without a day off.
  Well, the membership decided that Titan's final offer was impossible 
to accept, and they voted to strike. Two months later, in July, 1998, 
Titan began hiring permanent replacement workers.
  During the past three years, approximately 500 permanent replacement 
workers have been hired at the Des Moines plant. And little or no 
progress has been made toward reaching a fair settlement. In fact on 
April 30, 2000, the day before the second anniversary of the Titan 
strike, Morrie Taylor predicted that the strike would never be settled.
  Workers deserve better than this. Workers aren't disposable assets 
that can be thrown away when labor disputes arise.
  When we considered this legislation in 1994, the Senate labor and 
Human Resources Committee heard poignant testimony about the emotional 
and financial hardships caused by hiring permanent replacement workers. 
We heard about workers losing their homes; going without health 
insurance because of the high costs of COBRA coverage; feeling useless 
when they were permanently replaced after years of loyal service.
  The right to strike--which we all know is a last resort since no 
worker takes the financial risk of a strike lightly--is fundamental to 
preserving workers' rights to bargain for better wages and better 
working conditions. Without the right to strike, workers forgo their 
fair share of bargaining power.
  Permanent striker replacement not only affects the workers who were 
replaced. It affects other workers in competing companies. When one 
employer in an industry breaks a union, hires permanent replacements, 
and cuts salaries and benefits, it affects all the other companies in 
the industry. Now they either have to find a way to compete with the 
low-wages and shoddy benefits of a cut-rate, cut-throat business--or 
they have to follow suit.
  Also, workers faced with being replaced are forced to make a choice. 
They can either stay with the union and fight for their jobs, or they 
can cross the picket line to avoid losing the jobs they've held for ten 
or twenty or thirty years.
  Is this a free choice, as some of our colleagues would suggest? Or is 
this blackmail that takes away the rights and the dignity of the 
workers of this country? What does it mean to tell workers, ``you have 
the right to strike''--when we allow them to be summarily fired for 
exercising that right?
  In reality, there is no legal right to strike today. And because 
there is no legal right to strike, there is no legal right to bargain 
collectively. And since there is no legal right to bargain 
collectively, there is no level playing field between workers and 
management.
  In other words, Management gets to say that you must bargain on their 
terms--or find some other place to work. If you're permanently 
replaced, that means you're out of work; you lose all your pension 
rights; you lose your seniority; you lose your job forever.
  How did this happen? We've got to go back to the 1930's for the 
answer.
  In response to widespread worker abuses--and union busting--Congress 
passed the National Labor Relations Act--the Wagner Act--in 1935 and it 
was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The Wagner Act guarantees 
workers the right to organize and bargain collectively and strike if 
necessary. It makes it illegal for companies to interfere with these 
rights. In fact, it specifies the right to strike and states: `Nothing 
in this act--except as specifically provided herein--shall be construed 
so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to 
strike.'
  In 1938, the Supreme Court dealt the Wagner Act a mortal blow in the 
case National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Mackay Radio and 
Telegraph Co. In that case, the Court said that Mackay Radio could hire 
permanent replacement workers for those engaged in an economic strike.
  There are two types of strikes: economic and unfair labor practices. 
Employers must rehire employees in unfair labor practice strikes. The 
NLRB determines if the strike is economic or based on unfair labor 
practices. Unions cannot know in advance whether NLRB will rule that 
their employer has engaged in unfair labor practices. So any employee 
participating in a strike runs a risk of permanently losing his or her 
job.
  What's interesting is that following the Court's ruling, companies 
did not take advantage of this loophole until the 1980s. Before then, 
they recognized that doing that would upset this level playing field. 
For almost 40 years, management rarely hired permanent replacements.
  That began to change in the 1980s. Since then, hiring permanent 
replacements has become a routine practice to break unions and shift 
the balance between workers and management.
  Again, the Workplace Fairness Act would restore the fundamental 
principle of fair labor-management relations--the right of workers to 
strike without having to fear losing their jobs.
  Permanent striker replacement keeps us from moving forward as a 
nation into an era of high-wage, high-skilled, highly productive jobs 
in the global marketplace. Without the right to strike, workers' rights 
will continue to erode. The result will be fewer incentives and less 
motivation to produce good work, and companies will also suffer with 
less quality in their products.
  Obviously, this legislation won't be adopted this year. But we are 
introducing it today to signal my intent on raising it and other 
fundamental labor law reforms in the next session of Congress. It's 
time for us to level the playing field for hard-working Americans.
  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. 1107

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

     SECTION 1. PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE 
                   CONCLUSION OF LABOR DISPUTES.

       Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6)(i) to offer, or to grant, the status of a permanent 
     replacement employee to an individual for performing 
     bargaining unit work for the employer during a labor dispute; 
     or
       ``(ii) to otherwise offer, or grant, an individual any 
     employment preference based on the fact that such individual 
     was employed, or indicated a willingness to be employed, 
     during a labor dispute over an individual who--

[[Page S6994]]

       ``(A) was an employee of the employer at the commencement 
     of the dispute;
       ``(B) has exercised the right to join, to assist, or to 
     engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of 
     collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 
     through the labor organization involved in the dispute; and
       ``(C) is working for, or has unconditionally offered to 
     return to work for, the employer.''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE 
                   CONCLUSION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

       Paragraph Fourth of section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 
     U.S.C. 152) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Fourth.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) No carrier, or officer or agent of the carrier, 
     shall--
       ``(1) offer, or grant, the status of a permanent 
     replacement employee to an individual for performing work in 
     a craft or class for the carrier during a dispute involving 
     the craft or class; or
       ``(2) otherwise offer, or grant, an individual any 
     employment preference based on the fact that such individual 
     was employed, or indicated a willingness to be employed, 
     during a dispute over an individual who--
       ``(A) was an employee of the carrier at the commencement of 
     the dispute;
       ``(B) has exercised the right to join, to organize, to 
     assist in organizing, or to bargain collectively through the 
     labor organization involved in the dispute; and
       ``(C) is working for, or has unconditionally offered to 
     return to work for, the carrier.''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend 
Senator Harkin as an original cosponsor of the Workplace Fairness Act 
of 2001. This measure, along with the ``Right to Organize Act of 
2001,'' which I introduced yesterday, are two of the most important 
pieces of legislation that will come before the Senate this year.
  Together, these measures strengthen workers' rights to organize, to 
join a union, and to advocate for fair collective bargaining and fair 
agreements. Together, these measures produce the basic platform for 
healthy economies, healthy communities, and healthy families.
  Specifically, the Striker Replacement Act is designed to combat an 
unfair labor practice which strikes at the very heart of the collective 
bargaining process in this country: the permanent replacement of 
striking workers. The goal of this Act is to restore the labor-
management balance in today's workplace by preventing the fundamental 
right to strike from being transformed into a right to be fired.
  The record shows that permanent replacement of striking workers has 
been used increasingly over the years. Private sector employers, 
emboldened by the Reagan Administration's permanent replacement of 
striking Federal employees in the early 1980's, began to use the 
permanent replacement of striking workers as a means of abrogating 
collective bargaining agreements and bringing in new hires often 
screened for their anti-union biases.
  The process is fairly simple: require major and unreasonable 
concessions of a union; force them to strike; permanently replace them 
with workers unsympathetic to the union; and move to decertify the 
union. This should be called what it is: outright union busting. And it 
should not be tolerated.
  The purpose of the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations 
Act was to respond to the persistent--and sometimes violent--denial by 
certain employers of the right to organize and bargain collectively. 
The resulting strikes and other forms of industrial unrest in the 
1930's were held by the courts to have severely burdened free and open 
commerce across the country. As a result, the Railway Labor Act and the 
National Labor Relations Act were passed, guided by two fundamental 
principles: 1. Employees have a right to pursue their interests 
collectively without fear of employer reprisals, and 2. Questions about 
representation must be separated from substantive issues in dispute. 
Government-supervised procedure should be established to ensure fair 
representation; while collective bargaining should be the forum for 
settling the remaining substantive disputes.
  This system and these principles are sound. Workers have a right to 
organize without being retaliated against for exercising that right. 
And they have a right to negotiate wages, benefits, and other items 
through collective bargaining.
  But these principles only work if the right to strike, in the words 
of the National Labor Relations Act, is not ``interfered with or 
impeded or diminished in any way.'' In 1938, the Supreme Court in the 
Mackay Radio case cut a huge swath through these guiding principles by 
creating the striker replacement doctrine. Under this doctrine, 
affirmed in subsequent decisions, such as Belknap v. Hale (1983) and 
TWA v. IFFA (1989), even though it is unlawful to fire a striking 
worker, it is not unlawful to permanently replace him or her.
  The distinction between firing and permanent replacement, is 
ludicrous--and it is untenable. The central practical reality--as any 
man or woman who has exercised his or her right to strike and has paid 
the consequences can tell you--in either case, whether it is called a 
firing or a permanent replacement--the employee loses their job because 
he or she has exercised the right to strike. That's the reality. That's 
the harsh reality.
  The measure we are introducing today is a simple one. It does two 
things: 1. It amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway 
Labor Act to prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacement 
workers during a strike, or giving employment preference to cross over 
employees, and 2. It makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer 
to refuse to allow a striking worker to return to work if that worker 
has unconditionally offered to return to work.
  It's that simple. These are fundamental protections. These are 
protections that are part of the basic compact with the American worker 
created by the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act. 
It is long past time that workers seeking to better their lives, their 
families, and their communities are given access to a collective 
bargaining process that is fair and even-handed. It is long past time 
that workers be allowed to advocate for reasonable terms and conditions 
of their employment without fear of devastating retribution.
  Finally, this measure not only meets the needs of workers, their 
families, and their communities, it also serves the interest of our 
nation in a global economy. As others have pointed out, if we are to 
remain strong and competitive as a nation, we must develop a highly 
motivated and skilled workforce and we must create stable worker-
employer relationships that are based on mutual respect and a mutual 
commitment to a joint economic enterprise. This will only happen if we 
level the playing field and support a just, sound, and effective 
collective bargaining process.
  This measure, the Workplace Fairness Act, is one key to achieving 
these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1108. A bill to authorize the transfer and conveyance of real 
property at the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague from Maine 
to introduce legislation facilitating the land conveyance at Winter 
Harbor, ME.
  First, may I note that this bill is the product of countless hours of 
hard work and deliberation by the communities it affects--Winter Harbor 
and Gouldsboro--the State of Maine, and the Maine Delegation. I would 
like to thank those involved: Chairmen Stan Torrey and Tom Mayor and 
members of the Gouldsboro and Winter Harbor Base Reuse Committees; Jean 
Marshall, the Defense Conversion Coordinator for Eastern Maine 
Development; Linda Pagels and Roger Barto, Town Managers for Gouldsboro 
and Winter Harbor; and Commander Edwin Williamson, Commanding Officer 
of Naval Security Group Activity Winter Harbor, for their efforts in 
crafting legislation that all concerned can support.
  The Navy has been a strong and supportive presence in the Winter 
Harbor region since the establishment of their facility over 80 years 
ago. What started as one man's patriotic efforts in World War I to 
establish a radio station for transatlantic communications developed 
into a complex network of sophisticated equipment that became Winter 
Harbor Naval Security Group Activity. Throughout the two World Wars and 
subsequent Cold War, the men and women stationed at Winter Harbor 
provided invaluable services in our Nation's defense.

[[Page S6995]]

  Maine and the Navy have always had a special relationship, and that 
relationship extended to Winter Harbor. The base and community embraced 
one another and developed a good neighbor relationship seldom seen 
between a military installation and the surrounding community. For both 
sides, it was truly a win-win situation. The sailors and their families 
enjoyed the hospitality of Maine while the towns of Winter harbor and 
Gouldsboro economically benefited from the Navy's presence.
  Unfortunately, the advent of new technology has made the equipment 
and mission of Winter Harbor obsolete. With the announcement that the 
Winter Harbor Naval Activity would close in June 2002, the communities 
began the laborious process of planning for life without the good 
neighbors of Winter Harbor NSGA.
  With this base closing, Maine will lose an economic base it has 
depended on for over 80 years. At its high point, Winter Harbor had 
approximately 250 sailors, 140 civilian employees, and their family 
members in residence and the base became an economic focal point for 
the region with an estimated $11 to $15 million being contributed to 
the local economy on an annual basis.
  To offset this impending loss, the towns applied for and received a 
small Economic Development Administration Defense Conversion Planning 
Grant in the amount of $200,000. While these funds proved crucial to 
the start of the reuse process, many needs still remain unmet. This 
legislation is intended to address some of those needs and to minimize 
the financial consequences of the base closure.
  The towns of Winter Harbor and Gouldsboro are not looking for 
charity. As you will see, this legislation's intent is to reimburse the 
towns for infrastructure improvements made at the Navy's behest and to 
provide the means for the region to restore its economic viability.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Maine Delegation has been working with 
the local communities, the State, Navy, and National Park Service to 
develop a comprehensive plan for reuse of the property and facilities. 
The primary facilities at Winter Harbor are located on a beautiful and 
breathtaking portion of the Maine coastline known as Schoodic Point. 
Once the base closes, this legislation dictates that the Schoodic Point 
property will shift to the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction 
for inclusion in Acadia National Park.
  In preparation for this property transfer, the National Park Service 
has initiated a plan to establish a Research and Education Center at 
the site. This center will host educational programs and private and 
public research facilities, becoming a source for meaningful employment 
and economic generation for the communities. However, the National Park 
Service effort will not be achieved overnight and, like all programs, 
requires adequate funding.
  As such, this legislation was drafted to include financial provisions 
to ease and expedite this transition as well as to reimburse the 
community for local services and infrastructure improvements.
  In closing, I would like to thank all of those in the local 
communities, the State of Maine, the Navy, and the National Park 
Service and, of course, my colleagues from the Maine Delegation for 
their assistance in crafting this legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this initiative and allow the good people of Winter Harbor and 
Gouldsboro to make the most of this unique base reuse opportunity.
  I ask unanimous consent 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. 1108

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

     SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL SECURITY GROUP 
                   ACTIVITY, WINTER HARBOR, MAINE.

       (a) Transfer of Jurisdiction of Schoodic Point Property 
     Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may transfer, 
     without consideration, to the Secretary of the Interior 
     administrative jurisdiction of a parcel of real property, 
     including any improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto, 
     consisting of approximately 26 acres as generally depicted as 
     Tract 15-116 on the map entitled ``Acadia National Park 
     Schoodic Point Area'', numbered 123/80,418 and dated May 
     2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection 
     in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
       (2) The transfer authorized by this subsection shall occur, 
     if at all, concurrently with the reversion of administrative 
     jurisdiction of a parcel of real property consisting of 
     approximately 71 acres, as depicted as Tract 15-115 on the 
     map referred to in paragraph (1), from the Secretary of the 
     Navy to the Secretary of the Interior as authorized by Public 
     Law 80-260 (61 Stat. 519) and to be executed on or about June 
     30, 2002.
       (b) Conveyance of Corea and Winter Harbor Properties 
     Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may convey, without 
     consideration, to the State of Maine, any political 
     subdivision of the State of Maine, or any tax-supported 
     agency in the State of Maine, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to any of the parcels of real 
     property, including any improvements thereon and 
     appurtenances thereto, consisting of approximately 485 acres 
     and comprising the former facilities of the Naval Security 
     Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine, located in Hancock 
     County, Maine, except for the real property described in 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (c) Transfer of Personal Property.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy shall transfer, without consideration, to the Secretary 
     of the Interior in the case of the real property transferred 
     under subsection (a), or to any recipient of such real 
     property in the case of real property conveyed under 
     subsection (b), any or all personal property associated with 
     such real property so transferred or conveyed, including--
       (1) the ambulances and any fire trucks or other 
     firefighting equipment; and
       (2) any personal property required to continue the 
     maintenance of the infrastructure of such real property, 
     including the generators and an uninterrupted power supply in 
     building 154 at the Corea site.
       (d) Maintenance of Property Pending Conveyance.--The 
     Secretary of the Navy shall maintain any real property, 
     including any improvements thereon, appurtenances thereto, 
     and supporting infrastructure, to be conveyed under 
     subsection (b) in accordance with the protection and 
     maintenance standards specified in section 101-47.4913 of 
     title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, until the earlier of--
       (1) the date of the conveyance of such real property under 
     subsection (b); or
       (2) September 30, 2003.
       (e) Interim Lease.--(1) Until such time as any parcel of 
     real property to be conveyed under subsection (b) is conveyed 
     by deed under that subsection, the Secretary of the Navy may 
     lease such parcel to any person or entity determined by the 
     Secretary to be an appropriate lessee of such parcel.
       (2) The amount of rent for a lease under paragraph (1) 
     shall be the amount determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate, and may be an amount less than the fair market 
     value of the lease.
       (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall credit any amount received for a lease of 
     real property under paragraph (1) to the appropriation or 
     account providing funds for the operation and maintenance of 
     such property or for the procurement of utility services for 
     such property. Amounts so credited shall be merged with funds 
     in the appropriation or account to which credited, and shall 
     be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same 
     conditions and limitations, as the funds with which merged.
       (f) Reimbursement for Environmental and Other 
     Assessments.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may require each 
     recipient of real property conveyed under subsection (b) to 
     reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred by the 
     Secretary for any environmental assessment, study, or 
     analysis carried out by the Secretary with respect to such 
     property before completing the conveyance under that 
     subsection.
       (2) The amount of any reimbursement required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Secretary, but may 
     not exceed the cost of the assessment, study, or analysis for 
     which reimbursement is required.
       (3) Section 2695(c) of title 10, United States Code, shall 
     apply to any amount received by the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       (g) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property transferred under subsection 
     (a), and each parcel of real property conveyed under 
     subsection (b), shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary of the Navy. The cost of any survey under 
     the preceding sentence for real property conveyed under 
     subsection (b) shall be borne by the recipient of the real 
     property.
       (h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connection with any conveyance under subsection (b), and any 
     lease under subsection (e), as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

     SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

       The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of 
     the Interior amounts as follows:
       (1) $5,000,000 for purposes of capital investments for the 
     development of a research and education center at Acadia 
     National Park, Maine.
       (2) $1,400,000 for purposes of operation and maintenance 
     activities at Acadia National Park Maine.

     SEC. 3. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Grant Assistance for Town of Winter Harbor.--(1) The 
     Secretary of the Navy

[[Page S6996]]

     shall, by grant, provide financial assistance to the Town of 
     Winter Harbor, Maine (in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``Town''), in each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, for 
     the purpose of reimbursing the Town for costs incurred in 
     making improvements to the water and sewer systems of the 
     Town for the benefit of the Naval Security Group Activity, 
     Winter Harbor, Maine, located in Hancock County, Maine.
       (2) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) in fiscal 
     year 2002 shall be $68,000.
       (3) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) in each of 
     fiscal years 2003 and 2004 shall be the amount, not to exceed 
     $68,000, jointly determined by the Secretary and the Town to 
     be appropriate to reimburse the Town as described in that 
     paragraph in the applicable fiscal year.
       (b) Grant Assistance for School Administrative District.--
     (1) The Secretary shall, by grant, provide financial 
     assistance to the School Administrative District (SAD) 
     operating Sumner High School, Sullivan, Maine.
       (2) The purpose of the grant is to offset the loss of 
     impact aid under title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 that the local educational agency 
     experienced for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 as a result of the 
     closure of the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, 
     Maine.
       (3) The amount of the grant under paragraph (1) shall be 
     $86,000.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Transfers of Funds to Department of Interior.--There is 
     hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2002, $6,400,000 for purposes of the 
     transfers of funds required by section 2.
       (b) Grants.--There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of the Navy for purposes of the grants 
     required by section 3, amounts as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2002, $154,000.
       (2) For each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004, such amounts as 
     may be necessary.
       (c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section for the Department of Defense, 
     or for the Department of the Navy, for a fiscal year are in 
     addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for such Department for such fiscal year under any other 
     provision of law.
       (d) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     this section for a fiscal year shall remain available until 
     expended, without fiscal year limitation.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Snowe, today in introducing this 
legislation, the Naval Security Group Activity at Winter Harbor 
Conveyance Act. This conveyance legislation will authorize the transfer 
of land, which has been under the control of the Naval Security Group 
for some seventy plus years back to the Department of the Interior, and 
to the State, ultimately to be put to good use by our local 
communities.
  Over the past seven decades, the Navy has performed a key national 
security mission called Classic Wizard at Winter Harbor. The Navy has 
played a significant role in the economic development of the local 
communities as Maine residents and Navy personnel have supported this 
mission. As the requirement for the Classic Wizard mission at Winter 
Harbor is coming to an end, and as technology advances, this naval 
activity will be ending its ties to the base in the summer of 2002.
  While the Navy will be missed, it has worked hand-in-hand with me and 
the other members of the Maine delegation, the Department of Interior, 
National Park Service, and our local communities in creating a viable 
economic development and reuse plan for the naval base and its 
associated property.
  As part of its reuse plan for the site, the National Park Service has 
proposed developing a research and education center at the Schoodic 
Point. The center would accommodate and promote a variety of research 
activities including wildlife genetics and serve as a base for 
permanent and visiting scientists to conduct interdisciplinary 
research.
  I worked with the National Park Service in the development of its 
proposal, and I have offered to help make the concept a reality. Maine 
Governor Angus King shares my support for the proposed research and 
learning center and has expressed the State's willingness to work as a 
partner in the effort to establish a wildlife genetics laboratory at 
the center. We believe that such a laboratory would generate good jobs 
and promote the region's economy. The work done at Schoodic Point also 
would compliment the world class research underway at other area 
facilities in the area such as The Jackson Laboratory, the Mount Desert 
Island Biological Laboratory, and the University of Maine's Cooperative 
Aquaculture Research Center.
  The National Park Service's proposed reuse of the peninsula also 
includes an educational component that would promote the public's 
understanding of the important natural and cultural resources that are 
a part of our national park system. Moreover, those who have visited 
Schoodic would agree that the remarkably beautiful 100 acres are worthy 
of being a part of Acadia National Park, one of our Nation's greatest 
natural treasures.
  It is important for the Federal Government to lend a hand to 
communities that are struggling to cope with the adverse effects of a 
base closure. Our legislation, which was developed in consultation with 
the local communities, the State, the Department of the Interior and 
the Navy, provides the options and opportunities that the region needs 
to move beyond the loss of the Naval Security Group Activity at Winter 
Harbor. I will work to secure approval of this bill by the Senate Armed 
Services committee and the full Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 1110. A bill to require that the area of a zip code number shall 
be located entirely within a State, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce the introduction of a 
bill that would help preserve the identity of American communities that 
have struggled with the United States Postal Service to acquire their 
own, individual zip codes. The bill would do this by prohibiting the 
Postal Service from extending zip codes across State boundaries.
  This bill was introduced in response to concerns raised by the 
community of Alta, WY. Alta is a small, rural town situated next to the 
Wyoming-Idaho border at the western base of the Grand Teton Mountains. 
Because of treacherous travel conditions to the east of Alta, the 
Postal Service made the decision to serve Alta residents out of the 
post office in neighboring Driggs, ID. Alta is isolated from other 
parts of Wyoming and it simply would be too dangerous to require the 
Postal Service to cross the Teton mountain range in the winter to 
deliver mail to Alta. In providing this service, however, the post 
office has not provided Alta residents their own zip code at the Driggs 
post office, but has required them to use the Driggs zip code even 
though Alta residents live in an entirely different State.
  While this may not seem like a big deal on its face, there are a 
number of technical complications that arise in the lives of Alta 
residents because the Postal Service has not been willing to extend the 
courtesy of an Alta zip code.
  By requiring Alta residents to use the Driggs zip code, the Postal 
Service has created a lot of confusion for Alta residents who attempt 
to conduct business with mail order companies. What sales tax do they 
pay? Idaho or Wyoming? Although the Postal Service maintains that zip 
codes are not used to identify specific locations, other companies use 
zip codes as an important location code that is necessary to adequately 
conduct their business. Sales tax is often programmed by zip code, so 
are car insurance rates, life insurance, homeowner's insurance, even 
our Federal and State income taxes use zip codes as an indicator of 
when and where to pay taxes.
  The requirements of this bill will not be onerous for the Postal 
Service to implement. It will not require the service to build new 
facilities or even to change its method of operations. All it will do 
is require the Postal Service to identify those communities whose mail 
service crosses State boundaries and to assign them the necessary 
identification number that they need to provide the rest of the world a 
clear and concise description of where they live and who they are.
  I urge my colleagues to support this most important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Burns, Ms. Collins, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Reed, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr.

[[Page S6997]]

        Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1111. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act to authorize the National Rural Development Partnership, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to 
introduce the National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001--a 
bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership, NRDP or the 
Partnership, and provided a funding source for the program, I am 
pleased that Senators Allard, Baucus, Bingaman, Burns, Collins, Crapo, 
Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Enzi, Gramm, Grassley, Hagel, Helms, 
Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski, 
Murray, Ben Nelson, Reed, Roberts, Sarbanes, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith, 
Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors.
  The Partnership was established under the Bush administration in 
1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the partnership has existed 
for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The 
current basis for the existence of the partnership is found in the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural 
Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the conference committee 
report on the 1996 federal farm bill created specific responsibilities 
and expectations for the partnership and State rural development 
councils, SRDCs.
  The partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose 
mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by 
strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in 
determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other 
entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and 
between Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs 
and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in 
more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually 
add value to the efforts and dollars of others.
  On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and 
Rural Revitalization, which I chaired, held an oversight hearing on the 
operations and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The subcommittee 
heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the U.S. 
Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human 
Services, State agencies, and private sector representatives. The 
hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and 
consistent funding. The legislation we introduced last year and are 
reintroducing this Congress accomplishes just that.
  This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of 
the partnership, the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee, 
NRDCC, and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific 
responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it 
to receive congressional appropriations.
  Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it 
is composed of the NRDCC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering 
and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging 
participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the 
challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the 
partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decisionmaking. 
This legislation also identifies the role of the Federal Government in 
the partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator. 
Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to 
participate in the NRDCC and to encourage field staff to participate in 
SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative 
agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, State 
rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal 
organization of a State rural development council.

  The composition of the NRDCC is specified as being one representative 
from each Federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental 
and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect 
to participate in the NRDCC. The legislation outlines the duties of the 
council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination 
among Federal agencies and between the Federal, State, local and tribal 
governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness, 
responsiveness, and delivery of Federal Government programs; gather and 
provide to Federal agencies information about the impact of government 
programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations, 
and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and 
develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory 
impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of 
participation in the council, but only if they can show how they can 
more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the 
partnership and council.
  This legislation provides that states may participate in the 
partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to 
establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and 
nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the States 
within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to 
facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and 
the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness, 
responsiveness, and delivery of Federal and State Government programs; 
to gather information about rural areas in its State and share it with 
the NRDCC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and 
programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to 
facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and 
participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of 
Federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDCC and 
others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the 
NRDCC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments; 
to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise.
  As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the partnership 
to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging 
federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance 
to the partnership and authorizing the partnership to accept private 
contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 33-percent 
match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement 
with the Federal Government.
  As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the 
boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do 
more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to 
those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new 
government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating 
the many programs available from USDA and other Federal agencies that 
can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation, 
the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed 
coordination.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Larry Craig 
and 31 of our colleagues today in the introduction of the National 
Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001. This bill is similar to S. 
3175 which Senator Craig and I sponsored last year during the 106th 
Congress. I am pleased that so many members from both sides of the 
aisle have recognized the importance of this measure by agreeing to 
join as original cosponsors.
  The National Rural Development Partnership had its origin in 
Executive Order 12720, issued by President George H. Bush in 1990. 
Through the issuance of this order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
was assigned the responsibilities of creating the partnership and 
providing assistance to States that wish to form rural development 
partnerships. The intent of the legislation is the same. At least 40 
States have now formed partnership councils to coordinate rural 
development activities of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments 
with private and non-profit organizations, to address community and 
economic development needs, and to coordinate community and job 
building activities in rural areas. The funding for these activities 
has been voluntary from various Federal agencies, including the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, 
Veterans, and state

[[Page S6998]]

agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has historically provided 
the largest single amount.
  The needs of rural America are great. The demands on the Federal 
budget are also great. If we are to make optimum use of hard-to-find 
Federal, State, local, and private resources in rural areas, it is 
imperative that we find ways to coordinate development activities. This 
legislation does that. It formally authorizes National Rural 
Development Councils and also authorizes appropriations for this 
program.
  The existing partnerships are doing an outstanding job in 
coordinating activities to enhance the quality of life and to build 
jobs in areas that have historically lacked high paying opportunities. 
While we recognize the continuing importance of the agriculture 
industry in many States, especially a State like North Dakota, we 
recognize that, unless we diversify our economy, we will continue to 
see out migration from the rural areas into the already crowded 
metropolitan areas of our country.
  Again, I am pleased to join this bipartisan effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself,Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, and 
        Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1112. A bill to provide Federal Perkins Loan cancellation for 
public defenders; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Chafee to 
reintroduce legislation to include full-time public defense attorneys 
in the Federal Perkins Loan Cancellation Forgiveness Program for law 
enforcement officers. This bill would provide parity to public defense 
attorneys and uphold the goals set forth by the Supreme Court to 
equalize access to legal resources. Senators Feinstein, Bingaman, 
Akaka, Kerry, Sarbanes, Johnson, and Inouye are original cosponsors of 
this bipartisan bill. Representative Tom Campbell of California 
introduced a companion bill in the House in the 106th Congress.
  Under section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a 
borrower with a loan made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program is 
eligible to have the loan canceled for serving full-time as a law 
enforcement officer or correction officer in a local, State, or Federal 
law enforcement or corrections agency. While the rules governing 
borrower eligibility for law enforcement cancellation have been 
interpreted by the Department of Education to include prosecuting 
attorneys, public defenders have been excluded from the loan 
forgiveness program. This policy must be amended.
  Like prosecutors, public defense attorneys play an integral role in 
our adversarial process. This judicial process is the most effective 
means of getting at truth and rendering justice. The United States 
Supreme Court in a series of cases has recognized the importance of the 
right to counsel in implementing the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a 
fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requiring 
counsel to be appointed for all person accused of offenses in which 
there is a possibility of a jail term being imposed.
  Absent adequate counsel for all parties, there is a danger that the 
outcome maybe determined not by who has the most convincing case but by 
who has the most resources. The Court rightly addressed this possible 
miscarriage of justice by requiring counsel to be appointed for the 
accused. Public defenders fill this Court mandated role by representing 
the interests of criminally accused indigent person. they give indigent 
defendants sufficient resources to present an adequate defense, so that 
the public goal of truth and justice will govern the outcome.
  The Department of Education's interpretation of the statute to 
include public defenders from the loan forgiveness program undermines 
the goals set forth by the Supreme Court to equalize access to legal 
resources. It creates an obvious disparity of resources between public 
defenders and prosecutors by encouraging talented individuals to pursue 
public service as prosecutors but not as defenders. The criminal 
justice system works best when both sides are adequately represented. 
The public interest is served when indigent defendants have access to 
talented defenders. One of the ways to facilitate this goal is by 
granting loan cancellation benefits to defense attorneys.
  Moreover, public defense attorneys meet all the eligibility 
requirements of the loan forgiveness program as set forth in current 
Federal regulations. They belong to publicly funded public defender 
agencies and they are sworn officers of the court whose principal 
responsibilities are unique to the criminal justice system and are 
essential in the performance of the agencies' primary mission. In 
addition, like prosecuting attorneys, public defenders are law 
enforcement officers dedicated to upholding, protecting, and enforcing 
our laws. Without public defense attorneys, the adversarial process of 
our criminal justice system could not operate.
  I urge my colleague to join me, Senator Chafee, Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Akaka, Senator Kerry, Senator Sarbanes, 
Senator Johnson, and Senator Inouye in supporting the goal of equalized 
access to legal resources, as set forth in the Constitution and 
elucidated by the Supreme Court, by providing parity to public 
defenders and allowing them to join prosecutors in receiving loan 
cancellation benefits.
  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. 1112

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

     SECTION 1. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN CANCELLATION FOR PUBLIC 
                   DEFENDERS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Education has issued clarifications 
     that prosecuting attorneys are among the class of law 
     enforcement officers eligible for benefits under the Federal 
     Perkins Loan cancellation program.
       (2) Like prosecutors, public defenders also meet all the 
     eligibility requirements of the Federal Perkins Loan 
     cancellation program as set forth in Federal regulations.
       (3) Public defenders are law enforcement officers who play 
     an integral role in our Nation's adversarial legal process. 
     Public defenders fill the Supreme Court mandated role 
     requiring that counsel be appointed for the accused, by 
     representing the interests of criminally accused indigent 
     persons.
       (4) In order to encourage highly qualified attorneys to 
     serve as public defenders, public defenders should be 
     included with prosecutors among the class of law enforcement 
     officers eligible to receive benefits under the Federal 
     Perkins Loan cancellation program.
       (b) Amendment.--Section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)) is amended 
     by inserting ``, or as a full-time public defender for 
     service to a local or State government, or to the Federal 
     Government (directly or by a contract with a private, 
     nonprofit organization)'' after ``agencies''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) loans made under part E of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, whether made before, on, or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) service as a public defender that is provided on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the amendment 
     made by this section shall be construed to authorize the 
     refunding of any repayment of a loan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1113. A bill to amend section 1562 of title 38, United States 
Code, to increase the amount of Medal of Honor Roll special pension, to 
provide for an annual adjustment in the amount of that special pension, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to 
comment on legislation that I have introduced today to increase the 
special pension that is available to Medal of Honor recipients, and to 
provide for automatic adjustments in that special pension to reflect 
annual increases in the cost of living. When the Congress enacted the 
Medal of Honor pension, it stated, in the 1916 Senate Report, Report 
No. 240, 64th Congress, accompanying enactment, that the special 
pension was then necessary to serve as a ``recognition of superior 
claims on the gratitude of the country,'' and to ``reward . . . in a 
modest way startling deeds of individual daring and audacious heroism 
in the face of mortal danger when war is on.'' The legislation that I 
have introduced today has the same two purposes: to recognize, and to 
reward, the ``startling deeds of

[[Page S6999]]

individual daring and audacious heroism'' to which every Medal of Honor 
recipient can lay claim.
  No one can question that Medal of Honor recipients deserve the 
Nation's respect and gratitude. And no one could question a limited 
government pension is a proper sign of that respect and gratitude. I am 
concerned that some of the 149 surviving Medal of Honor recipients, 
there are only 149 such people among us, may struggle to make financial 
ends meet, notwithstanding the availability of the pension. The current 
$600 monthly amount is simply too small, in my estimation, to afford a 
minimum standard of living for our Nation's heroes given their 
expenses.
  In 1997, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society suggested that the 
Medal of Honor pension level be set at $1,000 per month and that the 
level of the pension be adjusted thereafter on an annual basis to 
reflect increases in the annual cost of living. At that time, the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I then had the privilege 
of chairing, succeeded in securing an increase in the pension from $400 
to $600 per month, but we were not successful in persuading the House 
to approve an ``indexation'' feature. I believe a compelling argument 
could be made then, and still can be made now, to grant the entire 
increase suggested by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and to 
approve the indexing of the benefit. I am pleased to offer legislation 
to that effect today.
  Many Medal of Honor recipients, out of a sense of duty and 
patriotism, make frequent trips to provide accounts of their act of 
valor and, more importantly, to speak of the lessons learned in battle 
and the vigilance that freedom requires to this day. Countless young 
Americans have benefitted by the example of these most distinguished 
role models. Often, the expenses associated with these excursions are 
borne by the medal of Honor recipients themselves, men who, we must 
remember, emerged from, and, in most cases, returned to, the ordinary 
citizenry from whom America has always drawn her warriors. Testimony 
offered by AMVETS at a Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on July 25, 
1997, confirmed that the majority of Medal of Honor recipients live 
only on their social security benefits, supplemented by the Medal of 
Honor pension, giving them an average monthly income of only $1,600. It 
is unconscionable to think that we, as a country, can allow them to 
live so close to the poverty line.
  I ask my colleagues to join with me, once again, to show our 
gratitude to the recipients of our Nation's highest honor. Let us show 
them--in this minor way--how grateful America truly is for their 
wonderful example.
  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. 1113

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF MEDAL OF HONOR 
                   ROLL SPECIAL PENSION.

       (a) Increase in Amount.--Subsection (a) of section 1562 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$600'' 
     and inserting ``$1,000, as adjusted from time to time under 
     subsection (e),''.
       (b) Annual Adjustment.--That section is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Effective as of December 1 each year, the Secretary 
     shall increase the amount of monthly special pension payable 
     under subsection (a) as of November 30 of such year by the 
     same percentage that benefit amounts payable under title II 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are 
     increased effective December 1 of such year as a result of a 
     determination under section 215(i) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(i)).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with 
     respect to months that begin on or after that date.
       (2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not make any 
     adjustment under subsection (e) of section 1562 of title 38, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this 
     section, in 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1114. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase 
the amount of educational benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI 
Bill; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to 
comment briefly on legislation that I am introducing today to increase 
educational benefits paid to veterans under the Montgomery GI bill, 
MGIB. This bill is the same as a bill, H.R. 1291, that was passed by 
the House, under the leadership of the chairman of the House Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, Representative Chris Smith, on June 19, 2001, by 
a vote of 416-0. I introduce the same legislation here in the Senate, 
and I urge my colleagues to join with me to complete the task of 
increasing veterans' Montgomery GI bill benefits.
  This legislation, once it is fully phased in over a three year 
period, would increase the basic monthly benefit paid to veterans with 
at least three years of service who have returned to school from $650 
to $1,100. With this 85 percent increase in MGIB benefits, the largest 
percentage increase in the history of the Montgomery GI bill, a veteran 
with three years of service would be able to afford the average cost of 
tuition, fees, books, and room and board at a four-year public college 
or university, and still have money left over for transportation 
expenses or other personal expenses. The legislation would provide 
greater educational freedom for veterans who are constrained by the 
current benefit amount; it would open up the possibility of attendance 
at more expensive universities. And it would promote the national 
security interests of the United States by providing a substantial 
inducement for young men and women to serve in the military.
  When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
at the start of the 105th Congress in 1997, I committed to increasing 
MGIB benefits which, due to budget constraints, had been woefully 
inadequate. I am pleased to report that that picture has changed; the 
basic MGIB benefit has increased by 52 percent from $427 to 650 per 
month, and in addition, service members now have the opportunity to 
``buy-up'' an additional $150 in monthly benefits, bringing the total 
level of available benefits to $800 per month, an increase of 87 
percent since 1997. Despite this significant progress, however, I 
remain concerned that the benefit usage rate among young veterans is 
too low, and that it may not yet be a sufficient inducement to assist 
the Department of Defense in recruiting high quality young men and 
women to serve in the military.
  Of the young veterans eligible for MGIB benefits, only 57 percent 
choose to avail themselves of this extraordinary opportunity. According 
to a recent report by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, a 
significant reason for this relatively low usage rate is the inadequacy 
of the benefit amount. MGIB benefits have simply not kept pace with 
rising education costs. As a consequence, veterans who use the benefit 
must compromise on the educational programs they select; a low 
percentage of MGIB users, only 12 percent, attend private institutions, 
and a relatively high percentage of MGIB users, 27 percent, enroll in 
two-year college programs. Now I do not undervalue the role, 
contributions, or quality of our two-year colleges. The fact is, 
however, that many veterans who would choose to attend four-year 
institutions, even public institutions, cannot afford to do so with the 
current level of benefits. My legislation would move us closer to the 
day when the only limitation on veterans' educational choice would be 
their own interests and aspirations.
  One of the primary purposes of the MGIB is to assist the Department 
of Defense, DOD with service member recruitment. When DOD asked new 
recruits in 1997 to list the reasons they joined the military, money 
for college ranked second only to ``a chance to better myself in life'' 
among the answers given. Even so, tight labor market and the 
availability of other Federal education aid have resulted in DOD 
difficulty in meeting recruiting goals. The Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Force Management Policy reports that a benefit level ``of 
approximately $1,000 per month . . . would increase high-quality 
accessions without having a negative impact on reenlistments. . . .'' 
Thus, my proposed legislation, which would, in phases, increase

[[Page S7000]]

the monthly benefit to $1,100, is consistent with DOD's position that 
increased MGIB benefits are necessary for it to attract high-quality 
recruits.
  Attracting high-quality young men and women into the military is not 
only in the interest of the Department of Defense, it is in the 
national interest of all of our citizens. The United States Commission 
on National Security/21st Century, chaired by our former colleagues, 
Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently called on Congress to 
enhance national security by ``significantly enhanc[ing] the Montgomery 
GI Bill'' by providing a benefit that would pay for the average 
education costs of four-year U.S. colleges. The Commission emphasized 
that the ``GI bill is both a strong recruitment tool and, more 
importantly, a valuable institutional reward for service to the nation 
in uniform.'' I thank the Commission for recognizing the important role 
the GI bill has played, and will continue to play, in ensuring the 
security of our country.
  I commend the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Representative Chris Smith, who has taken the lead on this issue in the 
House during this first year of his chairmanship. Under Mr. Smith's 
leadership, the House did its part on June 19, 2001, by passing H.R. 
1291 by a resounding vote of 416-0. I urge my Senate colleagues to join 
with me to complete the task here in the Senate.
  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. 1114

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 
                   UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 3015(a)(1) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a 
     full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
       ``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $800,
       ``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $950,
       ``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $1,100, 
     and
       ``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year, 
     the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal 
     year increased under subsection (h); or''.
       (2) Section 3015(b)(1) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a 
     full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
       ``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $650,
       ``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $772,
       ``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $894, 
     and
       ``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year, 
     the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal 
     year increased under subsection (h); or''.
       (b) CPI Adjustment.--No adjustment in rates of educational 
     assistance shall be made under section 3015(h) of title 38, 
     United States Code, for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 1115. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect 
to making progress toward the goal of eliminating tuberculosis, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Corzine 
in introducing the Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act. This 
bipartisan legislation will provide enhanced authority and greater 
resources to State, local and Federal health officials to do all they 
can to combat this deadly infectious disease in our country.
  Tuberculosis is the world's leading infectious killer. Its growth has 
been propelled by the global HIV epidemic, and multi-drug resistant 
strains have become increasingly prevalent around the world. The World 
Health Organization estimates that more than one-third of the world's 
population is infected with tuberculosis. Every year, there are 8 
million new cases of active tuberculosis and 2 million deaths from 
tuberculosis. This disease causes more deaths among women worldwide 
than all other causes of maternal death combined.
  These harrowing statistics illustrate the truth behind the saying 
that diseases know no borders. Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Hutchison 
and I have already introduced the Stop TB Now Act, which focuses on 
international tuberculosis control. The bill we are introducing today 
will deal with tuberculosis in our own country. Only through enactment 
of both of these measures can we be sure of defeating this readily 
treatable and preventable disease.
  Today's bill is intended to fulfill the recommendations of the 
landmark report issued by the Institute of Medicine last year, entitled 
``Ending Neglect: The Elimination of Tuberculosis in the United 
States.'' Our measure will create a national plan for the eradication 
of tuberculosis. It will enhance tuberculosis-related research, 
education and training through the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. It will also expand support for vaccine research and for 
international tuberculosis research through the National Institutes of 
Health.
  In the United States, tuberculosis has been going through what the 
Institute of Medicine calls ``recurrent cycles of neglect'' by public 
health authorities, ``followed by resurgence'' of the disease. In the 
late nineteenth century, tuberculosis was one of the leading causes of 
death in America. As cities swelled with waves of European immigration, 
millions of individuals and families were forced into overcrowded 
tenements and unhealthy workplaces. Many fell victim to outbreaks of 
deadly infectious diseases. In 1886, the leading cause of death among 
infants was tuberculosis, followed by infant diarrhea.
  Although medical science and public health were in their infancy in 
those days, the need to combat tuberculosis was clear even then. In 
1882, Robert Kock first isolated the organism that causes this disease, 
providing physicians and scientists with a microbial foundation for 
science-based public health action. In the early twentieth century, 
health advocates and physicians formed an association dedicated to 
fighting tuberculosis, which today is the American Lung Association. 
Their work helped to bring about more sanitary living conditions and 
workplaces for the poor, stronger public health laws, and the use of 
sanatoriums to treat people with tuberculosis.
  In this century, the possibility of actually eradicating tuberculosis 
arose following the development of effective antibiotics in the 1950s. 
But the country failed to capitalize on scientific opportunities or 
undertake the kind of broad public health campaign that we undertook so 
successfully against polio. As a result, scientific interest and public 
health funding for tuberculosis control waned in the following decades. 
After years of decline, specific Federal funding for tuberculosis 
control was actually eliminated in 1972.
  Our country paid the price for this complacency in the 1980s. A 
resurgence of cases and an alarming growth in the prevalence of drug-
resistant tuberculosis strains challenged public health and shook the 
confidence of experts. Through great effort and difficulty, we renewed 
our national commitment to fighting tuberculosis. But the effort took 
longer than necessary, and the Nation suffered needless deaths and 
illness as we worked to bring the number of new tuberculosis cases to 
its current, all-time low.
  Today, we have a historic opportunity to eradicate tuberculosis in 
the United States. We have a generation of public health officials who 
have lived through and successfully combated the recent resurgence of 
the disease. And we have expert recommendations from both the Federal 
Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis and the Institute 
of Medicine to guide our efforts.
  This legislation is supported by leading public health organizations, 
including the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, 
the National Coalition to Eliminate Tuberculosis and RESULTS 
International. Its enactment can be an essential in achieving to 
fulfilling this important and long overdue public health goal, and I 
urge the Senate to approve it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, and Mr. Corzine):

[[Page S7001]]

  S. 1116. A bill amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide 
increased foreign assistance for tuberculosis prevention, treatment, 
and control; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Stevens, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hutchison, and Senator 
Corzine, to introduce the Stop Tuberculosis Now Act of 2001, a bill 
that responds to the dire need of the United States and the rest of the 
world to stop the terrible infection that is threatening citizens in 
every country of the world.
  Tuberculosis is the biggest killer of young women and people with 
AIDS in the world today, and two million people will die of 
tuberculosis this year alone. Although tuberculosis is preventable and 
treatable, last year there were more than 17,000 new cases of 
tuberculosis in the U.S. Among these cases were new strains of 
tuberculosis that are resistant to many traditional antibiotics that 
were very successful in the past. Due to its infectious and resistant 
nature, tuberculosis cannot be stopped at national borders, and 
virtually every international airport in the U.S. therefore is a port 
of entry for carriers of tuberculosis. Thus, it will be impossible to 
control tuberculosis in the U.S. until we control it worldwide.
  Because of this dire situation, we are introducing the ``Stop 
Tuberculosis Now Act,'' which calls for a U.S. investment in 
international tuberculosis control of $200 million in 2002, with a 
focus on expanding the proven, low cost direct observation therapy 
system, DOTS, tuberculosis treatment for countries with high rates of 
tuberculosis infection. DOTS tuberculosis treatment involves a health 
worker observing and ensuring tuberculosis patients take their 
prescribed medication that is needed to stop a tuberculosis infection 
successfully. The current projection for implementing an international 
tuberculosis treatment program is $1 billion. The U.S. share of this 
program would be $200 million. This is a small price to pay in order to 
stop this terrible infectious disease which brings such misery and 
death, to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
  This bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and declare 
that a major objective of the U.S. foreign assistance program is to 
control tuberculosis. Congress would designate the World Health 
Organization and other health organizations to develop and implement a 
comprehensive tuberculosis control program, including expanding the use 
of the strategy of DOTS tuberculosis treatment method and strategies to 
address multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The particular focus of this 
program would be in countries with the highest rates of tuberculosis 
infection. The program would set as goals the cure of at least 95 
percent of tuberculosis cases detected and the reduction of 
tuberculosis related deaths by 50 percent, by December 31, 2010.
  I ask unanimous consent that the test the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1116

       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 ``Stop Tuberculosis (TB) Now 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1)(A) Tuberculosis is one of the greatest infectious 
     causes of death of adults worldwide, killing 2,000,000 people 
     per year--one person every 15 seconds.
       (B) Globally, tuberculosis is the leading cause of death of 
     young women and the leading cause of death of people with 
     HIV/AIDS.
       (2) An estimated 8,000,000 individuals develop active 
     tuberculosis each year.
       (3) Tuberculosis is spreading as a result of inadequate 
     treatment and it is a disease that knows no national borders.
       (4) With over 40 percent of tuberculosis cases in the 
     United States attributable to foreign-born individuals and 
     with the increase in international travel, commerce, and 
     migration, elimination of tuberculosis in the United States 
     depends on efforts to control the disease in developing 
     countries.
       (5) The threat that tuberculosis poses for Americans 
     derives from the global spread of tuberculosis and the 
     emergence and spread of strains of multi-drug resistant 
     tuberculosis (MDR-TB).
       (6) Up to 50,000,000 individuals may be infected with 
     multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.
       (7) In the United States, tuberculosis treatment, normally 
     about $2,000 per patient, skyrockets to as much as $250,000 
     per patient to treat multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and 
     treatment may not even be successful.
       (8) Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis kills more than one-
     half of those individuals infected in the United States and 
     other industrialized nations and without access to treatment 
     it is a virtual death sentence in the developing world.
       (9) There is a highly effective and inexpensive treatment 
     for tuberculosis. Recommended by the World Health 
     Organization as the best curative method for tuberculosis, 
     this strategy, known as directly observed treatment, short 
     course (DOTS), includes low-cost effective diagnosis, 
     treatment, monitoring, and recordkeeping, as well as a 
     reliable drug supply. A centerpiece of DOTS is observing 
     patients to ensure that they take their medication and 
     complete treatment.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION, TREATMENT, 
                   AND CONTROL.

       (a) Additional Prevention, Treatment, and Control.--Section 
     104(c)(7)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151b(c)(7)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by adding at the end before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, by expanding the use of the 
     strategy known as directly observed treatment, short course 
     (DOTS) and strategies to address multi-drug resistant 
     tuberculosis (MDR-TB) where appropriate at the local level, 
     particularly in countries with the highest rate of 
     tuberculosis''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by inserting after ``the cure of at least 95 percent of 
     the cases detected'' the following: ``by focusing efforts on 
     the use of the directly observed treatment, short course 
     (DOTS) strategy or other internationally accepted primary 
     tuberculosis control strategies''; and
       (B) by striking ``and the cure'' and inserting ``the 
     cure''.
       (b) Funding Requirement.--Section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) In carrying out this paragraph, not less than 75 
     percent of the amount appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (D) shall 
     be used for the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis for 
     at-risk and affected populations utilizing directly observed 
     treatment, short course (DOTS) strategy or other 
     internationally accepted primary tuberculosis control 
     strategies developed in consultation with the World Health 
     Organization (WHO), including funding for the Global 
     Tuberculosis Drug Facility of WHO's Stop TB Partnership.''.
       (c) Annual Report.--Section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by 
     this Act) as subparagraph (D); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) In conjunction with the transmission of the annual 
     request for enactment of authorizations and appropriations 
     for foreign assistance programs for each fiscal year, the 
     President shall transmit to Congress a report that contains a 
     summary of all programs, projects, and activities carried out 
     under this paragraph for the preceding fiscal year, including 
     a description of the extent to which such programs, projects, 
     and activities have made progress to achieve the goals 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subparagraph (D) of 
     section 104(c)(7) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2151b(c)(7)), as redesignated by this Act, is amended 
     by striking ``$60,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 
     and 2002'' and inserting ``$60,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 
     and $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1117. A bill to establish the policy of the United States for 
reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and 
Russian arsenals, for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of those 
two nations that are on high alert, and for expanding and accelerating 
programs to prevent diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear 
weapons, fissile materials, and nuclear expertise; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, when Winston Churchill addressed the 
student body at Westminister College in 1946, he declared to the United 
States that ``with primacy of power is also joined an awe-inspiring 
accountability to the future . . . you must not only feel the sense of 
duty done, but also the anxiety lest you fall below that level of 
achievement.'' Over the course of the cold war, we did not fail in our 
duty, nor should we in the new century.
  In the same speech he laid before the whole world the rhetoric that 
would define the cold war. In describing the Sphere of Soviet dominance 
in Eastern Europe, Mr. Churchill described an Iron Curtain which the 
ancient capitals of Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest were

[[Page S7002]]

held. With the fall of communism in the early part of the last decade, 
the United States has had to re-shape its review of Eastern Europe. No 
longer do we view the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, or 
Hungary as isolated adversaries, but as partners in the very alliance 
that carried us through the cold war. In the same way that we have 
looked to reforming our relationship with the countries of the old 
Warsaw Pact we must find new ways to view Russia. It is difficult to 
fathom that in the 21st century we view Russia as a declared ally on 
the world stage while maintaining a nuclear posture at home which 
treats her as an enemy. It is time that we transform our nuclear 
doctrine from one that reflects the thinking of the cold war to one 
that fits in the context of the 21st century and addresses what is 
perhaps the greatest threat to our security.
  When President Bush met with Mr. Putin a few weeks ago, he expressed 
that the United States and Russia can find a ``common position'' on a 
``new strategic framework''. President Bush declared that the two 
countries are friends and that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to 
act that way. In context of this historic meeting, it is time that we 
``work together to address the world as it is, not as it used to be, it 
is important that we not only talk differently, we must also act 
differently.''
  I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the President 
to seek in his own words: `` . . . a broad strategy of active non-
proliferation . . . to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to 
acquire them . . . and to work with allies and friends who wish to join 
us to defend against the harm they, WMD can inflict''
  The Nuclear threat Reduction Act of 2001, NTRA, would make it the 
policy of the United States to reduce the number of nuclear warheads 
and delivery systems held by the U.S. and Russia through bilateral 
agreements. These reductions should fall to the lowest possible number 
consistent with national security. It would enable the President to 
reduce our nuclear stockpile while negotiating such reductions with the 
Russians that are transparent, predictable and verifiable. To do such a 
thing would be a mark of principled leadership. It would acknowledge 
that it is no longer necessary to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear 
arms by the United States and Russia and that to continue to do so 
would be unacceptable.
  On May 23,2000 President Bush stated ``The premises of cold war 
targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.'' I could 
not agree with the President more. The current level of nuclear weapons 
maintained by the United States comes at a great cost to ourselves 
financially and poses a significant threat to our security. The level 
of nuclear protection that we maintain forces the Russians to keep a 
similarly robust force which they cannot afford. The crumbling 
infrastructure of the Russian Military continually raises the risk of 
accidental launch or greater proliferation. Indeed, the legislation 
being considered today would ensure that once parts of the Russian 
arsenal are dismantled, they will be kept safe, they will be accounted 
for, and they will eventually be destroyed.
  The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal are substantial. A 
recent CBO report estimated that $1.67 billion could be saved by 
retiring 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles by 2003. We could use this money to 
address shortfalls in our conventional capabilities. Additionally, we 
can devote more funds to meeting the asymmetrical threats that will 
face us in the future. To invest in deterrents to cyberwarfare and to 
augment spending on homeland defense would be the best way to transform 
our thinking and spending from the Cold War to the twenty-first 
century.
  In addition to this, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would encourage 
the U.S. and Russia to take their systems off of high-alert status. In 
the context of the cold war, such a strategy was necessary to ensure 
our security, but it no longer applies to present conditions.
  The Nuclear Threat Reduction Act would also embolden existing 
Department of State, Energy, and Defense programs that seek to contain 
existing nuclear weapons material and expertise in Russia. The economic 
situation in Russia makes it more and more likely that a rouge state 
will acquire the means to manufacture nuclear weapons. This could come 
through the distribution of nuclear material or the exodus of Russian 
scientists. Our former colleague Sen Nunn put it best when he said ``We 
dare not risk a world where a Russian scientist can take care of his 
children by endangering ours.'' The cost to the United States is 
minuscule compared to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Work on this 
serious issue has already been addressed by the Nunn-Lugar bill, but it 
is time that we further our efforts.
  In January of this year, a task force headed by Howard Baker and 
Lloyd Cutler issued a report calling the proliferation of the Russian 
nuclear stockpile ``The most serious threat to national security we 
face today''. The Baker-Cutler Task Force strongly endorsed existing 
non-proliferation programs and suggested that their goals could be 
achieved in 8-10 years if they are fully funded. Increased support for 
these programs will certainly bring them more in line with the 
immediacy and scope of the dangers that they address.
  The NTRA requires the President to formulate and submit to Congress a 
strategic plan to secure and neutralize Russia's nuclear weapons and 
weapons-usable materials over the next eight years. The plan would have 
to include the administrative and organizational reforms necessary to 
provide effective coordination of these programs and to reflect the 
priority that the President attaches to them. The President himself has 
advocated such a strategy and I call on him to implement it.
  Finally, the NTRA requires the President to submit a report to 
Congress on the feasibility of establishing a ``debt for security'' 
program with Russia. Under this concept, a portion of Russia's debts to 
various major powers would be forgiven in exchange for a Russian 
commitment to devoting those funds to non-proliferation activities. If 
successful, such a program could significantly help Russia's secure, 
account for, and neutralize its weapons materials.
  In closing, The Nuclear Reduction Act of 2001 would help us fulfill 
the duty that comes with being the world's last remaining super power. 
By preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technology, reducing 
the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia, and by taking 
our missiles off of high-alert status, we can fulfill that duty. I ask 
the other Members of the Senate to join me in support of this measure.

                          ____________________