[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 111 (Thursday, August 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8709-S8770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S8709]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1302. A bill to authorize the payment of a gratuity to members of 
the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the United States who 
performed slave labor for Japan during World War II, or the surviving 
spouses of such members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, during the last Congress, I introduced 
the Bataan-Corregidor Veterans Compensation Act to recognize American 
veterans who served at Bataan and Corregidor during World War II and 
were captured, held as prisoners of war, and forced to perform slave 
labor to support the Japanese war effort. That bill helped bring 
attention to the plight of Americans captured and enslaved in the 
Pacific theater at a time when our Government undertook important 
efforts on behalf of enslaved victims of Nazi oppression in Europe. I 
believe that our government should also take action on behalf of those 
who were enslaved in the Pacific theater. Since the waning days of 
those heroes are quickly passing, the time to take action on this 
important matter is now.
  Today I am introducing an updated version of last year's bill, now 
entitled the World War II Pacific Theater Veterans Compensation Act, to 
acknowledge the contributions of all ex-prisoners of war in the Pacific 
who were forced into slave labor by the Japanese. The bill would award 
a gratuity of $20,000 to each surviving veteran, government, or 
government contractor employee who was imprisoned by the Japanese 
during World War II and forced to perform slave labor to support 
Japan's war effort. The bill would also extend that gratuity to 
surviving spouses of such veterans or employees.
  I believe that this bill is both necessary and appropriate, 
particularly as those Americans who sacrificed so much approach their 
final years. Why is it necessary? First, because Americans who were 
enslaved by Japan have never been adequately compensated for the 
excruciating sacrifices they made while in Japanese military and 
company prisons and labor camps. In the War Claims Acts of 1948 and 
1952, our Government paid former U.S. prisoners of war $1.00 per day 
for ``missed meals'' during their captivity, and later, $1.50 per day 
for ``forced labor, pain, and suffering.'' Even those paltry 
compensations were not widely known about or received by all veterans 
who qualified for them. Second, this bill is necessary since ongoing 
efforts to obtain appropriate compensation from the government of 
Japan, or from Japanese companies through litigation, have been 
unsuccessful and are not likely to succeed in a timely enough manner to 
compensate surviving veterans or others who would be eligible.
  My colleagues might ask, ``Why is this bill appropriate?'' If enacted 
into law, it would have our own government recognize the vital military 
contributions made by members of the Armed Forces and civilians 
employed by the government in the Pacific theater, and would compensate 
those heroes for the many sacrifices they were forced to make at the 
hands of their Japanese captors. From December 1941 to April 1942, for 
example, American military forces stationed in the Philippines fought 
valiantly for almost six months against overwhelming Japanese military 
forces on the Bataan peninsula. As a result of that prolonged conflict, 
U.S. forces prevented Japan from achieving its strategic objective of 
capturing Australia and thereby dooming Allied hopes in the Pacific 
theater from the outset of the war.
  Once captured by the Japanese, American prisoners of war in the 
Philippines endured the infamous ``Death March'' during which 
approximately 730 Americans died to the notorious Japanese prison camp 
north of Manila. Of the survivors of the March, more than 5,000 more 
Americans perished during the first six months of captivity. The 
Japanese forced many of those who survived captivity to embark on 
``hell ships''--unmarked merchant ships--to be transported to Japan to 
work as slave laborers in company-owned mines, shipyards, and 
factories. How tragic and cruel it was that many of our own men 
perished in those unmarked vessels, victims of attacks by American 
military aircraft and submarines who unknowingly caused their demise! 
The stories of other American military and civilian employees captured 
by the Japanese at Wake Island, Java, Manchuria, Taiwan, and other 
locations in the Pacific and enslaved to support the war effort are 
equally compelling.
  This bill is also appropriate because it reflects international 
precedents by Allied nations to honor their enslaved veterans in the 
way which I propose in this bill. Allied governments, including Canada, 
New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have authorized 
compensation gratuities. In 1998, the Canadian Government authorized 
the payment of $15,600 (Canadian dollars) to veterans who were captured 
in Hong Kong and enslaved by the Japanese. Last October, Prime Minister 
Tony Blair announced a multi-million pound compensation fund for former 
enslaved Japanese prisoners of war in recognition of their heroic 
experiences. Given those important precedents by our Allies, is it no 
less appropriate for our own nation to compensate those who gave so 
much to defend and preserve our freedom? Surely, the denial of personal 
freedom; the severe physical punishment; the lifetime of health 
problems many suffered as a result of prolonged malnutrition and 
physical beatings--as well as the impact of those experiences on family 
and loved ones--merit the recognition that I propose in this 
legislation.

[[Page S8710]]

  I believe the Congress should act as soon as possible to enact this 
legislation into law. These brave heroes are leaving us at an 
increasing rate each year while the court system struggles to resolve 
the compensation claims of worthy American heroes. The time to act is 
now, else justice and honor may not ever be served. I thank Senator 
Hatch for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and I urge my fellow 
Senators to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1303. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for payment under the medicare program for more frequent 
hemodialysis treatments; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
improve the quality of life for the more than 250,000 Americans with 
End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD. The Kidney Patient Daily Dialysis 
Quality Act of 2001 will update the Medicare program to reflect the 
current state of medical science on the efficacy of hemodialysis by 
eliminating the limitation on the number of sessions now covered by 
Medicare. Specifically, this bill move Medicare beyond its conventional 
coverage of three hemodialysis sessions per week to provide coverage of 
more frequent hemodialysis, as defined by at least five times a week at 
a dialysis facility or in the home, if determined appropriate by a 
patient's physician.
  ESRD is irreversible kidney failure. Without treatment or 
transplantation, death invariably results. Unfortunately, the number of 
Americans with ESRD is growing at a rate of 6 percent to 7 percent per 
year, and this population is projected to double over the next ten 
years. Due to the shortage of organs available for transplantation, 
almost 90 percent of patients with ESRD received hemodialysis 
treatments three times per week. This has been standard policy since 
1972, when Congress created the Medicare End Stage Renal Disease 
Program. This program has been enormously successful in saving hundreds 
of thousands of lives, and increasing the life expectancy for hundreds 
of thousands of others with this terrible disease. However, the program 
now needs to be modernized.
  Today, scientific and medical evidence shows that more frequent 
hemodialysis enhances the health of patients with ESRD by improving 
toleration of dialysis, high blood pressure and anemia control, 
cardiovascular status, nutrition, quality of sleep, mental clarity, and 
increasing energy and strength. In addition to these improvements in 
patient health, and subsequent reductions in required medications and 
hospitalizations, daily hemodialysis can significantly reduce costs to 
the Medicare program. According to a Project Hope study, more frequent 
hemodialysis could save the Medicare program between $120 million and 
$260 million per year.
  The Kidney Patient Daily Dialysis Quality Act of 2001 stands to 
improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Americans 
suffering from kidney failure. Scientific evidence supports the promise 
of this legislation and modern technology exists to provide it, it is 
time to deliver.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1304. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under the medicare program of oral drugs to reduce 
serum phosphate levels in dialysis patients with end-stage renal 
disease; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
improve the quality of life for the more than 250,000 Americans with 
End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD. My legislation will update the Medicare 
program to provide patients with better treatment for ESRD by providing 
coverage of oral prescription medications that reduce the serum 
phosphate levels in dialysis patients.
  Patients with ESRD cannot eliminate dietary phosphorus and, without 
undergoing a kidney transplant, risk developing a condition known as 
hyperphosphatemia. This condition, and the hospitalization that 
accompanies it, can be prevented through the use of phosphate binding 
drugs, which are taken orally with meals and bind to dietary 
phosphorus, thereby reducing absorption in the body. Making phosphate 
binders available to Medicare-eligible ESRD patients makes both medical 
and economical sense. Not only do these medications improve the quality 
of life for patients with kidney failure, but they stand to reduce 
overall Medicare costs associated with treating patients who develop 
hyperphosphatemia. A recent scientific study by the U.S. Renal Data 
System found that the use of one such drug could save Medicare, on 
average, $17,328 per patient on an annual basis.
  Under current law, ESRD patients are prohibited from enrolling in 
Medicare+Choice plans. Many ESRD patients are also ineligible for 
``Medigap'' coverage as 63 percent of the patients are under the age of 
65. Thus, ESRD patients are denied access to the only existing 
mechanisms under which Medicare enrollees can obtain prescription drug 
coverage.
  ESRD patients are among the sickest, poorest, most likely to be 
disabled, and most frequently hospitalized of all Medicare 
beneficiaries. In light of the shortage of organs available for 
transplant, it is imperative that we do all we can to supplement 
traditional hemodialysis treatment and improve the quality of life for 
those patients with kidney disease. Scientific evidence supports the 
promise of phosphate binding drugs to enhance the health of Americans 
with ESRD, and it is time that every patient realize that promise.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1305. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the status of professional employer organizations and to promote and 
protect the interests of professional employer organizations, their 
customers, and workers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, today, together with my Finance 
Committee colleague, Senator Grassley, I am introducing the 
Professional Employer Organization Workers Benefits Act of 2001. 
Companion legislation is being introduced in the House by 
Representatives Cardin and Portman. This legislation expands retirement 
and health benefits for workers at small and medium-sized businesses in 
this country.
  This bill is a narrower version of a bill that I sponsored in the 
last Congress, S. 2979, the Graham-Mack bill. Our new bill incorporates 
several improvements recommended by interested parties over the course 
of the past several years. Most significantly, the scope of this bill 
has been limited to address technical issues that were raised by the 
Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, and the Labor 
Department. I think it is fair to say that a much improved version of 
this proposal has emerged, one that ensures that the legislation's 
objective of expanding retirement and health coverage is achieved, 
while also ensuring that other important Federal policies are not 
affected. I am very pleased that, the Commissioner of the IRS, in a 
letter sent to one of the House companion bill sponsors recently, has 
indicated his interest in seeing this legislation enacted in a timely 
fashion.
  In brief, this bill would permit certified professional employer 
organizations, PEOs, to assist small and medium-sized businesses in 
complying with the multiple responsibilities of being an employer. It 
does this by permitting the PEOs to accept responsibility for 
employment taxes and provide employee benefits to workers in small 
businesses. For many of these workers, the PEO's pension, health and 
other benefits represent benefits that the worker would not have 
received otherwise because they are too costly for the small business 
to provide on its own. PEOs provide the expertise and the economies of 
scale necessary to provide health and retirement benefits in an 
affordable and efficient manner.
  Congress must take every opportunity to encourage businesses to 
provide retirement and health benefits to their employees. PEOs offer 
one creative way to bridge the gap between what workers need and what 
small businesses can afford to provide them. This legislation clarifies 
the tax law to make it clear that PEOs meeting certain standards will 
be able to offer those needed employee benefits and collect Federal 
employment taxes for their business customers.
  In addition, I would like to make clear what this bill does not do. 
Unlike certain other bills, this bill applies only to PEOs, i.e., 
arrangements where

[[Page S8711]]

the PEO accepts responsibility for all or almost all of the workers at 
a worksite. It does not have anything to do with temporary staffing 
agencies or similar arrangements. Further, this bill by its terms 
applies only to the two areas of the tax law I have mentioned, 
employment tax and employee benefit laws. It does not affect any other 
law, nor does it affect the determination of who is the employer for 
tax law or any other purpose. The bill specifically states that it 
creates no inferences with respect to those issues.
  I am hopeful that, with this narrower focus, this legislation can be 
considered quickly on its own merits, without getting bogged down in 
the disputes over the so-called contingent workforce and independent 
contractor issues, issues that are not addressed in this bill. While 
those are important issues that Congress may want to examine, we should 
not allow those complex issues to delay resolution of the unrelated PEO 
issues addressed by this bill. We believe that the changes made by our 
legislation will help expand retirement and health plan coverage both 
in the short-term and the longer run.
  I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and my other 
colleagues on the Finance Committee and the Administration in moving 
this bill during this Congress so that we can begin to address the 
difficulties faced by small businesses and their workers in obtaining 
benefits and meeting the other challenges of operating in an 
increasingly globalized economy.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1305

       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 ``Professional Employer 
     Organization Workers Benefits Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. NO INFERENCE.

       Nothing contained in this Act or the amendments made by 
     this Act shall be construed to create any inference with 
     respect to the determination of who is an employee or 
     employer--
       (1) for Federal tax purposes (other than the purposes set 
     forth in the amendments made by section 3), or
       (2) for purposes of any other provision of law.

     SEC. 3. CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Employment Taxes.--Chapter 25 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to general provisions relating to 
     employment taxes) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 3511. CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) General Rules.--For purposes of the taxes imposed by 
     this subtitle--
       ``(1) a certified professional employer organization shall 
     be treated as the employer (and no other person shall be 
     treated as the employer) of any work site employee performing 
     services for any customer of such organization, but only with 
     respect to remuneration remitted by such organization to such 
     work site employee, and
       ``(2) the exemptions and exclusions which would (but for 
     paragraph (1)) apply shall apply with respect to such taxes 
     imposed on such remuneration.
       ``(b) Successor Employer Status.--For purposes of sections 
     3121(a) and 3306(b)(1)--
       ``(1) a certified professional employer organization 
     entering into a service contract with a customer with respect 
     to a work site employee shall be treated as a successor 
     employer and the customer shall be treated as a predecessor 
     employer, and
       ``(2) a customer whose service contract with a certified 
     professional employer organization is terminated with respect 
     to a work site employee shall be treated as a successor 
     employer and the certified professional employer organization 
     shall be treated as a predecessor employer.
       ``(c) Liability With Respect to Individuals Purported To Be 
     Work Site Employees.--
       ``(1) General rules.--Solely for purposes of its liability 
     for the taxes imposed by this subtitle--
       ``(A) the certified professional employer organization 
     shall be treated as the employer of any individual (other 
     than a work site employee or a person described in subsection 
     (e)) who is performing services covered by a contract meeting 
     the requirements of section 7705(e)(2)(F), but only with 
     respect to remuneration remitted by such organization to such 
     individual, and
       ``(B) the exemptions and exclusions which would (but for 
     subparagraph (A)) apply shall apply with respect to such 
     taxes imposed on such remuneration.
       ``(d) Special Rule for Related Party.--Subsection (a) shall 
     not apply in the case of a customer which bears a 
     relationship to a certified professional employer 
     organization described in section 267(b) or 707(b). For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, such sections shall be 
     applied by substituting `10 percent' for `50 percent'.
       ``(e) Special Rule for Certain Individuals.--For purposes 
     of the taxes imposed under this subtitle, an individual with 
     net earnings from self-employment derived from the customer's 
     trade or business (including a partner in a partnership that 
     is a customer), is not a work site employee with respect to 
     remuneration paid by a certified professional employer 
     organization.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Employee Benefits.--Section 414 of such Code (relating 
     to definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(w) Certified Professional Employer Organizations.--
       ``(1) Plans maintained by certified professional employer 
     organizations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, in the case of a plan or program established or 
     maintained by a certified professional employer organization 
     to provide employee benefits to work site employees, then, 
     for purposes of applying the provisions of this title 
     applicable to such benefits--
       ``(i) such plan shall be treated as a single employer plan 
     established and maintained by the organization,
       ``(ii) the organization shall be treated as the employer of 
     the work site employees eligible to participate in the plan, 
     and
       ``(iii) the portion of such plan covering work site 
     employees shall not be taken into account in applying such 
     provisions to the remaining portion of such plan or to any 
     other plan established or maintained by the certified 
     professional employer organization providing employee 
     benefits (other than to work site employees).
       ``(B) Special exceptions in applying rules to benefits.--
       ``(i) In general.--In applying any requirement listed in 
     clause (iii) to a plan or program established by the 
     certified professional employer organization--

       ``(I) the portion of the plan established by the certified 
     professional employer organization which covers work site 
     employees performing services for a customer shall be treated 
     as a separate plan of the customer (including for purposes of 
     any disqualification or correction),
       ``(II) the customer shall be treated as establishing and 
     maintaining the plan, as the employer of such employees, and 
     as having paid any compensation remitted by the certified 
     professional employer organization to such employees under 
     the service contract entered into under section 7705, and
       ``(III) a controlled group that includes a certified 
     professional employer organization shall not include in the 
     controlled group any work site employees performing services 
     for a customer.

     For purposes of subclause (III), all persons treated as a 
     single employer under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) 
     shall be treated as members of the same controlled group.
       ``(ii) Self-employed individuals.--A work site employee who 
     would be treated as a self-employed individual (as defined in 
     section 401(c)(1)), a disqualified person (as defined in 
     section 4975(e)(2)), a 2-percent shareholder (as defined in 
     section 1372(b)(2), or a shareholder-employee (as defined in 
     section 4975(f)(6)(C)), but for the relationship with the 
     certified professional employer organization, shall be 
     treated as a self-employed individual, disqualified person, a 
     2-percent shareholder, or shareholder-employee for purposes 
     of rules applicable to employee benefit plans maintained by 
     such certified professional employer organization.
       ``(iii) Listed requirements.--The requirements listed in 
     this clause are:

       ``(I) Nondiscrimination and qualification.--Sections 79(d), 
     105(h), 125(b), 127(b)(2) and (3), 129(d)(2), (3), (4), and 
     (5), 132(j)(1), 274(j)(3)(B), 401(a)(4), 401(a)(17), 
     401(a)(26), 401(k)(3) and (12), 401(m)(2) and (11), 404 (in 
     the case of a plan subject to section 412), 410(b), 412, 
     414(q), 415, 416, 419, 422, 423(b), 505(b), 4971 4972, 4975, 
     4976, 4978, and 4979.
       ``(II) Size.--Sections 220, 401(k)(11), 401(m)(10), 408(k), 
     and 408(p).
       ``(III) Eligibility.--Section 401(k)(4)(B).
       ``(IV) Authority.--Such other similar requirements as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.

       ``(iv) Welfare benefit funds.--With respect to a welfare 
     benefit fund maintained by a certified professional employer 
     organization for the benefit of work site employees 
     performing services for a customer, section 419 shall be 
     treated as not listed in clause (iii)(I) if the fund provides 
     only 1 or more of the following:

       ``(I) Medical benefits other than retiree medical benefits.
       ``(II) Disability benefits.
       ``(III) Group term life insurance benefits which do not 
     provide for any cash surrender value or other money that can 
     be paid, assigned, borrowed or pledged for collateral for a 
     loan.

       ``(v) Excise taxes.--Notwithstanding clause (iii), the 
     certified professional employer organization and the customer 
     contracting for work site employees to pay services shall be 
     jointly and severally liable for the tax imposed by section 
     4971 with respect to failure to meet the minimum funding 
     requirements and the tax imposed by section 4976 with respect 
     to funded welfare benefit plans.

[[Page S8712]]

       ``(vi) Continuation coverage requirements.--For purposes of 
     applying the provisions of section 4980B with respect to a 
     group health plan maintained by a certified professional 
     employer organization for the benefit of work site employees:

       ``(I) Termination of employment events.--Each of the 
     following events shall constitute a termination of employment 
     of a work site employee for purposes of section 
     4980B(f)(3)(B):

       ``(aa) The work site employee ceasing to provide services 
     to any customer of such certified professional employer 
     organization.
       ``(bb) The work site employee ceasing to provide services 
     to one customer of such certified professional employer 
     organization and becoming a work site employee with respect 
     to another customer of such certified professional employer 
     organization; and
       ``(cc) The termination of a service contract between the 
     certified professional employer organization and the customer 
     with respect to which the work site employee performs 
     services, provided, however, that such a contract termination 
     shall not constitute a termination of employment under 
     section 4980B(f)(3)(B) for such work site employee if, at the 
     time of such contract termination, such customer maintains a 
     group health plan (other than a plan providing only excepted 
     benefits within the meaning of sections 9831 and 9832 or a 
     plan covering less than two participants who are employees).

       ``(II) Termination event constituting a qualifying event.--
     If an event described in subparagraph (vi)(I) also 
     constitutes a qualifying event under section 4980B(f)(3) with 
     respect to the group health plan maintained by the certified 
     professional employer organization for the affected work site 
     employee, such plan shall no longer be required to provide 
     continuation coverage as of any new coverage date.
       ``(III) New coverage date when termination event 
     constitutes qualifying event.--For purposes of subclause 
     (II), a new coverage date shall be the first date on which--

       ``(aa) the customer maintains a group health plan other 
     than a plan described in section 4980B(d), a plan providing 
     only excepted benefits within the meaning of sections 9831 
     and 9832, or a plan covering less than two participants who 
     are employees, or
       ``(bb) a service contract between such customer and another 
     certified professional employee organization becomes 
     effective under which worksite employees performing services 
     for such customer are covered under a group health plan of 
     such other certified professional employee organization, 
     other than a plan described in section 4980B(d), a plan 
     providing only excepted benefits within the meaning of 
     sections 9831 and 9832, or a plan covering less than two 
     participants who are employees.

       ``(IV) Effect of customer-maintained plan.--As of a new 
     coverage date described in subclause (III)(aa), the customer 
     shall be required to make continuation coverage available to 
     any qualified beneficiary who was receiving (or was eligible 
     to elect to receive) continuation coverage under a certified 
     professional employer organization's group health plan and 
     who is, or whose qualifying event occurred in connection 
     with, a person whose last employment prior to such employee's 
     qualifying event was as a work site employee providing 
     services to such customer pursuant to a service contract with 
     such certified professional employer organization.

       ``(C) Effect of new service contract with certified peo.--
     As of a new coverage date described in subclause (III)(bb), 
     the second certified professional employee organization shall 
     be required to make continuation coverage available to any 
     qualified beneficiary who was receiving (or was eligible to 
     elect to receive) continuation coverage under the first 
     certified professional employer organization's group health 
     plan and who is, or whose qualifying event occurred in 
     connection with, a person whose last employment prior to such 
     employee's qualifying event was as a work site employee 
     providing services to the customer pursuant to a service 
     contract with the first certified professional employer 
     organization.
       ``(vii) Continued coverage for qualified beneficiaries.--As 
     of the date that a certified professional employee 
     organization's group health plan first provides coverage to 
     one or more work site employees providing services to a 
     customer, such group health plan shall be required to make 
     continuation coverage available to any qualified beneficiary 
     who was receiving (or was eligible to receive or elect to 
     receive) continuation coverage under a group health plan 
     sponsored by such customer if, in connection with coverage 
     being provided by the organization's plan, such customer 
     terminates each of its group health plans, other than a plan 
     or plans providing only excepted benefits within the meaning 
     of sections 9831 and 9832 or covering less than two 
     participants who are employees.
       ``(viii) Effect of termination of peo status.--The 
     termination of a professional employer organization's status 
     as a certified professional employer organization--

       ``(I) shall constitute an event described in section 
     4980B(f)(3)(B) for any work site employee performing services 
     pursuant to a contract between a customer and such 
     professional employer organization, but
       ``(II) no loss of coverage within the meaning of section 
     4980B(f)(3) occurs unless, in connection with such 
     termination of status as a certified professional employer 
     organization, the individual formerly treated as a work site 
     employee performing services for the customer pursuant to a 
     contract with such professional employer organization ceases 
     to be covered under the arrangement of the professional 
     employer organization that had been, prior to such 
     termination of status, the group health plan of such 
     organization.

       ``(ix) Person liable for tax.--For purposes of the 
     liability for tax under section 4980B, the person or entity 
     required to provide continuation coverage under this clause 
     (vi) shall be deemed to be the employer under section 
     4980B(e)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Plans maintained by customers of certified 
     professional employer organizations.--If a customer of a 
     certified professional employer organization provides (other 
     than through such organization) any employee benefits, then 
     with respect to such benefits--
       ``(A) work site employees of the organization who perform 
     services for the customer shall be treated as leased 
     employees of such customer,
       ``(B) such customer shall be treated as a recipient for 
     purposes of subsection (n), and paragraphs (4) and (5) of 
     subsection (n) shall not apply for such purposes, and
       ``(C) with respect to such work site employees, sections 
     105(h), 403(b)(12), 422, and 423 shall be treated as a 
     benefit listed in subsection (n)(3)(C).
       ``(3) Plans maintained by companies in same controlled 
     group as certified professional employer organization.--In 
     applying any requirement listed in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), a 
     controlled group which includes a certified professional 
     employer organization shall not include in such controlled 
     group any work site employees performing services for a 
     customer. For purposes of this paragraph, all persons treated 
     as a single employer under subsections (b), (c), (m) and (o) 
     shall be treated as members of the same controlled group.
       ``(4) Rules applicable to plans maintained by certified 
     professional employer organizations and plans maintained by 
     their customers.--
       ``(A) Service crediting for participation and vesting 
     purposes.--In the case of a plan maintained by a certified 
     professional employer organization or a customer, for 
     purposes of determining a work site employee's service for 
     eligibility to participate and vesting under sections 410(a) 
     and 411, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     of section 413(c) shall apply to service for the certified 
     professional employer organization and customer.
       ``(B) Compensation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), for 
     purposes of subsection (s) and section 415(c)(3), or other 
     comparable provisions of this title based on compensation 
     which affects employee benefit plans, compensation received 
     from the customer with respect to which the work site 
     employee performs services shall be taken into account 
     together with compensation received from the certified 
     professional employer organization.
       ``(ii) Exception.--For purposes of applying sections 404 
     and 412 to a plan maintained by a certified professional 
     employer organization, only compensation received from the 
     certified professional employer organization shall be taken 
     into account.
       ``(C) Eligible employers.--The provisions of sections 
     457(f)(1)(A) and (B) apply to a work site employee performing 
     services for a customer that is an eligible employer as 
     defined in section 457(e)(1). The preceding sentence shall 
     not apply in the case of a plan described in section 401(a) 
     which includes a trust exempt from tax under section 501(a), 
     an annuity plan or contract described in section 403, the 
     portion of a plan which consists of a transfer of property 
     described in section 83, the portion of a plan which consists 
     of a trust to which section 402(b) applies, or a qualified 
     governmental excess benefit arrangement described in section 
     415(m).
       ``(5) Special rules where multiple plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of applying section 415 
     with respect to a plan maintained by a certified professional 
     employer organization, the organization and customers of such 
     organization shall be treated as a single employer, except 
     that if plans are maintained by a certified professional 
     employer organization and a customer with respect to a work 
     site employee, any action required to be taken by such plans 
     shall be taken first with respect to the plan maintained by 
     the customer.
       ``(B) Minimum benefit.--If a minimum benefit is required to 
     be provided under section 416, such benefit shall, to the 
     extent possible, be provided through the plan maintained by 
     the certified professional employer organization.
       ``(6) Termination of service contract between certified 
     professional employer organization and customer.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Treatment of successor plan.--If a service contract 
     between a customer and a certified professional employer 
     organization is terminated and work site employees of the 
     customer were covered by a plan maintained by the 
     organization, then, except as provided in regulations, any 
     plan of another certified professional employer organization 
     or the customer which covers such work site employees shall 
     be treated as a successor plan for purposes of any rules 
     governing in-service distributions.

[[Page S8713]]

       ``(ii) Treatment as severance from employment and 
     separation from service.--If a service contract between a 
     customer and a certified professional employer organization 
     is terminated, and there is no plan treated as a successor 
     plan under clause (i), then such termination shall be treated 
     as a plan termination with respect to each work site employee 
     of such customer.
       ``(B) Distribution rules applicable to subparagraph 
     (A)(ii).--Except as otherwise required by this title, in any 
     case to which subparagraph (A)(ii) applies, the certified 
     professional employer organization plan may distribute--
       ``(i) during the 2-year period beginning on the date of 
     such termination (in accordance with plan terms) only--

       ``(I) elective deferrals and earnings attributable thereto,
       ``(II) qualified nonelective contributions (within the 
     meaning of section 401(m)(4)(C)) and earnings attributable 
     thereto, and
       ``(III) matching contributions described in section 
     401(k)(3)(D)(ii)(I) and earnings attributable thereto,

     of former work site employees associated with the terminated 
     customer only in a direct rollover described in section 
     401(a)(31), and
       ``(ii) after such 2-year period, amounts in such plan in 
     accordance with plan terms.''.
       (c) Certified Professional Employer Organization Defined.--
     Chapter 79 of such Code (relating to definitions) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7705. CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `certified professional employer organization' means a person 
     who applies to be treated as a certified professional 
     employer organization for purposes of sections 414(w) and 
     3511 and who has been certified by the Secretary as meeting 
     the requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(b) Certification.--A person meets the requirements of 
     this subsection if such person--
       ``(1) demonstrates that such person (and any owner, 
     officer, and such other persons as may be specified in 
     regulations) meets such requirements as the Secretary shall 
     establish with respect to tax status, background, experience, 
     business location, and annual financial audits,
       ``(2) represents that it will satisfy the bond and 
     independent financial review requirements of subsections (c) 
     on an ongoing basis,
       ``(3) represents that it will satisfy such reporting 
     obligations as may be imposed by the Secretary,
       ``(4) represents that it will maintain a qualified plan (as 
     defined in section 408(p)(2)(D)(ii)) or an arrangement to 
     provide simple retirement accounts (within the meaning of 
     section 408(p)) which benefit at least 95 percent of all work 
     site employees who are not highly compensated employees for 
     purposes of section 414(q),
       ``(5) computes its taxable income using an accrual method 
     of accounting unless the Secretary approves another method,
       ``(6) agrees to verify the continuing accuracy of 
     representations and information which was previously provided 
     on such periodic basis as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(7) agrees to notify the Secretary in writing of any 
     change that materially affects the continuing accuracy of any 
     representation or information which was previously made or 
     provided.
       ``(c) Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--An organization meets the requirements 
     of this paragraph if such organization--
       ``(A) meets the bond requirements of subparagraph (2), and
       ``(B) meets the independent financial review requirements 
     of subparagraph (3).
       ``(2) Bond.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certified professional employer 
     organization meets the requirements of this paragraph if the 
     organization has posted a bond for the payment of taxes under 
     subtitle C (in a form acceptable to the Secretary) that is in 
     an amount at least equal to the amount specified in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Amount of bond.--
       ``(i) In general.--For the period April 1 of any calendar 
     year through March 31 of the following calendar year, the 
     amount of the bond required is equal to the greater of:

       ``(I) 5 percent of the organization's liability for taxes 
     imposed by this subtitle during the preceding calendar year 
     (but not to exceed $1,000,000), or
       ``(II) $50,000.

       ``(ii) Special rule for newly created professional employer 
     organizations.--During the first three full calendar years 
     that an organization is in existence, subclause (I) of clause 
     (i) shall not apply. For this purpose--

       ``(I) under rules provided by the Secretary, an 
     organization is treated as in existence as of the date that 
     such organization began providing services to any client 
     which were comparable to the services being provided with 
     respect to worksite employees, regardless of whether such 
     date occurred before or after the organization is certified 
     under section 7705, and
       ``(II) an organization with liability for taxes imposed by 
     this subtitle during the preceding calendar year in excess of 
     $5,000,000 shall no longer be described in this clause (ii) 
     as of April 1 of the year following such calendar year.

       ``(3) Independent financial review requirements.--A 
     certified professional employer organization meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if such organization--
       ``(A) has, as of the most recent audit date, caused to be 
     prepared and provided to the Secretary (in such manner as the 
     Secretary may prescribe) an opinion of an independent 
     certified public accountant as to whether the certified 
     professional employer organization's financial statements are 
     presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles, and
       ``(B) provides to the Secretary an assertion regarding 
     Federal employment tax payments and an examination level 
     attestation on such assertion from an independent certified 
     public accountant not later than the last day of the second 
     month beginning after the end of each calendar quarter. Such 
     assertion shall state that the organization has withheld and 
     made deposits of all taxes imposed by chapters 21, 22, and 24 
     of the Internal Revenue Code in accordance with regulations 
     imposed by the Secretary for such calendar quarter and such 
     examination level attestation shall state that such assertion 
     is fairly stated, in all material respects.
       ``(4) Special rule for small certified professional 
     employer organizations.--The requirements of paragraph (3)(A) 
     shall not apply with respect to a fiscal year of an 
     organization if such organization's liability for taxes 
     imposed by subtitle C during the calendar year ending on (or 
     concurrent with) the end of the fiscal year were $5,000,000 
     or less.
       ``(5) Failure to file assertion and attestation.--If the 
     certified professional employer organization fails to file 
     the assertion and attestation required by paragraph (3) with 
     respect to a particular quarter, then the requirements of 
     paragraph (3) with respect to such failure shall be treated 
     as not satisfied for the period beginning on the due date for 
     such attestation.
       ``(6) Audit date.--For purposes of paragraph (3)(A), the 
     audit date shall be six months after the completion of the 
     organization's fiscal year.
       ``(d) Suspension and revocation authority.--The Secretary 
     may suspend or revoke a certification of any person under 
     subsection (b) for purposes of section 414(w) or 3511, or 
     both, if the Secretary determines that such person is not 
     satisfying the representations or requirements of subsections 
     (b) or (c), or fails to satisfy applicable accounting, 
     reporting, payment, or deposit requirements.
       ``(e) Work Site Employee.--For purposes of this title--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `work site employee' means, 
     with respect to a certified professional employer 
     organization, an individual who--
       ``(A) performs services for a customer pursuant to a 
     contract which is between such customer and the certified 
     professional employer organization and which meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2), and
       ``(B) performs services at a work site meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Service contract requirements.--A contract meets the 
     requirements of this paragraph with respect to an individual 
     performing services for a customer if such contract is in 
     writing and provides that the certified professional employer 
     organization shall--
       ``(A) assume responsibility for payment of wages to the 
     individual, without regard to the receipt or adequacy of 
     payment from the customer for such services,
       ``(B) assume responsibility for reporting, withholding, and 
     paying any applicable taxes under subtitle C, with respect to 
     the individual's wages, without regard to the receipt or 
     adequacy of payment from the customer for such services,
       ``(C) assume responsibility for any employee benefits which 
     the service contract may require the certified professional 
     employer organization to provide, without regard to the 
     receipt or adequacy of payment from the customer for such 
     services,
       ``(D) assume shared responsibility with the customer for 
     firing the individual and for recruiting and hiring any new 
     worker,
       ``(E) maintain employee records relating to the individual, 
     and
       ``(F) agree to be treated as a certified professional 
     employer organization for purposes of sections 414(w) and 
     3511 with respect to such individual.
       ``(3) Work site coverage requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to an individual if at least 85 percent of 
     the individuals performing services for the customer at the 
     work site where such individual performs services are subject 
     to 1 or more contracts with the certified professional 
     employer organization which meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Special rules.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) Work site.--The term `work site' means a physical 
     location at which an individual generally performs service 
     for the customer or, if there is no such location, the 
     location from which the individual receives job assignments 
     from the customer.
       ``(ii) Contiguous locations.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     work sites which are contiguous locations shall be treated as 
     a single physical location.
       ``(iii) Noncontiguous locations.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), noncontiguous locations shall be treated as separate 
     work sites, except that each work site within a reasonably 
     proximate area must satisfy the 85 percent

[[Page S8714]]

     test under subparagraph (A) for the individuals performing 
     services for the customer at such work site. In determining 
     whether noncontiguous locations are reasonably proximate, all 
     facts and circumstances shall be taken into account.
       ``(iv) Work sites 35 miles or more apart.--Any work site 
     which is separated from all other customer work sites by at 
     least 35 miles shall not be treated as reasonably proximate 
     under clause (iii).
       ``(v) Different industry.--A work site shall not be treated 
     as reasonably proximate to another work site under clause 
     (iii) if the work site operates in a different industry or 
     industries from such other work site as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(f) Employer Aggregation Rules.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsections 
     (c)(2)(B)(ii), (c)(4) and (e), all persons treated as a 
     single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of 
     section 414 shall be treated as 1 person.
       ``(2) Plans maintained by companies in same controlled 
     group as certified professional employer organization.--For 
     purposes of subsection (b)(4), if certified professional 
     employer organizations are part of a controlled group, then 
     the certified professional employer organizations (but no 
     other member of the controlled group) shall be treated as 1 
     person.
       ``(3) Qualified plans.--For purposes of subsection (b)(4)--
       ``(A) a qualified plan (as defined in section 
     408(p)(2)(D)(ii)) which is maintained by, or an arrangement 
     to provide a simple retirement account (within the meaning of 
     section 408(p)) to, a customer with respect to a work site 
     employee performing services for such customer shall be 
     treated as if it were maintained by the applicant, and
       ``(B) work site employees who do not meet the minimum age 
     and service requirements of section 410(a)(1)(A) (or who are 
     excludable from consideration under section 410(b)(3)) shall 
     not be taken into account.
       ``(g) Determination of Employment Status.--Except to the 
     extent necessary for purposes of section 414(w) or 3511, 
     nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the 
     determination of who is an employee or employer for purposes 
     of this title.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section and sections 414(w) and 
     6503(k).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 45B of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Certified Professional Employer Organizations.--For 
     purposes of this section, in the case of a certified 
     professional employer organization that is treated, under 
     section 3511, as the employer of a worksite employee who is a 
     tipped employee, the credit determined under this section 
     does not apply to such organization, but does apply to the 
     customer of such organization. For this purpose the customer 
     shall take into account any remuneration and taxes remitted 
     by the certified professional employer organization.''.
       (2) Section 707 of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Payments to Certified Professional Employer 
     Organizations.--If a partnership that is a customer of a 
     certified professional employer organization (as defined in 
     section 7705) makes a payment to such an organization on 
     behalf of a partner, and the payment, if made directly to the 
     partner, would be treated as a guaranteed payment under 
     section 707(c), the partnership shall treat the payment as if 
     it were a guaranteed payment made to a partner. To the extent 
     that the relevant partner receives all or any portion of such 
     a payment, such partner shall be treated as receiving a 
     guaranteed payment for services under section 707(c).''.
       (3) Section 3302 of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Treatment of Certified Professional Employer 
     Organizations.--If a certified professional employer 
     organization (as defined in section 7705) (or a client of 
     such organization) makes a payment to the State's 
     unemployment fund with respect to a work site employee, such 
     organization shall be eligible for the credits available 
     under this section with respect to such payment.''.
       (4) Section 3303(a) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     of paragraph (3) and inserting ``; and'',
       (B) by inserting immediately after paragraph (3) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) a certified professional employer organization (as 
     defined in section 7705) is permitted to collect and remit, 
     in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 
     contributions during the taxable year to the State 
     unemployment fund with respect to a work site employee.'', 
     and
       (C) in the last sentence--
       (i) by striking ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (1), (2), or (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4)''.
       (5) Section 6053(c) such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Certified professional employer organizations.--For 
     purposes of any report required by this section, in the case 
     of a certified professional employer organization that is 
     treated, under section 3511, as the employer of a worksite 
     employee, the customer with respect to whom a worksite 
     employee performs services shall be the employer for purposes 
     of reporting under this section and the certified 
     professional employer organization shall furnish to the 
     customer any information necessary to complete such reporting 
     no later than such time as the Secretary shall prescribe.''.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 25 of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 3511. Certified professional employer organizations.''.
       (2) The table of sections for chapter 79 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7704 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 7705. Certified professional employer organizations.''.
       (f) Reporting Requirements and Obligations.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall develop such reporting and 
     recordkeeping rules, regulations, and procedures as the 
     Secretary determines necessary or appropriate to ensure 
     compliance with the amendments made by this Act with respect 
     to entities applying for certification as certified 
     professional employer organizations or entities that have 
     been so certified. Such rules shall be designed in a manner 
     which streamlines, to the extent possible, the application of 
     requirements of such amendments, the exchange of information 
     between a certified professional employer organization and 
     its customers, and the reporting and recordkeeping 
     obligations of the certified professional employer 
     organization.
       (f) User Fees.--Subsection (b) of section 10511 of the 
     Revenue Act of 1987 (relating to fees for requests for 
     ruling, determination, and similar letters) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Certified professional employer organizations.--The 
     fee charged under the program in connection with the 
     certification by the Secretary of a professional employer 
     organization under section 7705 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 shall not exceed $500.''.
       (g) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the later of--
       (A) January 1, 2003, or
       (B) the January 1st of the first calendar year beginning 
     more than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Certification program.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall establish the certification program described in 
     section 7705(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
     added by subsection (c) of this section) not later than 3 
     months before the effective date determined under paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Transition issues.--For years beginning before the 
     effective date specified in paragraph (1), subject to such 
     conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, 
     employee benefit plans in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall not be treated as failing to meet 
     the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 merely 
     because such plans were maintained by an organization prior 
     to such organization becoming a certified professional 
     employer organization (as defined by section 7705 of such 
     Code (as so added)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Warner, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        DeWine, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, 
        and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1306. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
transfer all excise taxes imposed on alcohol fuels to the Highway Trust 
Fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a piece of 
legislation that will help ensure that the Trust is restored to the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, HTFRA, of 2001 will direct 2.5 
cents from the sale of gasohol into the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 
Fiscal Year 2004.
  This bill is important for several reasons. First, the bill 
reconfirms the landmark 1998 highway bill--TEA 21, which is so 
important to economic development in Montana and throughout the 
country. Second, the bill will ensure that much needed highway 
improvements are made throughout the country. Third, this bill means 
more jobs for Montanans and others throughout the country.
  It is, in short, the right thing to do.
  By way of background, the gas tax was established for one simply 
reason: to finance the construction of the national highway system.
  In 1993, there was a departure. The tax was increased, by 4.3 cents a 
gallon. And, for the first time, the tax was

[[Page S8715]]

used not for the highway program, but instead for deficit reduction.
  I supported the increase, reluctantly, as part of an overall 
compromise that was a key step towards balancing the budget.
  Even so, many of us were determined to restore the principle that the 
gas tax should only be used to fund our highway and related 
transportation programs. We worked, as we said, to ``put the trust back 
in the trust fund.''
  It was a long, difficult fight. We faced tough opposition, from the 
Administration, the budget committees, and elsewhere. But, in the end, 
we prevailed. During the Senate's consideration of the 1998 highway 
bill, we provided that the entire gas tax, including the 4.3 cents, 
would go into the Highway Trust Fund and be used exclusively for 
highway construction and other transportation needs. When an amendment 
was offered to repeal the 4.3 cents tax, it was defeated.
  Don't get me wrong. Nobody likes taxes. But, since its inception, the 
gas tax is how we get money to pay for our highways. As these things 
go, the gas tax has worked well.
  Ensuring necessary and affordable energy supplies, including ethanol-
blended motor fuels and other initiatives, is important to the quality 
of life and economic prosperity of all Americans. Policies to achieve 
these objectives, however, should not come at the expense of 
transportation infrastructure improvements.
  Under current law, ethanol enjoys an exemption from current excise 
tax rates. This exemption allows the price of gasohol, ethanol mixed 
with gasoline, to be lower than the price of gasoline. Two and one half 
cents from the sale of this lower priced fuel is still sent to the 
General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. It should be going to the Highway 
Trust Fund.
  Let me explain what the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001 would 
mean for our nation's highway program. At least $400 million a year 
would now go where it belongs, toward the maintenance of our Nation's 
highways.
  I'll get right to the point. Most of my colleagues were here for the 
highway bill debate. You know how difficult it was. You know how hard 
we fought to make sure that each of our states would get enough funding 
to support our transportation needs.
  We still need more. As was made clear in the debate over TEA-21 in 
1998, America still has a significant shortfall in funding when it 
comes to maintaining a serviceable highway system. The Department of 
Transportation estimates that the Nations requires $56.6 billion 
annually just to maintain existing road and bridge conditions on our 
Federal highway system. Yet TEA-21 meets only 56 percent of that need.
  This 2.5 cent transfer means that thousands of hard-working folks who 
show up every day, in good weather and bad, to build our roads and 
improve our communities will have jobs to go to. These are people who 
depend on their jobs to support themselves and their families.
  Pulling this all together, the Congress needs to find a way to 
enhancing our energy independence without undermining our highway 
programs. The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001 is a step in the 
right direction.
  There's one final point.
  For the past few years, Congress has been criticized for putting 
partisan politics ahead of the public interest. In short, of not 
getting much done.
  There have been some notable exceptions. Balancing the budget. 
Reforming the welfare system.
  And, yes, reaching a bipartisan compromise on the 1998 highway bill, 
TEA-21. That bill did not just reauthorize the highway program. It 
renewed and revitalized the highway program. We passed it 
overwhelmingly, by a vote of 88-5. It was a great accomplishment.
  We can confirm that accomplishment by passing the Highway Trust Fund 
Recovery Act of 2001.
  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. 1306

       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 ``Highway Trust Fund Recovery 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. ALL ALCOHOL FUELS TAXES TRANSFERRED TO HIGHWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 9503(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to certain taxes not transferred to 
     Highway Trust Fund) is amended--
       (1) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C),
       (2) by striking the comma at the end of subparagraph 
     (D)(iii) and inserting a period, and
       (3) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxes received in the Treasury after September 
     30, 2003.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Max Baucus, in introducing The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act 
of 2001. The tax treatment of ethanol-blended fuels is an issue that is 
disproportionately reducing the amount of Federal highway funding 
States receive, serving as a disincentive to ethanol use, and impacting 
our ability to address fully our highway improvement needs. The 
legislation we are introducing today addresses this problem by ensuring 
that the portion of the per gallon Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuels 
which is currently deposited into the General Fund is deposited into 
the Highway Trust Fund instead.
  As my colleagues may be aware, the Federal tax on gasoline that does 
not contain ethanol is 18.4 cents per gallon, whereas the Federal tax 
on gasohol, a blend of gasoline and ethanol, is 13.0 cents per gallon. 
The 5.4 cents per gallon tax difference is meant to keep the price of 
ethanol down, and serve as an incentive to help promote ethanol's use 
as a renewable and alternative fuel.
  The 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline is the major source of 
income to the Highway Trust Fund. The money that accumulates in the 
Highway Trust Fund is used for highway, highway safety, transit, and 
other surface transportation programs.
  However, of the 13.0 cents per gallon Federal tax on gasohol, only 
10.4 cents are sent to the Highway Trust Fund, .1 cent goes to the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, while the remaining 2.5 cents 
are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. Although 2.5 cents 
does not sound like a lot of money, it actually adds up to hundreds of 
millions of dollars per year that are not being used for the purpose of 
improving our Nation's roadways, the reason they were collected in the 
first place.
  The bill we are introducing today, the Highway Trust Fund Recovery 
Act, would ensure that the remaining 2.5 cent tax paid by highway users 
on ethanol-blended fuels is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. 
Under the bill, annual deposits to the Highway Account would increase 
by some $400 million per year based on current gasohol sales.
  Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 5th highest 
volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway network, and the 
2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. While Ohio's traffic 
and congestion have risen, its Federal receipts have not risen 
commensurately because of the different tax treatment of ethanol-
blended fuels.
  The reason for this disproportion is because Ohio's uses of gasohol 
is among the highest in the Nation, 40 percent of the state's gasoline 
consumption in 2000 compared to a national average of around 10 
percent. Since Ohio's Federal appropriation under the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, is determined by its 
contribution to the Highway Trust Fund, and gasohol is taxed 
differently than conventional gasoline, gasohol consumption has 
significantly decreased the amount of revenue credited to Ohio in the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  It's simple: less money in means less money out.
  According to the Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT, Ohio is 
losing more than $160 million per year due to gasohol consumption. To 
put that number in perspective, it equals 17 percent of Ohio's total 
obligation ceiling; over one half of the State's major new construction 
program budget; and it nearly equals the amount the State budgets for 
routine bridge repair and replacement for an entire year. Of that $160 
million figure, the state is losing more than $50 million simply 
because 2.5 cents of the Federal tax on gasohol

[[Page S8716]]

are deposited into the General Fund. This amount is 5 percent of the 
Ohio's total obligation ceiling; one-sixth of Ohio's major new 
construction program; and equal to the amount ODOT budgets for safety 
improvement projects for a two-year period.
  The 11 States that make up the Mississippi Valley Conference of the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
AASHTO, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, account for 70 percent of the 
Nation's ethanol consumption. The Federal fuel tax rate for ethanol 
impacts this region more than any other region of the country. If the 
legislation we are introducing were enacted today, this region alone 
would receive over $225 million more in additional highway funding.
  My State of Ohio has made the environmentally sound decision to 
utilize ethanol in order to keep the air clean; we should not be 
penalized with fewer highway dollars for doing the right thing.
  Our legislation would not affect the highway formulas or distribution 
of funds under TEA-21, and it does not take effect until fiscal year 
2004, after the expiration of TEA-21. It is important that Congress 
know what estimated Highway Trust Fund revenues will be prior to the 
next highway authorization process.
  The current tax treatment of gasohol is a disincentive to use 
ethanol, a clean, renewable fuel source. The bill we are introducing 
today is good environmental policy, good agricultural policy, good 
energy policy, and good transportation policy. States should not be 
penalized for using ethanol. It does not make sense for taxes paid on 
ethanol-blended fuels to be deposited in the General Fund when we need 
more than $50 billion per year over the next 20 years just to maintain 
the current physical condition of our Nation's highways.
  Taxes on ethanol are paid by motorists whose vehicles are causing the 
same wear and tear on our roads and bridges that non-ethanol-fueled 
vehicles cause. While we may have policy reasons for taxing ethanol at 
a lower rate or establishing a market for ethanol-blended fuels, surely 
we ought to insist that the taxes paid by ethanol users are deposited 
into the Highway Trust Fund where they can be used to make our highways 
safer and less congested.
  This bill would help ensure that we have reliable alternative sources 
of energy, while we meet our clean air goals, but not at the expense of 
States' highway funding. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by 
the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 1309. a bill to amend the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to 
reauthorize that Act and to authorize the construction of a 
desalination research and development facility at the Tularosa Basin, 
New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce ``The Water 
Supply Security Act of 2001.'' Access to fresh water is an increasingly 
critical national and international issue. As the world's population 
grows and stores of fresh water are depleted, finding additional 
sources of fresh water is key to ensuring world peace and security.
  In the Middle East, a major component of almost every peace agreement 
is water. President Khatami of Iran said last month that peace in the 
region will be largely determined by mechanisms to solve the problem of 
water. Shortly after being elected, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon 
stated that one of the first things he was going to do was to build two 
water desalting plants in Israel to meet that country's water needs.
  Providing fresh water to the people of Africa is a key component in 
fighting the AIDS epidemic plaguing that continent. AIDS researchers 
have determined that a principal reason that mothers with AIDS and HIV 
are spreading the virus to their children is because there is not 
enough clean water to mix infant formula.
  Here in the United States, arid states such as New Mexico are facing 
serious water shortages. City planners in my home town of Albuquerque 
have speculated that the city will not be able to grow much more 
because the aquifer located beneath the city is quickly drying up. 
Nevada, Arizona, Texas, California and Florida are facing similar 
problems. A study by the Hudson Institute found that by the year 2025, 
45 percent of the U.S. population growth will occur in California, 
Texas, and Florida, States already facing severe water shortages. This 
population explosion will undoubtedly result in a scarcity of fresh 
water.
  Although all these States have diminishing stores of fresh water, 
they all have large deposits of brackish and sea water. Because 
brackish and sea water account for over 97 percent of the water on 
earth, being able to cheaply convert this water into fresh water is 
important to ensuring an adequate supply of fresh water.
  President Kennedy, a strong proponent of the government funding for 
desalting technology, stated ``if we could ever competitively, at a 
cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water . . . (this) would be in 
the long-range interests of humanity which would really dwarf any other 
scientific accomplishments.''
  The R&D funded by the federal government between 1952 and the early 
1980s resulted in the two desalting technologies that are most widely 
used today. The development of these widely used technologies would not 
have been possible had it not been for federally sponsored research and 
development. Just as these endeavors resulted in significant 
technological breakthroughs, I believe that a renewed investment by the 
federal government would lead to further advancements in the 
technology.
  Although desalting technology has become significantly cheaper in 
recent years, the cost of desalting brackish and seawater is still 
substantially more expensive than treatment and delivery of other 
municipal water supplies. In 1996, Congress passed the Water 
Desalination Act of 1996. This created a small desalting R & D and 
demonstration program within the Bureau of Reclamation that was tasked 
with determining the most technologically efficient and cost-effective 
means by which useable water can be produced from saline water.
  This program has been very successful despite receiving limited 
funding. However, their authorization is set to expire in 2002. The 
legislation I introduce today would re-authorize the desalting R & D 
and demonstration program run by the Bureau of Reclamation for an 
additional six years so that they can continue their work on ensuring 
that we are able to produce fresh water at a reduced cost.
  In addition to renewing this program, the federal government needs to 
pursue next-generation technologies that would significantly drive down 
the cost of converting large volumes of readily available saline and 
brackish waters. Although desalting technology cost and performance 
have been significantly improved over the past thirty years, overall 
cost needs to be reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 to make desalted water 
affordable. While the currently available technologies may be meeting 
the needs of certain coastal communities with adequate resources to 
finance such technology, there is a real need for technologies that can 
tackle a broader range of applications and reduce costs significantly. 
Such revolutionary desalting technologies would provide significant 
relief to communities throughout the world, be they rich or poor, 
coastal or inland.
  Our national laboratories have long been known for being at the 
forefront of science. The laboratories have extensive expertise in 
virtually all of the key science and technology areas necessary for 
developing next-generation desalting technology. Furthermore, the labs 
are already engaged in research and development in several non-
traditional desalination technologies. As such, I believe our national 
laboratories should play a significant role in the development of this 
vital technology. Drawing from the technological expertise that the 
labs can provide should ensure that this endeavor will be a successful 
one.
  The bill that I introduce today would direct a collaboration between 
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy in evaluating 
current technology, advising on how to proceed

[[Page S8717]]

with additional research, authorizing the building of a facility where 
these advances in technology could be tested, and confirming project 
and operation costs in a real-world application. This bill would also 
employ the extensive knowledge in desalination technology that the 
Bureau of Reclamation has accumulated over the past 30 years by 
allowing that agency to conduct internal research.
  I have no doubt that this legislation would help to push the state of 
the art forward to ensure that the world has access to this life 
sustaining resource for years to come.
  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. 1309

       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 ``Water Supply Security Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF RESEARCH AND STUDIES.

       Section 4 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 
     10301 note; Public Law 104-298) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) Tularosa Basin Desalination Facility.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Technology progress plan.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, Sandia National Laboratories, 
     in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy and in 
     consultation with the Secretary, and using as models the 
     roles of desalination facilities operated by the Federal 
     Government and other research institutions as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, shall develop a desalination 
     technology progress plan that includes--

       ``(I) an overview of available short-term and long-term 
     desalination technology development;
       ``(II) recommendations for the location, siting, and 
     configuration of the facility under subparagraph (B);
       ``(III) an assessment of the contributions that the 
     facility could make to the field of desalination; and
       ``(IV) recommendations concerning the most effective and 
     efficient manner of carrying out subparagraph (B).

       ``(ii) Cost-sharing requirements.--The cost-sharing 
     requirements described in sections 1604 and 1605 of the 
     Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 
     U.S.C. 390h-2, 390h-3) shall not apply to--

       ``(I) the funding of the technology progress plan described 
     in clause (i);
       ``(II) the facility authorized to be constructed under 
     subparagraph (B); or
       ``(III) any research carried out by Sandia National 
     Laboratories under this Act.

       ``(B) Testing and evaluation facility.--
       ``(i) Construction.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of completion of the technology progress plan under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Energy, in collaboration 
     with the Secretary and in accordance with the memorandum of 
     understanding described in subparagraph (C) and the 
     technology progress plan developed under subparagraph (A)(i), 
     shall construct a desalination test and evaluation facility 
     at the Tularosa Basin, located in Otero County in the State 
     of New Mexico (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `facility').
       ``(ii) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the facility begins operation, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall submit to Congress a report that describes project 
     plans of, and any technological advancements developed by, 
     the facility.
       ``(iii) Contractors.--The Secretary of Energy may enter 
     into such contracts as are necessary (including contracts 
     with other Federal agencies, State agencies, educational 
     institutions, and private entities and organizations) to 
     carry out this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Memorandum of understanding.--In carrying out this 
     paragraph, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall enter into a memorandum of understanding under 
     which the Secretary of Energy shall seek from the Secretary 
     of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     provide to the Secretary of Energy, technical assistance and 
     expertise in the development and construction of the 
     facility.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The facility--
       ``(A) shall be used--
       ``(i) to carry out research on, and to test, demonstrate, 
     and evaluate, new desalination technologies (including long-
     term, alternative technologies that have the potential for 
     significant desalination cost reductions beyond the time 
     frame of the focus of current research);
       ``(ii) to fully evaluate the performance of new 
     technologies, including performance in--

       ``(I) energy consumption;
       ``(II) byproduct disposal; and
       ``(III) operational maintenance costs; and

       ``(iii) to determine the most technologically-efficient and 
     cost-efficient means by which potable water may be produced 
     from salinated water or other water that is unsuitable for 
     use; and
       ``(B) should be capable of processing at least 100,000 
     gallons of water per day.
       ``(3) Collaboration; facility discretion.--
       ``(A) Collaboration.--All research at the facility shall be 
     carried out by the Secretary of Energy, in collaboration with 
     the Secretary.
       ``(B) Facility discretion.--Research described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i) may be carried out at the facility or at any other 
     laboratory facility determined to be suitable by Sandia 
     National Laboratories.
       ``(4) Provision of water.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), all 
     desalinated water produced by the facility shall be provided 
     to 1 or more communities located in Otero County, New Mexico, 
     at no cost to the communities, as jointly determined by the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Secretary.
       ``(B) Timing; supplementary aspect.--The water provided 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be--
       ``(i) provided only after technology testing demonstrates 
     that the water is of a consistent, reliable quality, as 
     determined by Sandia National Laboratories, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of Energy; and
       ``(ii) supplementary to water provided by public water 
     systems or wells in the communities.
       ``(5) Technical advisory committee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Energy shall jointly establish a technical advisory committee 
     to provide, under such procedures as the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Energy shall jointly develop, program guidance 
     and technical assistance in carrying out this subsection.
       ``(B) Composition.--
       ``(i) In general.--The technical advisory committee shall 
     be composed of--

       ``(I) representatives from the Department of the Interior 
     and the Department of Energy, to be appointed by the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of Energy, respectively; and
       ``(II) such additional representatives from academic 
     institutions, the private sector, other Federal agencies, and 
     educational institutions, as the Secretary and the Secretary 
     of Energy, respectively, determine to be appropriate.

       ``(ii) Chairpersons.--A representative of the Department of 
     the Interior selected by the Secretary and a representative 
     of the Department of Energy selected by the Secretary of 
     Energy shall serve as cochairpersons of the technical 
     advisory committee.
       ``(6) Cost sharing.--Section 7 shall not apply to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. CONSULTATION; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Water Desalination Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; 
     Public Law 104-298) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 8;
       (2) by redesignating section 9 as section 8;
       (3) in section 8 (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), in the 
     first sentence, by striking ``Army,'' and inserting ``Army 
     and the Secretary of Energy,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Research and Studies.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary to carry out section 3 and section 
     4(c)(1)(A) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2008.
       ``(2) Research programs.--Of the amounts made available 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) not to exceed $1,000,000 for each fiscal year may be 
     awarded, without any cost-sharing requirement, to 
     institutions of higher education (including United States-
     Mexico binational research foundations and interuniversity 
     research programs established by the 2 countries) for 
     research grants; and
       ``(B) not less than $1,000,000 of the amount made available 
     for fiscal year 2002 shall be used to carry out section 
     4(c)(1)(A).
       ``(3) Internal research.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1) to carry out section 3 for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2008, the Secretary may use not more than 25 
     percent for research carried out by the Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``(B) Cost sharing.--Research described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be subject to any cost-sharing requirement.
       ``(b) Desalination Demonstration and Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary to carry out section 4 (other than section 
     4(c)) $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2008.
       ``(2) Desalination research and development facility.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Energy for transfer to Sandia National Laboratories, to carry 
     out section 4(c) (other than section 4(c)(1)(A)) $6,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Authorization of Research and Studies.--Section 3 of 
     the Water Desalination Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; 
     Public Law 104-298) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), 
     (6), and (7) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), 
     and (G), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (B) by striking ``In order to'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--To'';
       (C) in the first sentence--

[[Page S8718]]

       (i) by striking ``is authorized to award grants and to 
     enter into contracts,'' and inserting ``may award grants and 
     enter into cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, 
     and contracts,''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and'' after ``financing of research''; 
     and
       (D) by striking ``Awards'' and all that follows through 
     ``include--'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Locations.--If the Secretary determines that it is in 
     the national interest, the Secretary may carry out a program 
     described in paragraph (1), in accordance with all applicable 
     law, at a location outside the United States.
       ``(3) Basis for grants, agreements, and contracts.--All 
     awards of grants and all cooperative agreements, interagency 
     agreements, and contracts entered into under paragraph (1), 
     shall be made on the basis of a competitive, merit-reviewed 
     process.
       ``(4) Topics.--Research and study topics authorized by this 
     section include--''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``other facilities and 
     educational institutions suitable'' and inserting the 
     following: ``educational institutions, international 
     organizations, international foundations, and international 
     educational institutions, and other facilities suitable''.
       (b) Desalination Demonstration and Development.--Section 4 
     of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; 
     Public Law 104-298) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Location.--If the Secretary determines that it is in 
     the national interest, the Secretary may carry out the 
     program described in subsection (a), in accordance with all 
     applicable law, at a location outside the United States.''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``conducted through'' and all that follows 
     through ``to develop'' and inserting the following: 
     ``conducted through the provision of grants to, and the 
     entering into cooperative agreements and contracts (including 
     cost-sharing agreements) with, non-Federal public utilities, 
     State and local governmental agencies, educational 
     institutions, international organizations, international 
     foundations, international educational institutions, and 
     other entities, as appropriate, to develop''.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Section 7 of the Water Desalination Act 
     of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; Public Law 104-298) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) All projects.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal share of the cost of a research, study, or 
     demonstration project or a desalination development project 
     or activity carried out under this Act--
       ``(A) except as provided in paragraph (2) and in section 
     9(a)(3)(B), shall not exceed 100 percent of the total cost of 
     the project or activity; and
       ``(B) may be paid out of--
       ``(i) funds made available to the Secretary, in an amount 
     not to exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project or 
     activity;
       ``(ii) funds made available to 1 or more other heads of 
     Federal agencies; or
       ``(iii) a combination of funds described in clauses (i) and 
     (ii).
       ``(2) Interior projects.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     a project or activity described in paragraph (1) that is 
     carried out by the Secretary shall not exceed 50 percent.'';
       (2) by striking ``A Federal contribution'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Determination of Infeasibility.--A contribution by 
     the Secretary described in subsection (a)(2) that is'';
       (3) by striking ``The Secretary shall prescribe'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Procedures.--The Secretary shall prescribe''; and
       (4) by striking ``Costs of operation,'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Non-Federal Responsibilities.--Costs of operation,''.
       (d) Consultation.--Section 8 of the Water Desalination Act 
     of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; Public Law 104-298) (as 
     redesignated by section 3(2)) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. CONSULTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary 
     shall consult with the heads of other Federal agencies 
     (including the Secretary of the Army) that have experience in 
     conducting desalination research or operating desalination 
     facilities.
       ``(b) International Consultation.--In a case in which the 
     Secretary intends to conduct an activity under this Act in 
     accordance with section 3(a)(2) or 4(b), the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretary of State before beginning the 
     conduct of the activity.
       ``(c) Other Programs.--Nothing in this Act prohibits any 
     other agency from carrying out a program for desalination 
     research or operation that is authorized under any other 
     provision of law.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 1310. A bill to provide for the sale of certain real property in 
the Newlands Project, Nevada, to the city of Fallon, Nevada; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
provide the City of Fallon, NV, the exclusive right to purchase 
approximately 6.3 acres of public land located in the downtown area of 
the City. My bill, the Fallon Rail Freight Loading Facility Transfer 
Act, will enable the City of Fallon to make the necessary long-term 
investments to ensure the future viability of this important municipal 
asset.
  Fallon is a rural agricultural community of 8700 residents located in 
northern Nevada approximately 70 miles east of Reno. Since 1984 the 
City has leased approximately 6.3 acres of property from the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation that it utilizes as a rail freight yard and 
loading facility. The City, the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and the Southern Pacific Railroad have collectively 
invested a significant amount of money in this facility that is 
directly responsible for over 400 jobs in the community.
  On January 1, 2000, the long-term lease agreement between the City of 
Fallon and the Bureau of Reclamation expired. As negotiations began for 
a new long-term lease the City and the Bureau came to the conclusion 
that it would be in both party's best interests to have ownership of 
this property transferred to the City.
  The City would be able to make long term investments in a facility 
that it owned without having to worry about renegotiating new leases 
and the possibility of losing access to the property which is critical 
to the economic well being of the community. The Bureau of Reclamation 
would be able to divest itself from an asset that no longer serves a 
purpose to its core mission allowing more of its scarce resources to be 
focused on the traditional roles of the Bureau. Of course this transfer 
will be contingent on the satisfactory conclusion of all necessary 
environmental reviews and will be purchased by the City at fair market 
value.
  The Fallon Rail Freight Loading Facility Transfer Act is a win-win 
situation for all affected parties. I look forward to prompt 
consideration of this important piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1310

       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 ``Fallon Rail Freight Loading 
     Facility Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF FALLON, NEVADA.

       (a) Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the city of Fallon, 
     Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to approximately 6.3 acres of real property in the 
     Newlands Reclamation Project, Nevada, generally known as 
     ``380 North Taylor Street, Fallon, Nevada'', and identified 
     for disposition on the map entitled ``Fallon Rail Freight 
     Loading Facility''.
       (2) Map.--The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in--
       (A) the office of the Commissioner of Reclamation; and
       (B) the office of the Area Manager of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada.
       (b) Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall require that, as 
     consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a), the 
     city of Fallon, Nevada, shall pay to the United States an 
     amount equal to the fair market value of the real property, 
     as determined--
       (A) by an appraisal of the real property conducted not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act by 
     an independent appraiser approved by the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation; and
       (B) without taking into consideration the value of any 
     structure or other improvement on the property.
       (2) Credit of proceeds.--The amount paid to the United 
     States under paragraph (1) shall be credited, in accordance 
     with section 204(c) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485(c)), to 
     the appropriate fund in the Treasury relating to the Newlands 
     Reclamation Project, Nevada.
       (c) Liability.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall 
     not occur until such date as the Commissioner of Reclamation 
     certifies that all liability issues relating to the property 
     (including issues of environmental liability) have been 
     resolved.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kennedy, Ms.

[[Page S8719]]

        Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1311. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
reaffirm the United States historic commitment to protecting refugees 
who are fleeing persecution or torture; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am proud to introduce the Refugee 
Protection Act, a bipartisan bill that would sharply reduce the use of 
expedited removal at our borders while also reducing the number of 
asylum seekers whom we detain. This is a bipartisan bill, I am joined 
today by Senators Brownback, Kennedy, Collins, Durbin, Jeffords, and 
Graham. I am grateful for the support of the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the immigration subcommittee.
  In 1996, I introduced an amendment to the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act, ``IIRIRA'', that would have 
authorized the use of expedited removal only at times of immigration 
emergencies. The bill we introduce today is modeled on that proposal. 
That amendment passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but was 
omitted from the bill that was reported out of a partisan, closed 
conference. As a result, expedited removal took effect on April 1, 
1997. America's historic reputation as a beacon for refugees has 
suffered as a consequence, and it is long past time to restore it.
  Expedited removal allows INS inspections officers summarily to remove 
aliens who arrive in the United States without travel documents, or 
even with facially valid travel documents that the officers merely 
suspect are fraudulent, unless the aliens utter the magic words 
`political asylum' upon their first meeting with American immigration 
authorities. This policy is fundamentally unwise and unfair, both in 
theory and in practice, and its efficacy and fairness has come under 
increasing criticism.
  First, expedited removal ignores the fact that many deserving asylum 
applicants are forced to travel without papers. For example, victims of 
repressive governments often find themselves forced to flee their 
homelands at a moment's notice, without time or means to acquire proper 
documentation. Or a government may systematically strip refugees of 
their documentation, as the Serbian government did in Kosovo in 1999.
  Second, expedited removal places an undue burden on refugees, and 
places too much authority in the hands of low-level INS officers. 
Refugees typically arrive at our borders ragged and tired from their 
ordeals, and often with little or no knowledge of English. Our policy 
forces them to undergo a secondary inspection interview with an INS 
officer without expertise in asylum and with the power to deport them 
on the spot, subject only to a supervisor's approval. By law, anyone 
who indicates a fear of persecution or requests asylum during this 
interview is to be referred for an interview with an asylum officer. 
But no safeguards exist to guarantee that this happens, and the 
secondary inspection interviews generally take place behind closed 
doors with no witnesses. Indeed, this interview often becomes unduly 
confrontational and intimidating. As the Lawyers Committee for Human 
Rights has documented, refugees are detained for as long as 36 hours, 
are deprived of food and water, and are often shackled. If they are 
lucky, they will be provided with a competent interpreter. If they are 
unlucky, they will receive no interpreter at all, an interpreter with 
extraordinarily limited knowledge of their language, or even an 
interpreter who works for the airline owned by the government that they 
claim is persecuting them. Such a system is a betrayal of our ideals, 
and we need to reform it.
  I was heartened to hear James Ziglar, the President's choice to head 
the INS, criticize expedited removal at his confirmation hearing. He 
said: ``I definitely think we need to change the process where asylum-
seekers come here, to make sure that we know who these people are and 
what their claims are and whether they're legitimate before we turn 
around and put them on a plane back to an uncertain future.'' I could 
not agree more with Mr. Ziglar, and I look forward to working with him 
on this issue.
  I was also moved by the recent words of Theodore McCarrick, the new 
Archbishop of Washington, in a July 22 op-ed in the Washington Post. 
Archbishop McCarrick described how expedited removal forces potential 
asylum seekers arriving on our shores ``to immediately articulate their 
fear of return'' or be ``subject to immediate deportation without any 
recourse to the legal system.'' He wrote: ``Those who come to our 
shores and request asylum should be given a chance to make their case 
before a qualified asylum officer and immigration judge. The Refugee 
Protection Act to be considered by Congress would reform the U.S. 
asylum system appropriately and should be enacted.''
  The Archbishop described the case of Ditron, an ethnic Albanian from 
Kosovo who fled from the Milosevic government in early 1998 and made it 
all the way to Newark International Airport, where he tried to gain 
asylum. But the language barrier prevented him from communicating his 
fear of returning to Kosovo to the INS inspector, and he was put on a 
plane and deported under expedited removal. We only know about his 
story because he was somehow able to make it back to the United States 
a second time, and his application for asylum is now pending. But such 
a 50 percent success ratio is simply unacceptable for this Nation.
  I became aware of another very disturbing case last summer. A 
domestic violence victim from the Dominican Republic fled to the United 
States. The INS believed that she had been a victim and that her life 
would be endangered if she were returned to her native country. 
Nonetheless, she was ordered deported under expedited removal because 
the INS officers who interviewed her took it upon themselves to make a 
legal determination that victims of domestic violence were ineligible 
for asylum on that ground. It is bad enough that these officers decided 
their responsibilities in implementing expedited removal went so far as 
interpreting U.S. asylum law. Even worse, they got the law wrong. 
Although a recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision had indicated 
that domestic violence victims could not gain asylum here, that 
decision was under review at the time and was later vacated by then-
Attorney General Janet Reno. Luckily, a number of Members of Congress 
intervened in the case and the INS did not deport this woman, who has 
since been granted asylum. But had her case not been brought to our 
attention by the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, she would likely 
have become a silent victim of the expedited removal process.
  Another expedited removal horror story came to our attention just 
last week. Libardo Yepes Holguin fled Colombia last November after his 
life was threatened by the paramilitary forces involved in the civil 
war there. When he arrived at Miami International Airport, he told the 
INS inspectors that he feared being returned to Colombia and that he 
wanted to seek asylum. He was nonetheless put on a plane back to 
Colombia, where his life was again threatened. He managed to escape 
again, and this time entered the United States by crossing a river from 
Mexico. He was seized by INS officers and has been detained in Texas 
since May. The INS is currently attempting to remove Mr. Yepes Holguin 
based on the prior removal order entered against him in Miami last 
fall, despite his sworn testimony that his repeated requests to apply 
for asylum were ignored.
  Finally, and most shockingly, expedited removal has even been used 
against U.S. citizens. Sharon McKnight, a 35-year old U.S. citizen with 
the mental capacity of a 5-year old, returned to the United States last 
June from a trip to visit her grandfather in Jamaica. INS inspectors 
did not believe she was a citizen, wrongly questioning the authenticity 
of her U.S. passport and dismissing as fake the birth certificate 
presented by her waiting relatives that showed she was born on Long 
Island. She was held overnight in a room at the airport, handcuffed and 
with her legs shackled to a chair. During the entire time she was at 
the airport she was given nothing to eat and was not allowed to use the 
restroom. Ms. McKnight was put on a plane back to Jamaica, denied 
entrance to her own country because of expedited removal. Although 
immigration officials realized their mistake eventually and allowed her 
to return, any system that permits such ``mistakes'' is sorely in need 
of reform. For

[[Page S8720]]

her part, Ms. McKnight has said: ``They treated me like an animal--I 
will have nightmares all my life.''
  These stories, just four of the many stories demonstrating the human 
cost of expedited removal, go a long way toward showing the inhumanity 
of the new immigration regime that Congress imposed in 1996. But 
refugees and U.S. citizens are not the only people affected by 
expedited removal. Human rights groups have also documented numerous 
cases where people traveling to the United States on business, with 
proper travel documents, have been removed based on the so-called 
``sixth sense'' of a low-level INS officer who suspected that their 
facially valid documents were fraudulent. In other words, the damage 
done by expedited removal also threatens the increasingly international 
American economy, if businesspeople from around the world are treated 
disrespectfully at our ports of entry, they are likely to take their 
business elsewhere.
  But perhaps the most distressing part of expedited removal is that 
there is no way for us to know how many deserving refugees have been 
excluded. Because secondary inspection interviews are conducted in 
secret, we typically only learn about mistakes when refugees manage to 
make it back to the U.S. a second time, like Ditron, or when they are 
deported to a third country they passed through on their way to the 
U.S., like Mr. Thevakumar. This uncertainty should lead us to be 
especially wary of continuing this failed experiment.
  As I said, my bill would limit the use of expedited removal to times 
of immigration emergencies, defined as the arrival or imminent arrival 
of aliens that would substantially exceed the INS' ability to control 
our borders. The bill gives the Attorney General the discretion to 
declare an emergency migration situation, and the declaration is good 
for 90 days. During those 90 days, the INS would be authorized to use 
expedited removal against people coming from a nation whose crisis has 
given rise to the emergency migration situation. The Attorney General 
can extend the declaration for further periods of 90 days, in 
consultation with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
  This framework allows the government to take extraordinary steps when 
a true immigration emergency threatens our ability to patrol our 
borders. At the same time, it recognizes that expedited removal is an 
extraordinary step, and is not an appropriate measure under ordinary 
circumstances.
  This bill also provides safeguards that will guarantee refugees some 
due process rights, even during immigration emergencies. First, aliens 
would be given the right to have an immigration judge review a removal 
order, and would have the opportunity both to speak before the 
immigration judge on their own behalf and to be represented at the 
hearing at their own expense. To make these rights meaningful, 
immigration officers would be required to inform aliens of their rights 
before they are removed or withdraw their application to enter the 
country. This provision takes away from INS inspectors the unilateral, 
and prior to 1997, unprecedented, power to remove an alien from the 
United States.
  Second, this bill reforms the procedures used to determine whether an 
applicant who seeks asylum has a credible fear of persecution. If an 
asylum officer determines that an applicant does not have a credible 
fear of persecution, the applicant will now have a right to a prompt 
review by an immigration judge. The applicant will have the right to 
appear at that review hearing and to be represented, at the applicant's 
expense.
  Even those asylum seekers who are found to have a credible fear of 
persecution and thus escape expedited removal move on to another 
troubled system. Under current law and practice, they are often 
detained in INS detention facilities or in local jails where the INS 
rents space. In other words, these men and women who have fled 
persecution in their native lands are all too often treated like common 
criminals. We need to do something to solve this problem as well, and 
the Refugee Protection Act attempts to do so.
  As a young girl in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
Adolphine Mwanza lived in a convent and was studying to be a nun. Her 
family was known to be opposed to the corruption of the ruling Mobutu 
regime. Her brother was killed, and she was kidnapped, tortured, and 
raped. She escaped from the country and fled to the United States in 
November 1999 on a Zambian passport. She was sent to an INS detention 
facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where she was found to have a 
credible fear of persecution. But despite the fact that she had 
volunteer attorneys from the New York University Law School clinic, and 
a Roman Catholic convent had agreed to house and support her, her 
request for parole from detention was denied by the INS. She was held 
in a detention facility for eight months, until she was granted aslyum.

  This is senseless. We should not detain people whom our own 
government has found to be likely candidates for asylum as if they were 
awaiting a criminal trial. Moreover, the cost to the government to 
detain someone like Adolphine Mwanza for eight months cannot be 
justified. And she is not alone. Many asylum seekers are detained for 
more than a year even though there are family members or 
nongovernmental organizations that are willing to house them and ensure 
that they appear for their asylum hearing.
  The Refugee Protection Act would clarify that the Attorney General 
has the option to parole asylum seekers, and would add language to 
existing law to say that it is the policy of the United States not to 
detain asylum seekers who have been found to have a credible fear of 
persecution. It also instructs the Attorney General to promulgate 
regulations to authorize and promote the use of alternatives to the 
detention of asylum seekers, such as paroling them to private nonprofit 
voluntary agencies. For those who would still be detained, the bill 
would guarantee access to legal and religious services. It would also 
ensure that they are only detained in INS facilities or in contract 
facilities that contain only immigration detainees asylum seekers would 
no longer be housed alongside criminals in county jails. In addition, 
asylum seekers would have the right to have an asylum officer make a 
determination about whether they should be paroled from detention, and 
to have an immigration judge review that determination.
  These changes will reduce the use of detention against asylum 
seekers, offer them fundamental due process rights, and improve the 
conditions of their confinement in those cases where detention is 
appropriate. These are crucial steps, and we should act on them as 
quickly as possible.
  Finally, this bill includes three additional provisions. First, it 
would eliminate the one-year deadline for asylum applicants that was 
imposed in 1996. By definition, worthy asylum applicants have arrived 
in the United States following traumatic experiences abroad. They often 
must spend their first months here learning the language and adjusting 
to a culture that in many cases is extraordinarily different from the 
one they know. Therefore, although I can understand the desire to have 
asylum seekers submit timely applications, the existing one-year rule 
does not make sense.
  Second, the bill would eliminate the existing annual limit on the 
number of people who have been granted asylum who can become legal 
permanent residents. Once we have decided that someone is worthy of 
asylum, we should not delay their adjustment into American society. 
These are people who have chosen the United States because of its 
ideals and its freedoms, in other words, they are exactly the sort of 
people we would want to become citizens. We need to eliminate the 
backlogs that prevent them from starting that process by getting their 
green cards. This bill will do that.
  Third, the bill eliminates the annual limit on the number of refugees 
who may be admitted or granted asylum because they are subject to 
persecution for resistance to coercive population control methods. 
Under current law, only 1000 people can be accepted to the United 
States in any year for that reason. Americans are united in their 
opposition to forced sterilization and abortion, and we should not 
place an artificial limit on the number of people fleeing from such 
policies that we will accept.
  This bill has received the support of a wide variety of civil rights 
and religious groups, with a coalition of over

[[Page S8721]]

50 groups, from the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights to the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 
endorsing it. And even before it has been introduced it has been the 
subject of favorable editorials or op-eds in the Washington Post, 
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-
Tribune, Newark, Star-Ledger, Arizona Republic, Baltimore Sun, 
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, San Antonio Express-News, South Florida Sun-
Sentinel, Oakland Tribune, Buffalo News, Bangor, ME., Daily News, and 
Harrisburg, PA., Patriot-News. Meanwhile, the immigration subcommittee 
of the Judiciary Committee has already heard testimony this year about 
the inherent unfairness of our current expedited removal and detention 
policies from people who went through those systems before being 
granted asylum. I hope that the momentum this bill already has will 
lead to prompt consideration by the Senate.
  Even in 1996, a year in which immigration was as unpopular in this 
Capitol as I can remember, this body agreed that expedited removal was 
inappropriate for a country of our ideals and our historic commitment 
to human rights. And that agreement cut across party lines, as many of 
my Republican colleagues voted to implement expedited removal only in 
times of immigration emergencies. I urge them, as well as my fellow 
Democrats, to support this legislation and to work for its prompt 
passage.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Leahy, Collins, and Kennedy, among others to 
introduce the Refugee Protection Act of 2001. The Refugee Protection 
Act will restore fairness to our treatment of refugees who arrive at 
our shores seeking freedom from persecution and oppression. It will 
reduce the number of asylum seekers placed in prison-like detention 
facilities.
  On July 10, standing on Ellis Island, President Bush said, ``America 
at its best is a welcoming society.'' From our very beginnings almost 
400 years ago when the refugee Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock seeking 
religious freedom, our Nation has welcomed refugees. When we give 
refuge to desperate people fleeing extraordinary persecution, we are a 
better Nation. Moreover, asylees, by definition, represent the best of 
American values. Often they are people who have stood alone, at great 
personal cost, against hostile governments for principles that are 
fundamental to us such as political and religious liberty. Therefore, 
as Americans with a noble legacy, we must continue to examine our 
asylum policies with an eagle-eyed vigilance for fairness and justice.
  On May 3, I chaired an Immigration Subcommittee hearing on asylum 
policy. We heard testimony that genuine refugees are, from time to 
time, mistakenly deported by INS inspectors, treated abusively during 
airport inspections, and that many asylum seekers are detained in 
prison-like conditions well beyond the time needed to determine their 
identity and establish that they have a credible fear of persecution.
  First of all, it must be stated that the men and women who serve the 
INS are dedicated public servants, with a difficult job and in no 
fashion do I want to indict them. They often work under extremely 
demanding conditions, sometimes with insufficient resources, yet they 
complete their difficult tasks with fairness and good judgment. 
However, we must examine various incidents of abuse which have come to 
our attention regarding the treatment of asylee applicants while their 
claim is pending. Clearly, these incidents are not official INS policy 
and most officers would abhor such mistreatment, yet they do occur, 
nonetheless, and therefore must be addressed.
  At that hearing, former asylum seekers presented moving testimony 
about such mistreatment. For example, Mekabou Fofana, a Liberian 
teenager, testified that he arrived at JFK airport nine days before his 
16th birthday. Despite his request, he was not provided with a Mandingo 
interpreter. When INS officials twisted his arm and attempted to 
forcibly fingerprint him, Mekabou fell to the floor, hitting his head 
and bleeding so profusely that he had to be taken to the hospital. 
After a year and a half in detention in adult facilities, Mekabou was 
granted asylum and is now attending high school in New York City.
  An Albanian asylum seeker who arrived at O'Hare International Airport 
in Chicago last year also submitted testimony to the subcommittee. This 
testifier who wishes to remain anonymous was dragged by his clothing 
after he explained that he wished to apply for asylum. Despite his 
requests, he was not provided with an Albanian interpreter whom he 
could understand, and officers yelled at him when he refused to sign 
documents written in English that he could not comprehend.
  Faheem Danishmandi, a refugee from Afghanistan, arrived in America at 
age nineteen, traumatized by the recent killing of his father and 
separation from his mother. When he told an INS officer that he did not 
have a passport, the officer roughly searched him, apparently looking 
for documents then he was chained to a bench for 25 hours. After five 
months in detention, he was granted asylum.

  Amin Al-Torfi, a torture survivor from Iraq, fled to America after he 
and his family were persecuted by Saddam Hussein's regime because of 
their political opinions and religious beliefs. At the airport, he was 
told that he would have to wait three days to get an Arabic 
interpreter. He was shackled by the leg to a bench for eight hours, 
strip-searched, and led handcuffed with another asylum seeker through 
the airport in front of other passengers. After five months of 
detention, Amin was granted asylum.
  A change in our law is desperately needed. I believe in the 
enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. I also believe that 
people who find themselves under INSA jurisdiction deserve humane 
treatment. We are a Nation of immigrants, of refugees, of the 
courageous who resisted governmental persecution and fled to America in 
search of freedom. Given this proud tradition, we have a higher 
responsibility to asylum seekers. We have a responsibility to afford 
them a fair opportunity to present their asylum claims, a 
responsibility to not unnecessarily detain them for extended periods, 
and a responsibility not to turn them away to suffer further 
persecution.
  At the May 3 hearing, Leonard Glickman, President of the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society testified on behalf of his own agency and five 
other Jewish organizations. Mr. Glickman discussed the tragic history 
of 900 Jews on the ship, the St. Louis, who, in 1939, were fleeing Nazi 
persecution. American immigration officials turned them away from the 
Port of Miami and they were forced to return to Europe where most 
perished. He concluded that, ``The Jewish community is greatly 
concerned about the major changes that were instituted in the U.S. 
asylum system in 1996, changes that we believe threaten to undermine 
refugee protection and US global leadership in this area.''
  Dr. Don Hammond, a Senior Vice President for World Relief also 
testified. World Relief is the relief, development, and refugee 
assistance arm of the National Association of Evangelicals which has 
called for passage of the Refugee Protection Act. Dr. Hammond stated 
that there has been a significant increase in religious persecution in 
a number of countries around the world. A University of California 
study of expedited removal listed the 101 countries with the highest 
number of people being turned away from the United States and sent back 
to their countries of origin. According to Dr. Hammond, of those 101 
countries, almost 40 percent are listed on the Open Doors World Watch 
list of countries that severely restrict religious freedom. ``In other 
words,'' Dr. Hammond concluded, ``over a third of those who were 
subjected to expedited removal from the U.S. were being sent back to 
countries which are known to persecute Christians'' and other religious 
minorities.
  I believe that the future of American immigration policy towards 
asylees is promising. In his July 18 confirmation hearing to serve as 
INS Commissioner, James Ziglar committed to changing INS policy 
regarding asylum seekers. He said, ``I definitely think that we need to 
change the process where asylum-seekers come here, to make sure that we 
know who these people are and what their claims are and whether they're 
legitimate before we turn around and put them on a plan back to

[[Page S8722]]

an uncertain future.'' Mr. Ziglar continued that, ``I am not one who 
particularly likes the idea in general of people being detained, unless 
they have been convicted of a crime, or unless they create some kind of 
danger to the community. So, my inclination in general is not to detain 
people unless there is some kind of valid reason, subject to all the 
due process requirements.'' Passage of the Refugee Protection Act, 
combined with fair and humane enforcement by an INS committed to the 
protection of refugees, will ensure that our Nation once again fully 
lives up to the dreams of the immigrants who built this great nation as 
a refuge of freedom and justice.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am honored to join Senator Leahy, 
Senator Brownback, and other colleagues, in introducing the ``Refugee 
Protection Act of 2001.'' Our goal is to protect courageous persons who 
arrive on our shores seeking asylum, provide alternatives to detention 
for asylum seekers, and improve detention conditions for all persons 
detained by the INS. The bill also eliminates the arbitrary one-year 
deadline on filing for asylum, and eliminates the cap on the number of 
persons granted asylum who can adjust their status to lawful permanent 
resident.
  Every day people are forced to leave their native lands in 
desperation, fearing for their lives and for the lives of their loved 
ones. Many of them arrive in the United States seeking asylum, and we 
have a responsibility to ensure they are able to request it in a fair 
and efficient manner.
  In 1996, Congress enacted harsh immigration laws that included an 
expedited removal process granting INS inspection officers broad 
authority to summarily remove potential asylum seekers if they arrive 
without proper papers. This process also requires persons seeking 
asylum to specifically state their fear of persecution or their intent 
to apply for asylum immediately upon arriving in the U.S. But asylum 
seekers are often traumatized, and are unable to speak to a stranger 
about their harrowing experience. This is particularly true when they 
first arrive in the U.S., often after a long and difficult journey.
  Many asylum seekers are unable to articulate their fears, especially 
to government officials whom they may view with distrust because of 
past experience in their home countries. Many of them speak very 
little, if any, English, and adequate translators are often not 
available to assist them in making their asylum claims.
  Legal representation is not permitted at the initial and most 
critical phase of the expedited removal process, thereby increasing the 
likelihood that individuals actually eligible for asylum will be turned 
away and sent back to their native lands to face additional 
persecution. The law contains no opportunity for judicial appeal of 
decisions on summary removal. Instead, low-level INS employees have 
broad, unchecked authority to issue final and binding deportation 
orders.
  Some argue that the expedited removal process is appropriate. Their 
view is based on the false assumption that the process, in practice, 
follows the procedures in the regulations. In particular, the 
regulations require a careful interview and the taking of a systematic 
sworn statement, a process that should take several hours. The officer 
conducting the interview must begin by reading a set of specific 
advisories, including an express notice that persons who fear 
persecution in their native lands may claim asylum in the U.S.
  The interviewing officer must also ask specific questions about 
whether the person has ``any fear or concern'' about return to their 
homeland. And if the person faces charges, the charges must be 
explained orally, in a language the individual understands. The 
regulations also require review of the file and approval of any removal 
or deportation order by a high-level supervisor before an expedited 
removal order is considered final.
  It is clear that these regulations are not adequately followed in 
practice. Members of my staff have observed first-hand the unfair 
process. During a visit to JFK International Airport, my staff toured 
the area where inspection interviews were held and spoke with INS 
employees. The interviews were conducted side-by-side in a large, open 
room, affording no privacy to persons who had to share very personal 
and painful information with government officials.
  My staff met with an inspector, who was informed that he would be 
meeting with congressional staff. The inspector told the staff about 
the ``cockamamie stories people make up'' and the phony documents they 
present. Upon hearing these stories, he said that he puts people back 
on a plane and sends them ``out of here.''
  The inspector admitted that he did not read anyone any advisories to 
determine whether they were fearful. The inspector said that anyone who 
wants to apply for asylum would tell him about that immediately, and 
those were the only people he referred to asylum officers for 
interviews. He made this statement in spite of the fact that many 
asylum seekers do not ask for asylum. Our staff members, including the 
staff from other members' offices, were appalled by these remarks and 
behavior.
  When a supervisor was asked whether the inspectors received training 
in asylum and interviewing techniques, the supervisor dismissed 
training as ``warm fuzzy stuff,'' even though many asylum seekers have 
fled persecution by people in uniforms and are reluctant to speak to 
uniformed INS officers.
  Many immigration groups representing asylum seekers have shared 
similarly shocking stories. The expedited removal process has caused 
great hardships for many vulnerable individuals.
  Recently, the Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on asylum 
policy. At the hearing, a young man from the Democratic Republic of 
Congo recounted the tragic circumstances that led to his escape. He 
described being severely beaten and tortured by security forces, and 
then witnessing his father's death at the hands of these forces. His 
mother and sisters fled the family home and he has not seen them since.
  Upon his arrival in the U.S., he was placed in chains and taken to a 
detention facility. Neither an interpreter nor a lawyer was present to 
assist him. Yet, the INS officer decided he did not have a credible 
fear of persecution and ordered his deportation. An immigration judge 
reviewed the case, but again the young man did not have an interpreter 
or lawyer to help him. When he was taken to the airport for 
deportation, he pleaded with INS officials not to deport him. His pleas 
were ignored and three detention guards carried him onto the plane. The 
airline employees subsequently asked the guards to take him off the 
plane and he was returned to the detention facility. Finally, the INS 
reversed its decision and decided his fear was credible, but only after 
this young man begged not to be sent home for fear he would be killed. 
His case vividly demonstrates the failure of some INS officials to 
follow the procedures set forth in the regulations.
  Congress must act to end these abuses. Our bill is intended to 
accomplish this goal. It limits expedited removal to immigration 
emergencies. It offers protection to persons arriving without proper 
documents, who will now be referred to an immigration judge to have 
their case reviewed, rather than have their fate determined by a low-
level INS employee who has not been trained in asylum issues.
  If an individual indicates an intention to apply for asylum or a 
credible fear of persecution, the immigration officer must refer the 
individual to an asylum officer for an interview. The bill limits the 
existing broad authority of immigration officers and permits persons to 
seek review of their case by an asylum officer who is trained in 
determining whether a person's expression of fear is credible. The 
individual must be given written information, in a language the 
individual understands, about the consequences of his decisions, the 
availability of review of his case and his ability to have counsel. 
After the interview with the asylum officer, the individual may have 
the case reviewed by an immigration judge. During this review, the 
individual will have the opportunity to be heard and represented by 
counsel, at no expense to the government.
  Currently, asylum seekers who request asylum are often subject to 
mandatory detention. They are held in INS detention centers or state 
and county jails, often with criminal inmates, and

[[Page S8723]]

often for weeks, months or even years. They have little access to legal 
representation, health care, or contact with family, friends or clergy 
who can assist them. Such conditions are extremely traumatizing for 
those who have already suffered so much.
  Under our proposal, the general policy will be to parole asylum 
seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution, not place them in 
mandatory detention. Asylum seekers could be released to family, 
friends or community groups who are ready to assist them. These 
alternatives to detention have been tested at various sites, and they 
are cost-effective and have been successful in achieving the goal of 
providing a safe, compassionate residence, offering services, and 
increasing compliance with INS procedures and court proceedings.
  In addition, those persons who remain in INS detention must be kept 
safe and treated humanely. I commend the INS for issuing detention 
standards to accomplish this goal, but the guidelines are not binding. 
Our proposal would codify the most important guidelines to ensure that 
all persons in detention are safe and treated with dignity. The bill 
requires that persons in detention have access to legal services, 
visits by persons who are able to lend assistance in the preparation of 
their cases, and access to legal resources, telephones and religious 
services. Other protections would be guaranteed by the legislation as 
well.
  Our bill also authorizes the establishment of group legal orientation 
programs, to identify persons with meritorious claims for relief and 
refer them to counsel at no cost to the government. These programs save 
the government money by improving the efficiency of the judicial 
process and by reducing the need for prolonged detention. They educate 
persons about their rights, options and likelihood of success. The bill 
also creates a national center to provide training for nonprofit 
agencies that offer such programs, to consult with nonprofit groups on 
program development and substantive legal issues, and to develop 
standards for such programs.
  Finally, our proposal deals with two other important concerns. In 
1996, Congress enacted a law requiring, for the first time, that 
persons seeking asylum must apply within a year of their arrival in the 
U.S. Since the enactment of this deadline, more than 10,000 asylum 
seekers have had their claims rejected by the INS. Many of these 
individuals did not file their claims, because they were unfamiliar 
with our legal system and did not know they are required to file a 
timely application.
  Asylum seekers should be able to apply for protection, regardless of 
when they file their claims. Our bill will eliminate the one-year 
deadline, thereby preserving the ability of persons seeking refuge to 
be granted safe haven without regard to the timing of their 
application. This provision will offer much-needed protection to 
persons who have fled their home countries out of fear and terror.
  Immigration law also currently places a cap of 10,000 on the number 
of persons granted asylum whose status can be adjusted to lawful 
permanent resident each fiscal year, regardless of the number of 
persons granted asylum in that year. Because the number of persons 
granted asylum each year exceeds 10,000, the cap has created a large 
backlog. The INS estimates that a backlog of 57,000 asylees is awaiting 
adjustment. This delay causes significant hardship to deserving 
individuals and their families. Our bill will eliminate the arbitrary 
cap of 10,000 and permit eligible persons to adjust their status 
without waiting up to six years, as may occur under current law.
  Clearly, we need to improve the treatment of those who arrive on our 
shores seeking asylum and awaiting adjudication of their claims and 
adjustment of their status. I urge my colleagues to support the Refugee 
Protection Act of 2001. It is a vital piece of legislation that is long 
overdue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 1312. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible 
inclusion in the National Park System; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I am proud to introduce the 
Virginia Key Beach Resource Study Bill. Congresswoman Carrie Meek has 
introduced the companion to this legislation in the House of 
Representatives. This bill authorizes the Secretary of Interior to 
conduct a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, FL, for 
inclusion in the National Park System.
  Based solely on its natural attributes, Virginia Key is worthy of 
inclusion. Situated just off the mainland of the City of Miami, between 
Key Biscayne to the south and Fisher Island to the north, Virginia Key 
is a 1,000-acre barrier island, characterized by a unique and sensitive 
natural environment. The island is non-residential and includes ponds 
and waterways, a tropical hardwood hammock and a large wildlife 
conservation area.
  Virginia Key Beach deserves national distinction for another reason. 
Its unique history teaches us about our Nation's progress toward 
achieving racial justice. For decades in South Florida, beaches were 
segregated by race. As the only beach in Miami that permitted blacks 
from the 1940s to the 1960s, Virginia Key was a source of seaside 
recreation for countless African- American families. Virginia Key also 
was the site for many baptisms and religious services. Thus, Virginia 
Key's value to our Nation, and to Florida, should be recognized both 
for its natural beauty and its role in the Nation's ongoing struggle 
for equality and social justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1313. A bill to provide for the adjustment of status of certain 
foreign agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to reform the H-2A worker program under that Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing the ``H-2A Reform and Agricultural Worker Adjustment Act 
of 2001.''
  The Nation needs and deserves an agricultural policy that protects 
farm workers, provides hard-working foreign-born workers with the 
opportunity to become legal permanent residents, and provides the 
growers of fruits, vegetables and other commodities with an adequate 
and legal labor supply. Our bill works toward achieving this goal. It 
establishes a legalization program for foreign-born farm workers, 
guarantees certain labor protections for all farm workers, and improves 
wages and working conditions.
  We cannot continue to ignore the fact that large numbers of the 
persons employed in agriculture today are undocumented. Illegal workers 
are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers, who can get away with 
paying them very low wages, exposing them to dangerous working 
conditions, lowering the wages for all farm workers.
  Agricultural workers are indispensable members of the workforce. We 
need an agricultural policy that recognizes their contributions and 
rewards their work. Under our bill, 500,000 farm workers currently 
working in the United States, without employment authorization, would 
be able to adjust their status to legal permanent resident. Persons who 
work in agriculture for at least 90 days would be able to obtain 
temporary residency status and would be able to adjust their status to 
legal permanent residency after working 90 days in three out of the 
next four years in agriculture. Because agricultural work is seasonal 
and varies throughout the United States, workers would be permitted to 
change employers and accept non-agricultural work to supplement their 
incomes during this period.
  These changes will benefit both workers and growers. It will benefit 
all farm workers by improving wages and working conditions. It will 
provide a means for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. 
By obtaining legal status, workers will no longer be forced to endure 
substandard wages and working conditions for fear of being deported.
  Agriculture is a time-sensitive industry. Growers must have an 
immediate, reliable and legal workforce at harvest time. Everyone is 
harmed when crops rot in the field for lack of a labor force. By these 
changes, growers will have access to dependable, hard-working employees 
and a workforce that will not be suddenly reduced by INS raids.

[[Page S8724]]

  Our bill also keeps families together. Immediate family members would 
be granted legal status at the beginning, and they would be eligible 
for adjustment to permanent resident status after the worker completes 
the work requirement. This change will keep hard-working persons and 
their families together.
  Our proposal also offers labor protections to agricultural workers 
that are long overdue. For example, farm workers could not be fired 
from agricultural employment except for just cause, and they would 
receive credit for any day lost because of on-the-job injuries.
  Agriculture is a thriving industry, generating billions of dollars in 
revenue each year. Yet farm workers are among the lowest-paid members 
of the workforce. Three-quarters of all farm workers earn less than 
$10,000 a year. Over three-fifths of farm worker households live in 
poverty. Only half of farm workers own a car, and even fewer own a home 
or even a trailer. To improve the wages and working conditions of all 
agricultural workers, we must give them the basic labor rights 
available to other U.S. workers.
  Central to our bill is the belief that collective bargaining provides 
the best way to improve wages and working conditions, and stabilize the 
agricultural labor market. The bill creates a Federal right for farm 
workers to organize, provides incentives for H-2A employers to accept 
collective bargaining, establishes a streamlined application process 
for employers with collective bargaining agreements, and exempts H-2A 
employers with such agreements from increased H-2A user fees. The bill 
also prohibits the use of H-2A workers as strikebreakers. These 
procedures will secure improved wages and working conditions for all 
agricultural workers, and protect workers from unfair wages by 
maintaining wage standards.
  The bill ends discrimination against H-2A workers by giving them, for 
the first time, the same labor protections as U.S. workers. It gives 
guest workers the same labor rights as U.S. workers, by ending the 
unfair exclusion of H-2A workers from coverage under the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Coverage under that Act 
means that H-2A workers will have the right to bring a private action 
to enforce working arrangements with their employers, rather than 
depend on the Department of Labor to protect their rights.
  The bill also protects U.S. workers by removing the incentive to 
discriminate against them by requiring the employers of H-2A workers to 
pay the equivalent FICA and FUTA taxes to a new fund. The money from 
the fund will be used to improve labor management practices to enhance 
the productivity of the existing labor force and to support 
demonstration projects to improve farm labor management, including 
projects on recruitment, workplace literacy and training, health and 
safety, and the development of labor-saving technology.
  Last year, bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate 
resulted in an agreement on migrant agricultural workers that both the 
agricultural employers and the farm workers supported. The compromise 
created an earned adjustment program for undocumented farm workers and 
a reformed H-2A temporary worker program. This compromise represented a 
positive step toward much needed reform. Unfortunately, efforts to 
enact this agreement failed but I hope we will succeed in this 
Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the H-2A Reform and Agricultural 
Worker Adjustment Act of 2001. These reforms are long overdue, and will 
improve the lives and working conditions of dedicated, hard-working 
farm workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1315. A bill to make improvements in title 18, United States Code, 
and safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my 
good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the Judicial Improvement and 
Integrity Act of 2001. I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his co-
sponsorship of this measure. This effort builds on other legislation 
that Senator Hatch and I have worked on together to improve the 
criminal justice system, including, in this Congress alone, the Drug 
Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act, S. 304, and the 
Children's Confinement Conditions Improvement Act, S. 1174.
  This bill would improve the criminal code and safeguard the integrity 
of the judicial system. It would protect witnesses who come forward to 
provide information on criminal activity to law enforcement officials; 
eliminate a loophole in the criminal contempt statute that allows some 
defendants to avoid serving prison sentences imposed by the Court; 
eliminate a loophole in the statute of limitations that makes some 
defendants immune from further prosecution if they get their plea 
agreements vacated; grant the government the clear right to appeal the 
dismissal of a part of a count of an indictment, such as a predicate 
act in a RICO count; insure that courts may impose appropriate terms of 
supervised release in drug cases; give the District Courts greater 
flexibility in fashioning appropriate conditions of release for certain 
elderly prisoners; and clarify the District Court's authority to revoke 
or modify a term of supervised release when the defendant willfully 
violates the obligation to pay restitution to the victims of the 
defendant's crime.
  Section two of the bill would amend title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1512, which prohibits attempts to tamper with witnesses, 
victims and informants. The statute currently provides that, if the 
offense involves murder or attempted murder, the maximum sentence is 20 
years. If the defendant uses intimidation, physical force, threats or 
corrupt persuasion, the maximum is 10 years. The bill would increase 
the statutory maximum sentence for offenses involving the use or 
attempted use of physical force to 20 years. This change recognizes 
that the use or attempted use of physical force to tamper with a 
witness is closely related to attempted murder and that this fact 
should be reflected in the applicable penalty. For example, if the 
defendant severely beats the witness, causing serious bodily injury, 
the offense is arguably as serious as attempted murder, even if the 
government cannot prove that the defendant intended to kill the 
witness. It is therefore appropriate that the defendant face a 
potential 20-year sentence. The bill would also add a conspiracy 
provision that would make the maximum penalty for conspiring to tamper 
with a witness in violation of section 1512 or to retaliate against a 
witness in violation of title 18, United States Code, Section 1513 the 
same as that for the underlying substantive offense that was the object 
of the conspiracy. A similar provision was part of the Hatch-Leahy 
Juvenile Justice legislation, S. 254, which passed the Senate in 1999 
but did not emerge from Conference.
  The third section of the bill would close a loophole in title 18, 
United States Code, section 401, which contains penalties for criminal 
contempt of court. This statute provides that a court may punish 
contempt by a fine ``or'' imprisonment. Courts have held that this 
language permits the imposition of either a fine or a term of 
imprisonment, but not both. This limitation on sentencing is highly 
unusual, since virtually all criminal statutes permit both a fine and 
imprisonment. More importantly, it creates the potential for an 
enormous, unjust windfall for defendants in cases where the court fails 
to notice the peculiar language of the statute and mistakenly imposes 
both a fine and imprisonment. In such cases, the defendant can simply 
pay the fine and then appeal the prison sentence as illegal. 
Surprisingly, courts have held that, once the fine is paid, the case 
can no longer be remanded to the district court to have the sentence 
corrected because the defendant has served the sentence. Thus, the only 
option is to vacate the prison term and set defendant free. See In re 
Bradley, 318 U.S. 50 (1943). Courts have continued to follow this rule 
even after the passage of title 18, United States Code, section 3551(b) 
as part of the Sentencing Reform Act, which generally permits a court 
to impose a fine in addition to any other sentence. See United States 
v. Versaglio, 85 F.3d 943, 946-47 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. 
Holloway, 991 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir. 1993).

  It is time for Congress to correct this recurring problem. It is 
unjust to permit a defendant to go free without any

[[Page S8725]]

serving time in prison simply because the judge made an obvious and 
easily-correctable mistake in imposing sentence. Moreover, there is no 
good reason to limit courts to only one sentencing option in criminal 
contempt cases. Allowing the imposition of both a fine and imprisonment 
should not result in harsher sentences; if anything, defendants may 
benefit because courts may choose to impose a fine and a shorter prison 
sentence instead of a longer prison sentence. The second section of our 
bill would therefore amend section 401 to allow the court to impose 
both a fine and imprisonment for criminal contempt. It would make 
similar changes on a handful of other statutes that contain language 
similar to section 401: sections 1705, 1916, 2234, and 2235, of title 
18 and in section 636 of title 28 of the United States Code.
  The fourth section of the bill would add a new provision extending 
the statute of limitations for counts that are dismissed pursuant to a 
plea bargain. This would also close a loophole that exists under 
current law, which is illustrated by United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 
813 (2d Cir. 1995). In that case, a defendant who was charged with 
fraud pled guilty to a lesser offense pursuant to a plea agreement, and 
the fraud charges were dismissed. Later, however, the defendant was 
able to get his guilty plea set aside based upon a new Supreme Court 
decision. The district court then granted the government's motion to 
reinstate the original fraud charges, and the defendant went to trial 
and was convicted. On appeal, however, the court of appeals vacated the 
defendant's conviction based upon the statute of limitations. The court 
ruled that the fraud indictment could not be reinstated because the 
statute of limitations for the fraud charges had expired before the 
defendant's guilty plea was vacated. The Third Circuit reached the same 
result on similar facts in United States v. Midgley, 142 F.3d 174, 178-
80 (3d Cir. 1998). Under these decisions, the defendants could no 
longer be prosecuted for any offense, even though the government had 
brought the case within the limitations period and pursued it 
diligently. Our provision would prevent such unjust results in the 
future by allowing the government 60 days to move to reinstate the 
dismissed counts after the order vacating the defendant's guilty plea 
becomes final. This approach is similar to that of 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
3288, which gives the government a grace period to obtain a new 
indictment where counts are dismissed after the statute of limitations 
has expired.
  The fifth section of the bill would amend title 18, United States 
Code, section 3731, which permits the United States to appeal certain 
orders of the District Court to the appropriate Court of Appeals. It 
would clarify that the government is allowed to appeal the dismissal of 
a part of a count, such as an overt act in a conspiracy count or a 
predicate act in a RICO count. This approach is consistent with the 
Supreme Court's observation that section 3731 permits ``an appeal from 
an order dismissing only a portion of a count.'' Sanabria v. United 
States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 n.23 (1978). The majority of Federal circuits 
already interpret section 3731 to permit this where the portion of the 
count that is dismissed could itself constitute a ``discrete basis of 
liability.'' See United States v. Mobley, 193 F.3d 492, 495, 7th Cir. 
1999; United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 1st Cir. 1988. However, 
one federal circuit has held that section 3731 does not permit any 
government appeal from the dismissal of only part of a count. See 
United States v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, 106 F.3d 345, 10th Cir. 
1997. In other cases, appellate review of orders dismissing predicate 
acts or overt acts has been denied where the dismissed acts could not 
themselves have been charged in separate counts. See United States v. 
Terry, 5 F.3d 874, 5th Cir. 1993; United States v. Tom, 787 F.2d 65, 2d 
Cir. 1986. It is time to resolve these conflicting results 
definitively. The reach of section 3731 should clearly be extended to 
orders dismissing portions of counts. In some cases, the dismissal of 
an overt act or a predicate act may significantly impair the 
government's ability to prove its case. Defendants, of course, may get 
appellate review of the denial of a motion to dismiss part of a count 
after the trial if they are convicted. The government should also be 
able to appeal when such motions are granted, and it has no way of 
doing so other than through section 3731.
  Section six of the bill would resolve a conflict in the circuits as 
to the permissible length of supervised release in controlled 
substances cases. Under 18 U.S.C. 3583(b), ``[e]xcept as otherwise 
provided,'' the maximum authorized terms of supervised release are 5 
years for Class A and B felonies, 3 years for Class C and D felonies, 
and 1 year for Class E felonies and certain misdemeanors. The drug 
trafficking offenses in 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  841 and 960 prescribe 
special supervised release terms, however, that are longer than those 
applicable generally under section 3583(b). Those longer terms, which 
may include lifetime supervised release, were enacted in 1986 in the 
same Act that inserted the introductory phrase ``Except as otherwise 
provided'' in section 3583(b). Because of this clear legislative 
history and intent, three courts of appeals have held that section 
3583(b) does not limit the length of supervised release that may be 
imposed for a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  841 or 960 when a 
greater term is there provided. United States v. LeMay, 952 F.2d 995, 
998 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Eng, 14 F.3d 165, 172-3 (2d Cir. 
1994); United States v. Garcia, 112 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1997). Two 
courts of appeals, however, have reached the opposite result, holding 
that the length of a supervised release term that can be imposed for 
controlled substance cases is limited by 18 U.S.C. 3583(b). United 
States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 630 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. 
Kelly, 974 F.2d 22, 24-5 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Good, 25 
F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 1994). Although the issue has not arisen with 
frequency, the conflict is entrenched and should be dealt with 
definitively. Accordingly, the amendment would add the words 
``Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18'' to the title 21 controlled 
substance offenses in the parts of those statutes dealing with 
supervised release to make clear that the longer terms there prescribed 
control over the general provision in section 3583.

  Section seven of the bill would confer express authority on District 
Courts under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3582(c)(1)(A), when exercising the power 
to reduce a term of imprisonment for extraordinary and compelling 
reasons, to impose a sentence of probation or supervised release with 
or without conditions. Such added flexibility is consistent with the 
purposes for which this statute was designed and will likely facilitate 
its use in appropriate cases. Under section 3582(c)(l)(A), a court is 
authorized, on motion of the Bureau of Prisons and consistent with the 
purposes of sentencing in 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3553, to ``reduce the term of 
imprisonment'' upon a finding that ``extraordinary and compelling 
reasons'' warrant such a reduction. This limited authority has been 
generally utilized when a defendant sentenced to imprisonment becomes 
terminally ill or develops a permanently incapacitating illness not 
present at the time of sentencing. In such circumstances, the situation 
of a prisoner (e.g., one suffering from a contagious debilitating 
disease), may make a court reluctant simply to release the prisoner 
back into society unless another sentencing option such as home 
confinement as a condition of supervised release or probation can be 
imposed. Presently, however, it is doubtful whether a court can order 
such a sentence since section 3582(c)(1)(A) speaks only in terms of 
reducing ``the term of imprisonment,'' not imposing in its stead a 
lesser type of sentence. Compare Fed. R. Crim. P 35(b), which gives a 
court the power to ``reduce a sentence'' to reflect substantial 
assistance.
  Finally, section eight would remedy a statutory ambiguity relating to 
restitution as a condition of supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
3583(c) and (e), the court is authorized to consider various sentencing 
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3553 as a basis for imposing 
restitution as a condition of supervised release or for revoking or 
modifying the conditions of supervised release. Supervised release is 
among the purposes of sentencing enumerated in section 3553, in 
paragraph (a)(7), but is not among the factors enumerated in section 
3583(c) and (e). However, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3583(c) also authorizes the 
court to impose any condition of supervised release that is an 
authorized condition of probation under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3563(b), and 
making restitution is among those conditions (see section 3564(b)(2)). 
Thus, it

[[Page S8726]]

appears clear that a court has authority to impose a restitution 
condition upon a term of supervised release. See, e.g., United States 
v. Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1395-96 (5th Cir. 1993). But the absence of a 
reference to section 3553(a)(7) in the revocation subsection of section 
3583 raises a question whether, even though it is an authorized 
condition of supervised release, a court has authority to revoke or 
modify the term for the willful failure to make restitution. This 
amendment would provide a reference to section 3553(a)(7) in the 
supervised release statute and remove any ambiguity in this regard. Of 
course, even under the amended statute, a court could not revoke or 
modify the defendant's supervised release for failure to pay 
restitution unless the defendant had the resources to pay and willfully 
refused to do so. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983); Payan, 
992 F.2d at 1396-97.
  For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation 
along with Senator Hatch, and I urge its swift enactment into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1318. A bill to provide Coastal Impact Assistance to State and 
local governments, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments of 1978, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act, and the Federal Aid in 
Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson 
Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and 
recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today, to introduce the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2001. The bill is identical to a 
bill I introduced at the start of the 106th Congress. This important 
legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in the distribution of 
revenues generated by offshore oil and gas production. It allocates a 
portion of those moneys to the coastal States and communities who 
shoulder the responsibility for energy development activity off their 
coastlines. It also provides a secure funding source for state 
recreation and wildlife conservation programs.
  By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and gas production into a 
variety of important conservation, recreation and environmental 
programs, this bill will rededicate the Federal Government to a 
partnership with state and local governments to meet the demands of all 
Americans for outdoor experiences. In addition, it reaffirms the 
original promise of the Land Water Conservation Fund that a portion of 
the revenues obtained by the Federal Government from the development of 
our natural resources would be reinvested into the outdoor recreation 
and natural resource estate of the Nation.
  Like last Congress, this bill is the start of a process. As many of 
us in this chamber remember, consideration of OCS revenue sharing 
legislation during the 106th Congress resulted in an outcome none of us 
could have anticipated, the creation of a 6 year budget category that 
dedicates appropriated funds for a variety of conservation programs. 
Enactment of the Conservation Spending Category was one of the great 
bipartisan achievements of the 106th Congress and was an important step 
in providing annual funding for a number of programs that protect our 
nation's natural and cultural legacy.
  However, coastal impact assistance was not included. While the 
coastal States that support offshore oil and gas activities received 
some funding last year, they were specifically excluded from the 
Conservation Spending Category and no money has been appropriated this 
Congress.
  This bill directs that 27 percent of the revenues generated from oil 
and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, be 
returned to coastal States and communities. Offshore oil and gas 
production generates over $4 billion in revenues annually for the U.S. 
Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts from onshore Federal lands, OCS 
oil and gas revenues are not directly returned to the States in which 
production occurs and which bear the burdens of such activity.
  This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that 
bear the responsibilities for and costs associated with offshore oil 
and gas production will finally receive some assistance from the 
revenues generated by this federal activity. This legislation would 
share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with counties, 
parishes and boroughs, the local government entities most directly 
affected, and State governments.
  The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those 
States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs. It directs that a 
portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS 
production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and communities can 
use OCS Impact Assistance funds on everything from environmental 
programs, to coastal and marine conservation efforts, to new 
infrastructure requirements.
  This is a true investment in the future. This money will be used, 
day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life of coastal State 
residents.
  Let me also remind everyone that OCS production only occurs off the 
coasts of 6 States, yet the bill shares OCS revenues with 34 States. 
There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of OCS revenues which 
have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except the Gulf of Mexico 
and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new OCS production.
  The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas 
production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that 
the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs. I firmly 
believe that the Federal Government needs to do all it can to pursue 
and encourage further technological advances in OCS exploration and 
production. These technological achievements will continue to result in 
new OCS production having an unparalleled record of excellence on 
environmental and safety issues. Additional technological advances will 
further improve resource recovery and will increase revenues to the 
Treasury for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by 
OCS money.
  I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new 
OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new 
developments in this area, I am confident that we can work through them 
all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, 
development and the environmental protection are compatible.
  This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the 
Federal Government from OCS development and invests it in conservation 
and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles II and III of the bill share OCS 
revenues will ALL States for these purposes. Title II of this bill 
provides a secure source of funding for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, LWCF. The LWCF was established over three decades ago to provide 
Federal money for State and Federal land acquisition and help meet 
recreation needs. Title III of this bill provides funding for State 
fish and wildlife conservation programs. The money would be distributed 
through the Pittman-Robertson program administered by the United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service. This money could be used for both game and 
non-game wildlife. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of 
money available for state fish and game programs would nearly double. 
States will be able to use these moneys to increase fish and wildlife 
populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
  This bill is not perfect but it is a step to ensuring not only that 
Coastal States have money to address the effects of OCS-activities but 
that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation and 
conservation resources for all of us to enjoy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1319. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce the 21st 
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. I thank 
Senator Hatch, the Ranking Republican Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, for his hard work and support of this legislation.
  The last time Congress properly authorized spending for the entire 
Department of Justice, ``DOJ'' or the

[[Page S8727]]

``Department'', was in 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 
1980 and 1981. Since then, Congress has not passed nor has the 
President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, 
there are a number of years where Congress failed to consider any 
Department authorization bill. This 21-year failure to properly 
reauthorize the Department has forced the appropriations committees in 
both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.
  We have ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too 
long. Our bipartisan legislation is an attempt to reaffirm the 
authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking 
Member Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working in a 
bipartisan manner to pass similar legislation in the House of 
Representatives.
  The ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act,'' is a comprehensive authorization of the Department based on H.R. 
2215 as passed by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2001. Our 
bipartisan legislation contains four titles which authorize 
appropriations for the Department for fiscal year 2002, provide 
permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to 
efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing 
statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The 
bill establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms, 
such as DOJ Inspector General authority to investigate allegations of 
misconduct by employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 
intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee 
the operations of the Department. Finally, the bill creates a separate 
Violence Against Women Office to combat domestic violence.
  Title I authorizes appropriations for the major components of the 
Department for fiscal year 2002. The authorization mirrors the 
President's request regarding the Department except in two areas. 
First, the bill increased the President's request for the DOJ Inspector 
General by $10 million. This is necessary because the Committee is 
concerned about the severe downsizing of that office and the need for 
oversight, particularly of the FBI, at the Department. Second, the bill 
authorizes at least $10 million for the investigation and prosecution 
of intellectual property crimes, including software counterfeiting 
crimes and crimes identified in the No Electronic Theft, NET, Act, 
Public Law 105-147. The American copyright industry is the largest 
exporter of goods from the United States, employing more than 7 million 
Americans, and these additional funds are needed to strengthen the 
resources available to DOJ and the FBI to investigate and prosecute 
cyberpiracy.

  The bill does not contain an authorization for appropriations for 
several unauthorized grant programs. Senator Hatch and I have decided 
to review each of these expired programs and authorize them as needed.
  In addition, Title I authorizes $9 million in FY 2002 to add an 
additional Assistant United States Attorney in each of the 94 U.S. 
Attorney Offices to implement part of the Administration's Project Safe 
Neighborhoods proposal to reduce school gun violence across the nation. 
These prosecutors will assist in targeting juveniles who obtain weapons 
and commit violent crimes, as well as the adults who place firearms in 
the hands of juveniles.
  Title II permanently establishes a clear set of authorities that the 
Department may rely on to use appropriated funds, including 
establishing permitted uses of appropriated funds by the Attorney 
General for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, the FBI, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, the Federal Prison System, and the 
Detention Trustee. Title II also establishes new reporting requirements 
which are intended to enhance Congressional oversight of the 
Department, including new reporting requirements for information about 
the enforcement of existing laws, for information regarding the Office 
of Justice Programs, OJP, and the submission of other reports, required 
by existing law, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Section 
206(e) expands an existing reporting requirement regarding copyright 
infringement cases. Title II also establishes a counterterrorism fund 
and provides the Attorney General with additional authority to 
strengthen law enforcement operations.
  Title III repeals outdated and open-ended statutes, requires the 
submission of an annual authorization bill to the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees, and provides states with flexibility to use 
existing Truth-In-Sentencing and Violent Offender Incarceration Grants 
to account for juveniles being housed in adult prison facilities. Title 
III requires the Department to submit to Congress studies on untested 
rape examination kits, and the allocation of funds, personnel, and 
workloads for each office of U.S. Attorney and each division of the 
Department.
  Section 305 requires the Attorney General and Director of the FBI to 
provide the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with a detailed 
report on the use of DCS 1000, also known as Carnivore, and other 
similar Internet surveillance systems. Many have raised legitimate 
privacy concerns with Carnivore. Congress needs to know the facts about 
Carnivore to find a way to balance the needs of law enforcement 
investigators with the privacy interests of all Americans.
  In addition, Title III provides new oversight and reporting 
requirements for the FBI and other activities conducted by the Justice 
Department. Specifically, section 308 codifies the Attorney General's 
order of July 11, 2001, which revised Department of Justice's 
regulations concerning the Inspector General. The section insures that 
the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has the authority 
to decide whether a particular allegation of misconduct by Department 
of Justice personnel, including employees of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, should be 
investigated by the Inspector General or by the internal affairs unit 
of the appropriate component of the Department of Justice.
  Section 309 requires the Attorney General to submit a report and 
recommendation to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary not 
later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on whether there should 
be established an office of Inspector General for the FBI or an office 
of Deputy Inspector General for the FBI that would be responsible for 
supervising independent oversight of programs and operations of the 
FBI.
  Title IV establishes a Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) within 
the Justice Department. The VAWO is headed by a Director, who is 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, 
Title IV enumerates duties and responsibilities of the Director, 
requires the Attorney General to ensure VAWO is adequately staffed and 
authorizes appropriations for the VAWO.
  I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman 
Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to bring the important business 
of re-authorizing the Department back before the Senate and House 
Judiciary Committees. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the 
Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional 
role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law 
of the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act'' will be a significant step toward restoring our 
oversight role.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section analysis 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. 1319

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``21st 
     Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
     Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

     TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

Sec. 101. Specific sums authorized to be appropriated.
Sec. 102. Appointment of additional Assistant United States Attorneys; 
              reduction of certain litigation positions.
Sec. 103. Authorization for additional Assistant United States 
              Attorneys for project safe neighborhoods.

[[Page S8728]]

                TITLE II--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Permanent authority.
Sec. 202. Permanent authority relating to enforcement of laws.
Sec. 203. Notifications and reports to be provided simultaneously to 
              committees.
Sec. 204. Miscellaneous uses of funds; technical amendments.
Sec. 205. Technical and miscellaneous amendments to Department of 
              Justice authorities; authority to transfer property of 
              marginal value; recordkeeping; protection of the Attorney 
              General.
Sec. 206. Oversight; waste, fraud, and abuse of appropriations.
Sec. 207. Enforcement of Federal criminal laws by Attorney General.
Sec. 208. Counterterrorism fund.
Sec. 209. Strengthening law enforcement in United States territories, 
              commonwealths, and possessions.
Sec. 210. Additional authorities of the Attorney General.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Repealers.
Sec. 302. Technical amendments to title 18 of the United States Code.
Sec. 303. Required submission of proposed authorization of 
              appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal 
              year 2003.
Sec. 304. Study of untested rape examination kits.
Sec. 305. Report on DCS 1000 (``carnivore'').
Sec. 306. Study of allocation of litigating attorneys.
Sec. 307. Use of truth-in-sentencing and violent offender incarceration 
              grants.
Sec. 308. Authority of the Department of Justice Inspector General.
Sec. 309. Report on Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General for 
              Federal Bureau of Investigation.

                    TITLE IV--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Establishment of Violence Against Women Office.

     TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

     SEC. 101. SPECIFIC SUMS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2002, to carry out the activities of the Department of 
     Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division, 
     commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof), 
     the following sums:
       (1) General administration.--For General Administration: 
     $93,433,000.
       (2) Administrative review and appeals.--For Administrative 
     Review and Appeals: $178,499,000 for administration of pardon 
     and clemency petitions and for immigration-related 
     activities.
       (3) Office of inspector general.--For the Office of 
     Inspector General: $55,000,000, which shall include for each 
     such fiscal year, not to exceed $10,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character.
       (4) General legal activities.--For General Legal 
     Activities: $566,822,000, which shall include for each such 
     fiscal year--
       (A) not less than $4,000,000 for the investigation and 
     prosecution of denaturalization and deportation cases 
     involving alleged Nazi war criminals;
       (B) not less than $10,000,000 for the investigation and 
     prosecution of intellectual property crimes, including 
     software counterfeiting crimes and crimes identified in the 
     No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (Public Law 105-147); and
       (C) not to exceed $20,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of 
     a confidential character.
       (5) Antitrust division.--For the Antitrust Division: 
     $140,973,000.
       (6) United states attorneys.--For United States Attorneys: 
     $1,346,289,000.
       (7) Federal bureau of investigation.--For the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation: $3,507,109,000, which shall include 
     for each such fiscal year--
       (A) not to exceed $1,250,000 for construction, to remain 
     available until expended; and
       (B) not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of 
     a confidential character.
       (8) United states marshals service.--For the United States 
     Marshals Service: $626,439,000, which shall include for each 
     such fiscal year not to exceed $6,621,000 for construction, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (9) Federal prison system.--For the Federal Prison System, 
     including the National Institute of Corrections: 
     $4,662,710,000.
       (10) Federal prisoner detention.--For the support of United 
     States prisoners in non-Federal institutions, as authorized 
     by section 4013(a) of title 18 of the United States Code: 
     $724,682,000, to remain available until expended.
       (11) Drug enforcement administration.--For the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration: $1,480,929,000, which shall 
     include not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies 
     of a confidential character.
       (12) Immigration and naturalization service.--For the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service: $3,516,411,000, which 
     shall include--
       (A) not to exceed $2,737,341,000 for salaries and expenses 
     of enforcement and border affairs (i.e., the Border Patrol, 
     deportation, intelligence, investigations, and inspection 
     programs, and the detention program);
       (B) not to exceed $650,660,000 for salaries and expenses of 
     citizenship and benefits (i.e., programs not included under 
     subparagraph (A));
       (C) for each such fiscal year, not to exceed $128,410,000 
     for construction, to remain available until expended; and
       (D) not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of 
     a confidential character.
       (13) Fees and expenses of witnesses.--For Fees and Expenses 
     of Witnesses: $156,145,000 to remain available until 
     expended, which shall include for each such fiscal year not 
     to exceed $6,000,000 for construction of protected witness 
     safesites.
       (14) Interagency crime and drug enforcement.--For 
     Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement: $338,106,000, for 
     expenses not otherwise provided for, for the investigation 
     and prosecution of persons involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, except that any funds obligated from 
     appropriations authorized by this paragraph may be used under 
     authorities available to the organizations reimbursed from 
     such funds.
       (15) Foreign claims settlement commission.--For the Foreign 
     Claims Settlement Commission: $1,130,000.
       (16) Community relations service.--For the Community 
     Relations Service: $9,269,000.
       (17) Assets forfeiture fund.--For the Assets Forfeiture 
     Fund: $22,949,000 for expenses authorized by section 524 of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       (18) United states parole commission.--For the United 
     States Parole Commission: $10,862,000.
       (19) Federal detention trustee.--For the necessary expenses 
     of the Federal Detention Trustee: $1,718,000.
       (20) Joint automated booking system.--For expenses 
     necessary for the operation of the Joint Automated Booking 
     System: $15,957,000.
       (21) Narrowband communications.--For the costs of 
     conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost 
     for operation and maintenance of Land Mobile Radio legacy 
     systems: $104,606,000.
       (22) Radiation exposure compensation.--For administrative 
     expenses in accordance with the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act: $1,996,000.
       (23) Counterterrorism fund.--For the Counterterrorism Fund 
     for necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney 
     General: $4,989,000.
       (24) Office of justice programs.--For administrative 
     expenses not otherwise provided for, of the Office of Justice 
     Programs: $116,369,000.

     SEC. 102. APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                   ATTORNEYS; REDUCTION OF CERTAIN LITIGATION 
                   POSITIONS.

       (a) Appointments.--Not later than September 30, 2003, the 
     Attorney General may exercise authority under section 542 of 
     title 28, United States Code, to appoint 200 assistant United 
     States attorneys in addition to the number of assistant 
     United States attorneys serving on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Selection of Appointees.--Individuals first appointed 
     under subsection (a) may be appointed from among attorneys 
     who are incumbents of 200 full-time litigation positions in 
     divisions of the Department of Justice and whose official 
     duty station is at the seat of Government.
       (c) Termination of Positions.--Each of the 200 litigation 
     positions that become vacant by reason of an appointment made 
     in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) shall be 
     terminated at the time the vacancy arises.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT UNITED 
                   STATES ATTORNEYS FOR PROJECT SAFE 
                   NEIGHBORHOODS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     program for each United States Attorney to provide for 
     coordination with State and local law enforcement officials 
     in the identification and prosecution of violations of 
     Federal firearms laws including school gun violence and 
     juvenile gun offenses.
       (b) Authorization for Hiring 94 Additional Assistant United 
     States Attorneys.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to 
     hire an additional Assistant United States Attorney in each 
     United States Attorney Office.

                TITLE II--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. PERMANENT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 530C. Authority to use available funds

       ``(a) In General.--Except to the extent provided otherwise 
     by law, the activities of the Department of Justice 
     (including any bureau, office, board, division, commission, 
     subdivision, unit, or other component thereof) may, in the 
     reasonable discretion of the Attorney General, be carried out 
     through any means, including--
       ``(1) through the Department's own personnel, acting 
     within, from, or through the Department itself;
       ``(2) by sending or receiving details of personnel to other 
     branches or agencies of the Federal Government, on a 
     reimbursable, partially-reimbursable, or nonreimbursable 
     basis;

[[Page S8729]]

       ``(3) through reimbursable agreements with other Federal 
     agencies for work, materials, or equipment;
       ``(4) through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements 
     with non-Federal parties; and
       ``(5) as provided in subsection (b), in section 524, and in 
     any other provision of law consistent herewith, including, 
     without limitation, section 102(b) of Public Law 102-395 (106 
     Stat. 1838), as incorporated by section 815(d) of Public Law 
     104-132 (110 Stat. 1315).
       ``(b) Permitted Uses.--
       ``(1) General permitted uses.--Funds available to the 
     Attorney General (i.e., all funds available to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (a)) may be used, without 
     limitation, for the following:
       ``(A) The purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     passenger motor vehicles, or police-type motor vehicles for 
     law enforcement purposes, without regard to general purchase 
     price limitation for the then-current fiscal year.
       ``(B) The purchase of insurance for motor vehicles, boats, 
     and aircraft operated in official Government business in 
     foreign countries.
       ``(C) Services of experts and consultants, including 
     private counsel, as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, 
     and at rates of pay for individuals not to exceed the maximum 
     daily rate payable from time to time under section 5332 of 
     title 5.
       ``(D) Official reception and representation expenses (i.e., 
     official expenses of a social nature intended in whole or in 
     predominant part to promote goodwill toward the Department or 
     its missions, but excluding expenses of public tours of 
     facilities of the Department of Justice), in accordance with 
     distributions and procedures established, and rules issued, 
     by the Attorney General, and expenses of public tours of 
     facilities of the Department of Justice.
       ``(E) Unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, 
     to be expended under the direction of the Attorney General 
     and accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(F) Miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized or 
     approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney 
     General, the Associate Attorney General, or the Assistant 
     Attorney General for Administration.
       ``(G) In accordance with procedures established and rules 
     issued by the Attorney General--
       ``(i) attendance at meetings and seminars;
       ``(ii) conferences and training; and
       ``(iii) advances of public moneys under section 3324 of 
     title 31: Provided, That travel advances of such moneys to 
     law enforcement personnel engaged in undercover activity 
     shall be considered to be public money for purposes of 
     section 3527 of title 31.
       ``(H) Contracting with individuals for personal services 
     abroad, except that such individuals shall not be regarded as 
     employees of the United States for the purpose of any law 
     administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
       ``(I) Payment of interpreters and translators who are not 
     citizens of the United States, in accordance with procedures 
     established and rules issued by the Attorney General.
       ``(J) Expenses or allowances for uniforms as authorized by 
     section 5901 of title 5, but without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the then-current fiscal year.
       ``(K) Expenses of--
       ``(i) primary and secondary schooling for dependents of 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     cost not in excess of those authorized by the Department of 
     Defense for the same area, when it is determined by the 
     Attorney General that schools available in the locality are 
     unable to provide adequately for the education of such 
     dependents; and
       ``(ii) transportation of those dependents between their 
     place of residence and schools serving the area which those 
     dependents would normally attend when the Attorney General, 
     under such regulations as he may prescribe, determines that 
     such schools are not accessible by public means of 
     transportation.
       ``(2) Specific permitted uses.--
       ``(A) Aircraft and boats.--Funds available to the Attorney 
     General for United States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, for the United States Marshals Service, for 
     the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service may be used for the purchase, 
     lease, maintenance, and operation of aircraft and boats, for 
     law enforcement purposes.
       ``(B) Purchase of ammunition and firearms; firearms 
     competitions.--Funds available to the Attorney General for 
     United States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, for the United States Marshals Service, for 
     the Drug Enforcement Administration, for the Federal Prison 
     System, for the Office of the Inspector General, and for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used for--
       ``(i) the purchase of ammunition and firearms; and
       ``(ii) participation in firearms competitions.
       ``(C) Construction.--Funds available to the Attorney 
     General for construction may be used for expenses of 
     planning, designing, acquiring, building, constructing, 
     activating, renovating, converting, expanding, extending, 
     remodeling, equipping, repairing, or maintaining buildings or 
     facilities, including the expenses of acquisition of sites 
     therefor, and all necessary expenses incident or related 
     thereto; but the foregoing shall not be construed to mean 
     that funds generally available for salaries and expenses are 
     not also available for certain incidental or minor 
     construction, activation, remodeling, maintenance, and other 
     related construction costs.
       ``(3) Fees and expenses of witnesses.--Funds available to 
     the Attorney General for fees and expenses of witnesses may 
     be used for--
       ``(A) expenses, mileage, compensation, protection, and per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, of witnesses (including advances 
     of public money) and as authorized by section 1821 or other 
     law, except that no witness may be paid more than 1 
     attendance fee for any 1 calendar day;
       ``(B) fees and expenses of neutrals in alternative dispute 
     resolution proceedings, where the Department of Justice is a 
     party; and
       ``(C) construction of protected witness safesites.
       ``(4) Federal bureau of investigation.--Funds available to 
     the Attorney General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     for the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes 
     against the United States may be used for the conduct of all 
     its authorized activities.
       ``(5) Immigration and naturalization service.--Funds 
     available to the Attorney General for the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service may be used for--
       ``(A) acquisition of land as sites for enforcement fences, 
     and construction incident to such fences;
       ``(B) cash advances to aliens for meals and lodging en 
     route;
       ``(C) refunds of maintenance bills, immigration fines, and 
     other items properly returnable, except deposits of aliens 
     who become public charges and deposits to secure payment of 
     fines and passage money; and
       ``(D) expenses and allowances incurred in tracking lost 
     persons, as required by public exigencies, in aid of State or 
     local law enforcement agencies.
       ``(6) Federal prison system.--Funds available to the 
     Attorney General for the Federal Prison System may be used 
     for--
       ``(A) inmate medical services and inmate legal services, 
     within the Federal prison system;
       ``(B) the purchase and exchange of farm products and 
     livestock;
       ``(C) the acquisition of land as provided in section 4010 
     of title 18; and
       ``(D) the construction of buildings and facilities for 
     penal and correctional institutions (including prison camps), 
     by contract or force account, including the payment of United 
     States prisoners for their work performed in any such 
     construction;

     except that no funds may be used to distribute or make 
     available to a prisoner any commercially published 
     information or material that is sexually explicit or features 
     nudity.
       ``(7) Detention trustee.--Funds available to the Attorney 
     General for the Detention Trustee may be used for all the 
     activities of such Trustee in the exercise of all power and 
     functions authorized by law relating to the detention of 
     Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions or otherwise in 
     the custody of the United States Marshals Service and to the 
     detention of aliens in the custody of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, including the overseeing of 
     construction of detention facilities or for housing related 
     to such detention, the management of funds appropriated to 
     the Department for the exercise of detention functions, and 
     the direction of the United States Marshals Service and 
     Immigration Service with respect to the exercise of detention 
     policy setting and operations for the Department of Justice.
       ``(c) Related Provisions.--
       ``(1) Limitation of compensation of individuals employed as 
     attorneys.--No funds available to the Attorney General may be 
     used to pay compensation for services provided by an 
     individual employed as an attorney (other than an individual 
     employed to provide services as a foreign attorney in special 
     cases) unless such individual is duly licensed and authorized 
     to practice as an attorney under the law of a State, a 
     territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Reimbursements paid to governmental entities.--Funds 
     available to the Attorney General that are paid as 
     reimbursement to a governmental unit of the Department of 
     Justice, to another Federal entity, or to a unit of State or 
     local government, may be used under authorities available to 
     the unit or entity receiving such reimbursement.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 
     31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``530C. Authority to use available funds.''.

     SEC. 202. PERMANENT AUTHORITY RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code 
     (as amended by section 201), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 530D. Report on enforcement of laws

       ``(a) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall submit to the 
     Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney 
     General or any officer of the Department of Justice--
       ``(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy 
     to refrain--

[[Page S8730]]

       ``(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any 
     provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, 
     policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or 
     administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney 
     General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is 
     unconstitutional; or
       ``(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the 
     United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or 
     complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon 
     courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) 
     established by a final decision of any court of, or superior 
     to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the 
     interpretation, construction, or application of the 
     Constitution or of any statute, rule, regulation, program, 
     policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or 
     administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney 
     General or such officer;
       ``(B) determines--
       ``(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, 
     administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of 
     any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, 
     program, policy, or other law; or
       ``(ii) to refrain from defending or asserting, in any 
     judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the 
     constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, 
     rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not to 
     appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or 
     other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality 
     of any such provision; or
       ``(C) approves (other than in circumstances in which a 
     report is submitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
     pursuant to section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) the settlement or compromise (other than in bankruptcy) 
     of any claim, suit, or other action--
       ``(i) against the United States (including any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof) for a sum that exceeds, or is likely 
     to exceed, $2,000,000; or
       ``(ii) by the United States (including any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof) pursuant to an agreement, consent 
     decree, or order (or pursuant to any modification of an 
     agreement, consent decree, or order) that provides injunctive 
     or other nonmonetary relief that exceeds, or is likely to 
     exceed, 3 years in duration.
       ``(2) Submission of report to the congress.--For the 
     purposes of paragraph (1), a report shall be considered to be 
     submitted to the Congress if the report is submitted to--
       ``(A) the majority leader and minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       ``(B) the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives;
       ``(C) the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       ``(D) the Senate Legal Counsel and the General Counsel of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(b) Deadline.--A report shall be submitted--
       ``(1) under subsection (a)(1)(A), not later than 30 days 
     after the establishment or implementation of each policy;
       ``(2) under subsection (a)(1)(B), within such time as will 
     reasonably enable the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     to take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely 
     fashion in the proceeding, but in no event later than 30 days 
     after the making of each determination; and
       ``(3) under subsection (a)(1)(C), not later than 30 days 
     after the conclusion of each fiscal-year quarter, with 
     respect to all approvals occurring in such quarter.
       ``(c) Contents.--A report required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) specify the date of the establishment or 
     implementation of the policy described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A), of the making of the determination described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B), or of each approval described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(C);
       ``(2) include a complete and detailed statement of the 
     relevant issues and background (including a complete and 
     detailed statement of the reasons for the policy or 
     determination, and the identity of the officer responsible 
     for establishing or implementing such policy, making such 
     determination, or approving such settlement or compromise), 
     except that--
       ``(A) such details may be omitted as may be absolutely 
     necessary to prevent improper disclosure of national-
     security- or classified information, or of any information 
     subject to the deliberative-process-, executive-, attorney-
     work-product-, or attorney-client privileges, if the fact of 
     each such omission (and the precise ground or grounds 
     therefor) is clearly noted in the statement: Provided, That 
     this subparagraph shall not be construed to deny to the 
     Congress (including any House, Committee, or agency thereof) 
     any such omitted details (or related information) that it 
     lawfully may seek, subsequent to the submission of the 
     report; and
       ``(B) the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed 
     satisfied--
       ``(i) in the case of an approval described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C)(i), if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement 
     agreement and consent decree or order (if any) is provided, 
     along with a statement indicating the legal and factual basis 
     or bases for the settlement or compromise (if not apparent on 
     the face of documents provided); and
       ``(ii) in the case of an approval described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C)(ii), if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement 
     agreement and consent decree or order (if any) is provided, 
     along with a statement indicating the injunctive or other 
     nonmonetary relief (if not apparent on the face of documents 
     provided); and
       ``(3) in the case of a determination described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) or an approval described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C), indicate the nature, tribunal, identifying 
     information, and status of the proceeding, suit, or action.
       ``(d) Declaration.--In the case of a determination 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(B), the representative of the 
     United States participating in the proceeding shall make a 
     clear declaration in the proceeding that any position 
     expressed as to the constitutionality of the provision 
     involved is the position of the executive branch of the 
     Federal Government (or, as applicable, of the President or of 
     any executive agency or military department).
       ``(e) Applicability to the President and to Executive 
     Agencies and Military Departments.--The reporting, 
     declaration, and other provisions of this section relating to 
     the Attorney General and other officers of the Department of 
     Justice shall apply to the President, to the head of each 
     executive agency or military department (as defined, 
     respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United 
     States Code) that establishes or implements a policy 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or is authorized to conduct 
     litigation, and to the officers of such executive agency.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 31 of title 28, 
     United States Code (as amended by section 201), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``530D. Report on enforcement of laws.''.

       (2) Section 712 of Public Law 95-521 (92 Stat. 1883) is 
     amended by striking subsection (b).
       (3) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the President shall advise the head of each 
     executive agency or military department (as defined, 
     respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United 
     States Code) of the enactment of this section.
       (4)(A) Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General (and, as 
     applicable, the President, and the head of any executive 
     agency or military department described in subsection (e) of 
     section 530D of title 28, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a)) shall submit to Congress a report (in 
     accordance with subsections (a), (c), and (e) of such 
     section) on--
       (i) all policies of which the Attorney General and 
     applicable official are aware described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) of such section that were established or 
     implemented before the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     were in effect on such date; and
       (ii) all determinations of which the Attorney General and 
     applicable official are aware described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B) of such section that were made before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and were in effect on such date.
       (B) If a determination described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     relates to any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding 
     that is pending in the 90-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, with respect to any such 
     determination, then the report required by this paragraph 
     shall be submitted within such time as will reasonably enable 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate to take action, 
     separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion in the 
     proceeding, but not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. NOTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS TO BE PROVIDED 
                   SIMULTANEOUSLY TO COMMITTEES.

       If the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of 
     Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division, 
     commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof) is 
     required by any Act (which shall be understood to include any 
     request or direction contained in any report of a committee 
     of the Congress relating to an appropriations Act or in any 
     statement of managers accompanying any conference report 
     agreed to by the Congress) to provide a notice or report to 
     any committee or subcommittee of the Congress (other than 
     both the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate), then such Act shall be deemed to require that a copy 
     of such notice or report be provided simultaneously to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

     SEC. 204. MISCELLANEOUS USES OF FUNDS; TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs.--Title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 504(a) by striking ``502'' and inserting 
     ``501(b)'';
       (2) in section 506(a)(1) by striking ``participating'';
       (3) in section 510(a)(3) by striking ``502'' and inserting 
     ``501(b)'';
       (4) in section 510 by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) No grants or contracts under subsection (b) may be 
     made, entered into, or used, directly or indirectly, to 
     provide any security enhancements or any equipment to

[[Page S8731]]

     any non-governmental entity that is not engaged in law 
     enforcement or law enforcement support, criminal or juvenile 
     justice, or delinquency prevention.''; and
       (5) in section 511 by striking ``503'' and inserting 
     ``501(b)''.
       (b) Attorneys Specially Retained by the Attorney General.--
     The 3d sentence of section 515(b) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``at not more than $12,000''.

     SEC. 205. TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO 
                   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITIES; AUTHORITY TO 
                   TRANSFER PROPERTY OF MARGINAL VALUE; 
                   RECORDKEEPING; PROTECTION OF THE ATTORNEY 
                   GENERAL.

       (a) Section 524 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``to the Attorney 
     General'' after ``available'';
       (2) in paragraph (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end of the 1st 
     subparagraph (I) and inserting a period;
       (B) by striking the 2d subparagraph (I); and
       (C) by striking ``fund'' in the 3d sentence following the 
     2d subparagraph (I) and inserting ``Fund'';
       (3) in paragraph (c)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``for information'' each place it appears; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$250,000'' the 2d and 3d places it 
     appears and inserting ``$500,000'';
       (4) in paragraph (c)(3) by striking ``(F)'' and inserting 
     ``(G)'';
       (5) in paragraph (c)(5) by striking ``Fund which'' and 
     inserting ``Fund, that''; and
       (6) in subsection (c)(9)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``year 1997'' and inserting ``years 2002 
     and 2003''; and
       (B) by striking ``Such transfer shall not'' and inserting 
     ``Each such transfer shall be subject to satisfaction by the 
     recipient involved of any outstanding lien against the 
     property transferred, but no such transfer shall''.
       (b) Section 522 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The'', and by inserting at the 
     end the following:
       ``(b) With respect to any data, records, or other 
     information acquired, collected, classified, preserved, or 
     published by the Attorney General for any statistical, 
     research, or other aggregate reporting purpose beginning not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 21st Century 
     Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act and 
     continuing thereafter, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the same criteria shall be used (and shall 
     be required to be used, as applicable) to classify or 
     categorize offenders and victims (in the criminal context), 
     and to classify or categorize actors and acted upon (in the 
     noncriminal context).''.
       (c) Section 534(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding ``and'' after the semicolon.
       (d) Section 509(3) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the 2d period.
       (e) Section 533 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (2) a new paragraph as 
     follows:
       ``(3) to assist in the protection of the person of the 
     Attorney General.''.
       (f) Hereafter, no compensation or reimbursement paid 
     pursuant to section 501(a) of Public Law 99-603 (100 Stat. 
     3443) or section 241(i) of the Act of June 27, 1952 (ch. 477) 
     shall be subject to section 6503(d) of title 31, United 
     States Code, and no funds available to the Attorney General 
     may be used to pay any assessment made pursuant to such 
     section 6503 with respect to any such compensation or 
     reimbursement.
       (g) Section 108 of Public Law 103-121 (107 Stat. 1164) is 
     amended by replacing ``three'' with ``six'', by replacing 
     ``only'' with ``, first,'', and by replacing ``litigation.'' 
     with ``litigation, and, thereafter, for financial systems, 
     and other personnel, administrative, and litigation expenses 
     of debt collection activities.''.

     SEC. 206. OVERSIGHT; WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Section 529 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Beginning'', and by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any provision of law limiting the 
     amount of management or administrative expenses, the Attorney 
     General shall, not later than May 2, 2003, and of every year 
     thereafter, prepare and provide to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary and Appropriations of each House of the Congress 
     using funds available for the underlying programs--
       ``(1) a report identifying and describing every grant, 
     cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract that 
     was made, entered into, awarded, or extended, in the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year, by or on behalf of the 
     Office of Justice Programs (including any component or unit 
     thereof, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
     Services), and including, without limitation, for each such 
     grant, cooperative agreement, or contract: the term, the 
     dollar amount or value, a complete and detailed description 
     of its specific purpose or purposes, the names of all 
     parties, the names of each unsuccessful applicant or bidder 
     (and a complete and detailed description of the specific 
     purpose or purposes proposed of the application or bid), 
     except that such description may be summary with respect to 
     each application or bid having a total value of less than 
     $350,000; and
       ``(2) a report identifying and reviewing every grant, 
     cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract 
     made, entered into, awarded, or extended after October 1, 
     2002, by or on behalf of the Office of Justice Programs 
     (including any component or unit thereof, and the Office of 
     Community Oriented Policing Services) that was closed out or 
     that otherwise ended in the immediately preceding fiscal year 
     (or even if not yet closed out, was terminated or otherwise 
     ended in the fiscal year that ended 2 years before the end of 
     such immediately preceding fiscal year), and including, 
     without limitation, for each such grant, cooperative 
     agreement, or contract: a complete and detailed description 
     of how the appropriated funds involved actually were spent, 
     complete and detailed statistics relating to its performance, 
     its specific purpose or purposes, and its effectiveness, and 
     a written declaration by each non-Federal grantee and each 
     non-Federal party to such agreement or to such contract, 
     that--
       ``(A) the appropriated funds were spent for such purpose or 
     purposes, and only such purpose or purposes;
       ``(B) the terms of the grant, cooperative agreement, or 
     contract were complied with; and
       ``(C) all documentation necessary for conducting a full and 
     proper audit under generally accepted accounting principles, 
     and any (additional) documentation that may have been 
     required under the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract, 
     have been kept in orderly fashion and will be preserved for 
     not less than 3 years from the date of such close out, 
     termination, or end;

     except that the requirement of this paragraph shall be deemed 
     satisfied with respect to any such description, statistics, 
     or declaration if such non-Federal grantee or such non-
     Federal party shall have failed to provide the same to the 
     Attorney General, and the Attorney General notes the fact of 
     such failure and the name of such grantee or such party in 
     the report.''.
       (b) Section 1913 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``to favor'' and inserting ``a 
     jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, 
     adopt,'', by inserting ``, law, ratification, policy,'' after 
     ``legislation'' every place it appears, by striking ``by 
     Congress'' the 2d place it appears, by inserting ``or such 
     official'' before ``, through the proper'', by inserting ``, 
     measure,'' before ``or resolution'', by striking ``Members of 
     Congress on the request of any Member'' and inserting ``any 
     such Member or official, at his request,'', by striking ``for 
     legislation'' and inserting ``for any legislation''.
       (c) Section 1516(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``, entity, or program'' after 
     ``person'', and by inserting ``grant, or cooperative 
     agreement,'' after ``subcontract,''.
       (d) Section 112 of title I of section 101(b) of division A 
     of Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-67) is amended by 
     striking ``fiscal year'' and all that follows through 
     ``Justice--'', and inserting ``any fiscal year the Attorney 
     General--''.
       (e) Section 2320(f) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``title 18'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``this title''; and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The report under paragraph (1), with respect to 
     criminal infringement of copyright, shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) The number of infringement cases involving specific 
     types of works, such as audiovisual works, sound recordings, 
     business software, video games, books, and other types of 
     works.
       ``(B) The number of infringement cases involving an online 
     element.
       ``(C) The number and dollar amounts of fines assessed in 
     specific categories of dollar amounts, such as up to $500, 
     from $500 to $1,000, from $1,000 to $5,000, from $5,000 to 
     $10,000, and categories above $10,000.
       ``(D) The amount of restitution awarded.
       ``(E) Whether the sentences imposed were served.''.

     SEC. 207. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS BY ATTORNEY 
                   GENERAL.

       Section 535 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in 
     subsections (a) and (b), by replacing ``title 18'' with 
     ``Federal criminal law'', and in subsection (b), by replacing 
     ``or complaint'' with ``matter, or complaint witnessed, 
     discovered, or'', and by inserting ``or the witness, 
     discoverer, or recipient, as appropriate,'' after 
     ``agency,''.

     SEC. 208. COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.

       (a) Establishment; Availability.--There is hereby 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a separate 
     fund to be known as the ``Counterterrorism Fund'', amounts in 
     which shall remain available without fiscal year limitation--
       (1) to reimburse any Department of Justice component for 
     any costs incurred in connection with--
       (A) reestablishing the operational capability of an office 
     or facility that has been damaged or destroyed as the result 
     of any domestic or international terrorism incident;
       (B) providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute 
     domestic or international terrorism, including, without 
     limitation, paying rewards in connection with these 
     activities; and

[[Page S8732]]

       (C) conducting terrorism threat assessments of Federal 
     agencies and their facilities; and
       (2) to reimburse any department or agency of the Federal 
     Government for any costs incurred in connection with 
     detaining in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of 
     terrorism that violate the laws of the United States.
       (b) No Effect on Prior Appropriations.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (a) shall not affect the amount or availability 
     of any appropriation to the Counterterrorism Fund made before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 209. STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN UNITED STATES 
                   TERRITORIES, COMMONWEALTHS, AND POSSESSIONS.

       (a) Extended Assignment Incentive.--Chapter 57 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subchapter IV, by inserting at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5757. Extended assignment incentive

       ``(a) The head of an Executive agency may pay an extended 
     assignment incentive to an employee if--
       ``(1) the employee has completed at least 2 years of 
     continuous service in 1 or more civil service positions 
     located in a territory or possession of the United States, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands;
       ``(2) the agency determines that replacing the employee 
     with another employee possessing the required qualifications 
     and experience would be difficult; and
       ``(3) the agency determines it is in the best interest of 
     the Government to encourage the employee to complete a 
     specified additional period of employment with the agency in 
     the territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
     or Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, except that 
     the total amount of service performed in a particular 
     territory, commonwealth, or possession under 1 or more 
     agreements established under this section may not exceed 5 
     years.
       ``(b) The sum of extended assignment incentive payments for 
     a service period may not exceed the greater of--
       ``(1) an amount equal to 25 percent of the annual rate of 
     basic pay of the employee at the beginning of the service 
     period, times the number of years in the service period; or
       ``(2) $15,000 per year in the service period.
       ``(c)(1) Payment of an extended assignment incentive shall 
     be contingent upon the employee entering into a written 
     agreement with the agency specifying the period of service 
     and other terms and conditions under which the extended 
     assignment incentive is payable.
       ``(2) The agreement shall set forth the method of payment, 
     including any use of an initial lump-sum payment, installment 
     payments, or a final lump-sum payment upon completion of the 
     entire period of service.
       ``(3) The agreement shall describe the conditions under 
     which the extended assignment incentive may be canceled prior 
     to the completion of agreed-upon service period and the 
     effect of the cancellation. The agreement shall require that 
     if, at the time of cancellation of the incentive, the 
     employee has received incentive payments which exceed the 
     amount which bears the same relationship to the total amount 
     to be paid under the agreement as the completed service 
     period bears to the agreed-upon service period, the employee 
     shall repay that excess amount, at a minimum, except that an 
     employee who is involuntarily reassigned to a position 
     stationed outside the territory, commonwealth, or possession 
     or involuntarily separated (not for cause on charges of 
     misconduct, delinquency, or inefficiency) may not be required 
     to repay any excess amounts.
       ``(d) An agency may not put an extended assignment 
     incentive into effect during a period in which the employee 
     is fulfilling a recruitment or relocation bonus service 
     agreement under section 5753 or for which an employee is 
     receiving a retention allowance under section 5754.
       ``(e) Extended assignment incentive payments may not be 
     considered part of the basic pay of an employee.
       ``(f) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe 
     regulations for the administration of this section, including 
     regulations on an employee's entitlement to retain or receive 
     incentive payments when an agreement is canceled. Neither 
     this section nor implementing regulations may impair any 
     agency's independent authority to administratively determine 
     compensation for a class of its employees.''; and
       (2) in the analysis by adding at the end the following:

``5757. Extended assignment incentive.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5307(a)(2)(B) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 5755'' and 
     inserting ``5755, or 5757''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable 
     pay period beginning on or after 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Report.--No later than 3 years after the effective date 
     of this section, the Office of Personnel Management, after 
     consultation with affected agencies, shall submit a report to 
     Congress assessing the effectiveness of the extended 
     assignment incentive authority as a human resources 
     management tool and making recommendations for any changes 
     necessary to improve the effectiveness of the incentive 
     authority. Each agency shall maintain such records and report 
     such information, including the number and size of incentive 
     offers made and accepted or declined by geographic location 
     and occupation, in such format and at such times as the 
     Office of Personnel Management may prescribe, for use in 
     preparing the report.

     SEC. 210. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) FBI Danger Pay.--Section 151 of the Foreign Relations 
     Act, fiscal years 1990 and 1991 (5 U.S.C. 5928 note) is 
     amended by inserting ``or Federal Bureau of Investigation'' 
     after ``Drug Enforcement Administration''.
       (b) Foreign Reimbursements.--For fiscal year 2002 and 
     thereafter, whenever the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     participates in a cooperative project to improve law 
     enforcement or national security operations or services with 
     a friendly foreign country on a cost-sharing basis, any 
     reimbursements or contributions received from that foreign 
     country to meet its share of the project may be credited to 
     appropriate current appropriations accounts of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation. The amount of a reimbursement or 
     contribution credited shall be available only for payment of 
     the share of the project expenses allocated to the 
     participating foreign country.
       (c) Railroad Police Training Fees.--For fiscal year 2002 
     and thereafter, the Attorney General is authorized to 
     establish and collect a fee to defray the costs of railroad 
     police officers participating in a Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation law enforcement training program authorized by 
     Public Law 106-110, and to credit such fees to the 
     appropriation account ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', to be available until expended for 
     salaries and expenses incurred in providing such services.
       (d) Warranty Work.--In instances where the Attorney General 
     determines that law enforcement-, security-, or mission-
     related considerations mitigate against obtaining maintenance 
     or repair services from private sector entities for equipment 
     under warranty, the Attorney General is authorized to seek 
     reimbursement from such entities for warranty work performed 
     at Department of Justice facilities, and to credit any 
     payment made for such work to any appropriation charged 
     therefor.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. REPEALERS.

       (a) Open-Ended Authorization of Appropriations for National 
     Institute of Corrections.--Chapter 319 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking section 4353.
       (b) Open-Ended Authorization of Appropriations for United 
     States Marshals Service.--Section 561 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subsection (i).

     SEC. 302. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES CODE.

       Title 18 of the United States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 4041 by striking ``at a salary of $10,000 a 
     year'';
       (2) in section 4013--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by replacing ``the support of United States prisoners'' 
     with ``Federal prisoner detention'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2) by adding ``and'' after ``hire;'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3) by replacing ``entities; and'' with 
     ``entities.''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``The Attorney General, 
     in support of Federal prisoner detainees in non-Federal 
     institutions, is authorized to make payments, from funds 
     appropriated for State and local law enforcement assistance, 
     for'' before ``entering''; and
       (B) by redesignating--
       (i) subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d); and
       (ii) paragraph (a)(4) as subsection (b), and subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C), of such paragraph (a)(4) as paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3) of such subsection (b); and
       (3) in section 209(a)--
       (A) by striking ``or makes'' and inserting ``makes''; and
       (B) by striking ``supplements the salary of, any'' and 
     inserting ``supplements, the salary of any''.

     SEC. 303. REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
                   FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.

       When the President submits to the Congress the budget of 
     the United States Government for fiscal year 2003, the 
     President shall simultaneously submit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate such proposed legislation 
     authorizing appropriations for the Department of Justice for 
     fiscal year 2003 as the President may judge necessary and 
     expedient.

     SEC. 304. STUDY OF UNTESTED RAPE EXAMINATION KITS.

       The Attorney General shall conduct a study to assess and 
     report to Congress the number of untested rape examination 
     kits that currently exist nationwide and shall submit to the 
     Congress a report containing a summary of the results of such 
     study. For the purpose of carrying out such study, the 
     Attorney General shall attempt to collect information from 
     all law enforcement jurisdictions in the United States.

     SEC. 305. REPORT ON DCS 1000 (``CARNIVORE'').

       Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal years 2001 
     and 2002, the Attorney General and the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to the 
     Committees

[[Page S8733]]

     on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate a report detailing--
       (1) the number of orders or extensions applied for to 
     authorize the use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or 
     device);
       (2) the fact that the order or extension was granted as 
     applied for, was modified, or was denied;
       (3) the kind of order applied for and the specific 
     statutory authority relied on to use DCS 1000 (or any similar 
     system or device);
       (4) the court that authorized each use of DCS 1000 (or any 
     similar system or device);
       (5) the period of interceptions authorized by the order, 
     and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
       (6) the offense specified in the order or application, or 
     extension of an order;
       (7) the Department of Justice official or officials who 
     approved each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or 
     device);
       (8) the criteria used by the Department of Justice 
     officials to review requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar 
     system or device);
       (9) a complete description of the process used to submit, 
     review, and approve requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar 
     system or device); and
       (10) any information intercepted that was not authorized by 
     the court to be intercepted.

     SEC. 306. STUDY OF ALLOCATION OF LITIGATING ATTORNEYS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate, detailing the distribution or 
     allocation of appropriated funds, attorneys and other 
     personnel, per-attorney workloads, and number of cases opened 
     and closed, for each Office of United States Attorney and 
     each division of the Department of Justice except the Justice 
     Management Division.

     SEC. 307. USE OF TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING AND VIOLENT OFFENDER 
                   INCARCERATION GRANTS.

       Section 20105(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13705(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Use of Truth-in-Sentencing and Violent Offender 
     Incarceration Grants.--Funds provided under section 20103 or 
     20104 may be applied to the cost of--
       ``(1) altering existing correctional facilities to provide 
     separate facilities for juveniles under the jurisdiction of 
     an adult criminal court who are detained or are serving 
     sentences in adult prisons or jails;
       ``(2) providing correctional staff who are responsible for 
     supervising juveniles who are detained or serving sentences 
     under the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court with 
     orientation and ongoing training regarding the unique needs 
     of such offenders; and
       ``(3) providing ombudsmen to monitor the treatment of 
     juveniles who are detained or serving sentences under the 
     jurisdiction of an adult criminal court in adult facilities, 
     consistent with guidelines issued by the Assistant Attorney 
     General.

     SEC. 308. AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INSPECTOR 
                   GENERAL.

       Section 8E of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) except as specified in subsection (a) and paragraph 
     (3), may investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing or 
     administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of 
     Justice, or may, in the Inspector General's discretion, refer 
     such allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility 
     or the internal affairs office of the appropriate component 
     of the Department of Justice; and
       ``(3) shall refer to the Counsel, Office of Professional 
     Responsibility of the Department of Justice, allegations of 
     misconduct involving Department attorneys, investigators or 
     law enforcement personnel, where the allegations relate to 
     the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, 
     litigate, or provide legal advice, except that no such 
     referral shall be made if the attorney is employed in the 
     Office of Professional Responsibility.''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(d) The Attorney General shall insure by regulation that 
     any component of the Department of Justice receiving a 
     nonfrivolous allegation of criminal wrongdoing or 
     administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department 
     shall report such information to the Inspector General.''.

     SEC. 309. REPORT ON INSPECTOR GENERAL AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR 
                   GENERAL FOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report and 
     recommendation to the chairman and ranking member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee of 
     the Judiciary on the House of Representatives concerning--
       (1) whether there should be established, within the 
     Department of Justice, a separate Office of the Inspector 
     General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation that shall be 
     responsible for supervising independent oversight of programs 
     and operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
       (2) whether there should be established, within the Office 
     of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, an 
     Office of Deputy Inspector General for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation that shall be responsible for supervising 
     independent oversight of programs and operations of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation.

                    TITLE IV--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Violence Against Women 
     Office Act''.

     SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2002(d)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``section 2005'' and inserting ``section 
     2009''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 2006'' and inserting ``section 
     2010'';
       (2) by redesignating sections 2002 through 2006 as sections 
     2006 through 2010, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after section 2001 the following:

     ``SEC. 2002. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       ``(a) Office.--There is hereby established within the 
     Department of Justice, under the general authority of the 
     Attorney General, a Violence Against Women Office (in this 
     title referred to as the `Office').
       ``(b) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director 
     (in this title referred to as the `Director'), who shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate. The Director shall report to the 
     Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General, and 
     shall make reports to the Deputy Attorney General as the 
     Director deems necessary to fulfill the mission of the 
     Office. The Director shall have final authority for all 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the 
     Office. The Director shall not engage in any employment other 
     than that of serving as the Director, nor shall the Director 
     hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any 
     organization, agency, or institution with which the Office 
     makes any contract or other arrangement under this title.

     ``SEC. 2003. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF VIOLENCE 
                   AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall have the following 
     duties:
       ``(1) Serving as special counsel to the Attorney General on 
     the subject of violence against women.
       ``(2) Maintaining liaison with the judicial branches of the 
     Federal and State Governments on matters relating to violence 
     against women.
       ``(3) Providing information to the President, the Congress, 
     the judiciary, State and local governments, and the general 
     public on matters relating to violence against women.
       ``(4) Serving, at the request of the Attorney General or 
     Assistant Attorney General, as the representative of the 
     Department of Justice on domestic task forces, committees, or 
     commissions addressing policy or issues relating to violence 
     against women.
       ``(5) Serving, at the request of the President, acting 
     through the Attorney General, as the representative of the 
     United States Government on human rights and economic justice 
     matters related to violence against women in international 
     forums, including, but not limited to, the United Nations.
       ``(6) Carrying out the functions of the Department of 
     Justice under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title 
     IV of Public Law 103-322) and the amendments made by that 
     Act, and other functions of the Department of Justice on 
     matters relating to violence against women, including with 
     respect to those functions--
       ``(A) the development of policy, protocols, and guidelines;
       ``(B) the development and management of grant programs and 
     other programs, and the provision of technical assistance 
     under such programs; and
       ``(C) the award and termination of grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts.
       ``(7) Providing technical assistance, coordination, and 
     support to--
       ``(A) other elements of the Department of Justice, in 
     efforts to develop policy and to enforce Federal laws 
     relating to violence against women, including the litigation 
     of civil and criminal actions relating to enforcing such 
     laws;
       ``(B) other Federal, State, and tribal agencies, in efforts 
     to develop policy, provide technical assistance, and improve 
     coordination among agencies carrying out efforts to eliminate 
     violence against women, including Indian or indigenous women; 
     and
       ``(C) grantees, in efforts to combat violence against women 
     and to provide support and assistance to victims of such 
     violence.
       ``(8) Exercising such other powers and functions as may be 
     vested in the Director pursuant to this title or by 
     delegation of the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney 
     General.
       ``(9) Establishing such rules, regulations, guidelines, and 
     procedures as are necessary to carry out any function of the 
     Office.

     ``SEC. 2004. STAFF OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

       ``The Attorney General shall ensure that the Director has 
     adequate staff to support the Director in carrying out the 
     Director's responsibilities under this title.

     ``SEC. 2005. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.''.

[[Page S8734]]

     
                                  ____
     Section 1. Short title and table of contents
       Section 1 provides that the short title of the Act shall be 
     the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
     Authorization Act.'' It also contains a table of contents.

     Title I--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002

     Section 101. Specific sums authorized to be appropriated
       Section 101 authorizes appropriations to carry out the work 
     of the various components of the Department of Justice for 
     fiscal year 2002. The structure of Title I mirrors the 
     organization of the annual Commerce-Justice-State, CJS, 
     appropriations bill and the President's budget request. The 
     bill authorizes the appropriations of amounts requested by 
     the President in most accounts. The accounts, and the 
     activities and components that each would fund, are as 
     follows:
       General Administration--$93,433,000--For the leadership 
     offices of the Department, including the offices of the 
     Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, and the Justice 
     Management Division, Executive Support program, Intelligence 
     Policy, Office of Professional Responsibility, and General 
     Administration.
       Administrative Review and Appeals--$178,499,000--For the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Office of the 
     Pardon Attorney.
       Office of Inspector General--$55,000,000--For the 
     investigation of allegations of violations of criminal and 
     civil statutes, regulations, and ethical standards by 
     Department employees, and for the new position of Deputy 
     Inspector General to oversee the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation. This amount is $10 million above the 
     President's Request. The IG's office has been severely 
     downsized over the last several years from approximately 460 
     to 360 full-time equivalents. Oversight is a priority and 
     this level of funding should get the IG back on the path of 
     meeting the audit and oversight needs of the Department. The 
     Committee expects that the OIG will substantially increase 
     its oversight of the FBI, INS, and the Department's grant 
     programs.
       General Legal Activities--$566,822,000--For the conduct of 
     the legal activities of the Department. This includes the 
     office of Solicitor General, Tax Division, Criminal Division, 
     Civil Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
     Civil Rights Division, Office of Legal Counsel, Interpol, 
     Legal Activities Office Automation, and Office of Dispute 
     Resolution. The authorization includes not less than 
     $4,000,000 to augment the investigation and prosecution of 
     denaturalization and deportation cases involving alleged Nazi 
     war criminals and not less than $10,000,000 to augment the 
     investigation and prosecution of intellectual property 
     crimes, including software counterfeiting crimes and crimes 
     identified in the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (Public Law 
     105-147).
       Antitrust Division--$140,973,000--For decreasing anti-
     competitive behavior among U.S. businesses and increasing the 
     competitiveness of the national and international business 
     environment.
       United States Attorneys--$1,346,289,000--For the 93 U.S. 
     Attorneys and their offices and the Executive Office of U.S. 
     Attorneys. The U.S. Attorneys represent the United States in 
     the vast majority of criminal and civil cases handled by the 
     Justice Department.
       Federal Bureau of Investigation--$3,507,109,000--For the 
     detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes against 
     the United States. The FBI also plays a primary role in the 
     protection of the United States from foreign intelligence 
     activities and investigating and preventing acts of terrorism 
     against the United States.
       United States Marshals Service--$626,439,000--To protect 
     the Federal courts and its personnel and to ensure the 
     effective operation of the federal judicial system, of which 
     no more than $6,621,000 may be used for construction.
       Federal Prison System--$4,662,710,000--For the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of federal penal 
     and correctional institutions.
       Federal Prison Detention--$724,682,000--For the support of 
     United States prisoners in non-federal institutions, as 
     authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4013(a).
       Drug Enforcement Agency--$1,480,929,000--To enforce the 
     controlled substance laws and regulations of the United 
     States and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs 
     aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled 
     substances on the domestic and international markets.
       Immigration and Naturalization Service--$3,516,411,000--For 
     the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, of which 
     no more than $2,737,341,000 for salaries and expenses and 
     border affairs, no more than $650,660,000 for salaries and 
     expenses of citizenship and benefits, and no more than 
     $128,410,000 for construction.
       Fees and Expenses of Witnesses--$156,145,000--For fees and 
     expenses associated with providing witness testimony on 
     behalf of the United States, expert witnesses, and private 
     counsel for government employees who have been sued, charged, 
     or subpoenaed for actions taken while performing their 
     official duties.
       Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement--$338,106,000--For 
     the detection, investigation, and prosecution of individuals 
     involved in organized crime drug trafficking.
       Foreign Claims Settlement Commission--$1,130,000--To 
     adjudicate claims of U.S. nationals against foreign 
     governments under jurisdiction conferred by the International 
     Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, and other 
     authorizing legislation;
       Community Relations Service (CRS)--$9,269,000--To assist 
     communities in preventing violence and resolving conflicts 
     arising from racial and ethnic tensions and to develop the 
     capacity of such communities to address these conflicts 
     without external assistance. CRS activities are conducted in 
     accordance with Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       Assets Forfeiture Fund--$22,949,000--To provide a stable 
     source of resources to cover the costs of the asset seizure 
     and forfeiture program, including the costs of seizing, 
     evaluating, inventorying, maintaining, protecting, 
     advertizing, forfeiting, and disposing of property.
       United States Parole Commission--$10,862,000--For the 
     activities of the U.S. Parole Commission. The Commission has 
     jurisdiction over all Federal prisoners eligible for parole, 
     wherever confined, and continuing jurisdiction over those who 
     are released on parole or as if on parole.
       Federal Detention Trustee--$1,718,000--For necessary 
     expenses to exercise all power and functions authorized by 
     law relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-
     federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the 
     United States Marshall Service; and the detention of aliens 
     in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       Joint Automated Booking System--$15,957,000--For expenses 
     necessary for the nationwide deployment of a Joint Automated 
     Booking System including automated capability to transmit 
     fingerprint and image data.
       Narrowband Communications--$104,606,000--For the costs of 
     conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost 
     for operation and maintenance of Land Mobile Radio legacy 
     systems.
       Radiation Exposure Compensation--$1,996,000--For necessary 
     administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act.
       Counterterrorism Fund--$4,989,000--For the reimbursement 
     of: 1. the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational 
     capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or 
     destroyed as a result of any domestic or international 
     terrorist incident and 2. the costs of providing support to 
     counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international 
     terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with 
     these activities.
       Office of Justice Programs--$116,369,000--For necessary 
     administrative expenses of the Office of Justice Programs.
     Section 102. Appointment of additional Assistant United 
         States Attorneys and reduction of certain litigation 
         positions
       This section authorizes the Attorney General to transfer 
     200 additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys from among the six 
     litigating divisions at the Justice Department's 
     headquarters, Main Justice, in Washington, D.C. to the 
     various U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. Vacant 
     positions resulting from transfers pursuant to this section 
     will be terminated. This section is intended to raise the 
     productivity of Washington-based lawyers, who litigate 
     criminal and civil cases across the Nation for the Justice 
     Department, by moving them to the field. Litigating attorneys 
     for the government are most effective in the Federal judicial 
     district where their cases are pending. The transfer 
     authorization is discretionary to prevent ongoing litigation 
     from being adversely effected.
     Section 103. Authorization of additional Assistant United 
         States Attorneys for Project Safe Neighborhoods
       This section authorizes an additional Assistant United 
     States Attorney in each of the 94 U.S. Attorney Offices to 
     implement part of the Administration's Project Safe 
     Neighborhoods proposal to reduce school gun violence across 
     the nation. These prosecutors will assist in targeting 
     juveniles who obtain weapons and commit violent crimes, as 
     well as the adults who place firearms in the hands of 
     juveniles.

                Title II--Permanent Enabling Provisions

     Section 201. Permanent authority
       Section 201 amends Chapter 31 of Title 28, United States 
     Code, by creating a new section, ``530C''. This section 
     details permitted uses of available funds by the Attorney 
     General to carry out the activities of the Justice 
     Department. General permitted uses of available funds 
     include: payment for motor vehicles, boats, and aircraft; 
     payment for service of experts and consultants, and payment 
     for private counsel; payment for official reception and 
     representation expenses and public tours; payment of 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character; payment 
     of miscellaneous and emergency expenses; payment of certain 
     travel and attendance expenses; payment of contracts for 
     personal services abroad; payment of interpreters and 
     translators; and payment for uniforms.
       Specific permitted uses of available funds include: payment 
     for aircraft and boats; payment for ammunition, firearms, and 
     firearm competitions; and payment for construction of certain 
     facilities.
       The use of funds appropriated for Fees and Expenses of 
     Witnesses is limited to certain expenses and the construction 
     of witness safesites. The use of funds appropriated for the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation is limited to the detection, 
     investigation, and

[[Page S8735]]

     prosecution of crimes against the United States. The use of 
     funds appropriated for the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service is limited to general Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service activities. The use of appropriated funds for the 
     Federal Prison System is limited to general function of the 
     Federal Prison System. The use of appropriated funds for the 
     Detention Trustee is limited to the functions authorized by 
     law relating the detention of Federal prisoners in non-
     Federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the 
     United States Marshals Service and for the detention of 
     aliens in the custody of the INS.
       The Attorney General is prohibited from compensating 
     employed attorneys who are not duly licensed and authorized 
     to practice under the law of a State, U.S. territory, or the 
     District of Columbia. And reimbursement payments to 
     governmental units of the Department of Justice, other 
     Federal entities, or State or local governments are limited 
     to uses permitted by the authority permitting such 
     reimbursement payment.
     Section 202. Permanent authority relating to the enforcement 
         of laws
       Section 202 amends Chapter 31 of Title 28, United States 
     Code, by creating a new section, ``530D'' relating to 
     reporting on the enforcement of laws. This section directs 
     the Attorney General to report to Congress in any case in 
     which the Attorney General, the President, head of executive 
     agency, or military department:
       1. establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing any 
     provision of a Federal statute, rule regulation, program, 
     policy, or other law within the responsibility of the 
     Attorney General;
       2. refrains from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or 
     complying with any other judicial determination or other 
     statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy within the 
     responsibility of the Attorney General;
       3. decides to contest in any judicial, administrative, or 
     other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of 
     any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or 
     other law;
       4. refrains from defending or asserting, in any judicial, 
     administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of 
     any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, 
     program, policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request 
     review of any judicial, administrative, or other 
     determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of 
     any such provision; or
       5. when the Attorney General approves the settlement or 
     compromise of any claim, suit or other action against the 
     United States for more than $2,000,000 or for injunctive 
     relief against the government that is likely to exceed three 
     years.
       Each report, which is subject to certain time and content 
     requirements, must be submitted to the Majority and Minority 
     Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, House 
     Majority Leader, House Minority Leader, and the Chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Senate and House Committees on 
     the Judiciary, the Senate Legal Counsel and the General 
     Counsel of the House of Representatives. Section 202 also 
     includes a number of conforming amendments.
     Section 203. Notifications and reports to be provided 
         simultaneously to committees
       Section 203 requires the Attorney General or other officer 
     of the Department of Justice to simultaneously submit copies 
     of any notice or report, which is required by law to be 
     submitted to other Committees or Subcommittees of Congress, 
     to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
     Section 204. Miscellaneous uses of funds; technical 
         amendments
       Section 204 provides technical amendments to the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance grant programs in title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It also makes 
     minor amendments to the amount available to compensate 
     attorneys specially retained by the Attorney General.
     Section 205. Technical amendment; authority to transfer 
         property of marginal value.
       Section 205 makes technical amendments to section 524(c) of 
     title 28, United States Codes, clarifies the Attorney 
     General's authority to transfer property of marginal value, 
     and requires the use of standard criteria for the purpose of 
     categorizing offenders, victims, actors, and those acted upon 
     in any data, records, or other information acquired, 
     collected, classified, preserved, or published by the 
     Attorney General for any statistical, research, or other 
     aggregate reporting purpose. This section also makes several 
     clerical and technical amendments to title 28, United States 
     Code. In addition, this section adds authority to ensure that 
     no inference is created that the government is liable for 
     interest on certain retroactive payments made by the 
     Department of Justice and to improve financial systems and 
     debt-collection activities.
     Section 206. Oversight; waste, fraud, and abuse of 
         appropriations
       Section 206 amends Section 529 of Title 28, United States 
     Code, to require the Attorney General to submit an annual 
     report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary 
     detailing: every grant, cooperative agreement, or 
     programmatic services contract that was made, entered into, 
     awarded, or extended in the immediately preceding fiscal year 
     by or on behalf of the Office of Justice Programs; and a 
     report on every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic 
     services contract made, entered into, awarded, or extended by 
     or on behalf of the Office of Justice Programs that was 
     terminated or that otherwise ended in the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year.
       In addition, Section 206 amends the Anti-Lobbying Act to 
     expand its coverage to all legislative activity at the 
     federal and state level and establishes a new reporting 
     requirement on the enforcement and prosecution of copyright 
     infringements, along with a number of conforming amendments.
     Section 207. Enforcement of the federal criminal laws by 
         Attorney General
       Section 207 provides clarifying amendments to title 28, 
     United States Code, relating to the enforcement of federal 
     criminal law.
     Section 208. Counterterrorism fund
       Section 208 establishes a counterterrorism fund in the 
     Treasury of the United States, without effecting prior 
     appropriations, to reimburse Justice Department components 
     for any costs incurred in connection with:
       1. reestablishing the operational capability of an office 
     or facility that has been damaged as the result of any 
     domestic or international terrorism incident;
       2. providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute 
     domestic or international terrorism, including paying rewards 
     in connection with these activities;
       3. conducting terrorism threat assessments of Federal 
     agencies; and
       4. for costs incurred in connection with detaining 
     individuals in foreign countries who are accused of acts of 
     terrorism in violation of United States law.
     Section 209. Strengthening law enforcement in United States 
         Territories, Commonwealths, and Possessions.
       Section 209 allows the payment of a retention bonus and 
     other extended assignment incentives to retain law 
     enforcement personnel in U.S. Territories, Commonwealths and 
     Possessions. This new authority is needed to continue the 
     fight against drug and crime problems in these areas.
     Section 210. Additional authorities of the Attorney General.
       Section 210 provides special ``danger pay'' allowances for 
     FBI agents in hazardous duty locations outside the United 
     States, as is provided for agents of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration. The section also permits the FBI to enter 
     into cooperative projects with foreign countries to improve 
     law enforcement or intelligence operations and to charge a 
     fee for training of railroad police officers. In addition, 
     the section authorizes the Attorney General to seek 
     reimbursement of warranty work performed at Department of 
     Justice facilities. The Administration requested these 
     provisions in its budget submission for FY 2002.

                        Title III--Miscellaneous

     Section 301. Repealers.
       Section 301 repeals open-ended authorizations of 
     appropriations for the National Institute of Corrections and 
     the United States Marshals Service.
     Section 302. Technical amendments to title 18 of the United 
         States Code
       Section 302 makes several minor clarifying amendments to 
     title 18, United States Code. Section 302(3) moves a comma 
     that became the focus of a statutory construction question in 
     Crandon v. United States.
     Section 303. Required submission of proposed authorization of 
         appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal 
         year 2003.
       Section 303 requires the President to submit a Department 
     of Justice authorization bill for FY 2003 to the House and 
     Senate Committees on the Judiciary when the President submits 
     his FY 2003 budget. This authorization bill should contain 
     any recommended additions, changes or modifications to 
     existing authorities that may be necessary to carry out the 
     functions of the Department. Any such addition, change, or 
     modification should be accompanied by a description of the 
     change and the justification for the change.
     Section 304. Study of untested rape examination kits.
       Section 304 requires the Attorney General to conduct a 
     study and assessment of untested rape examination kits that 
     currently exist nationwide, including information from all 
     law enforcement jurisdictions. The Attorney General is 
     required to submit a report of this study and assessment to 
     the Congress.
     Section 305. Report on DCS 1000 (``Carnivore'')
       Section 305 requires the Attorney General and Director of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit a timely report 
     to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary 
     detailing: 1. the number of orders or extensions applied for 
     to authorize the use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or 
     device); 2. the fact that the order or extension was granted 
     as applied for, was modified, or was denied; 3. the kind of 
     order applied for and the specific statutory authority relied 
     on to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device); 4. the 
     court that authorized each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar 
     system or device); 5. the period of interceptions authorized 
     by the order, and the number and duration of any extensions 
     of the order; 6. the offense specified in the order or 
     application, or extension of an order; 7. the Department of 
     Justice official or officials who approved each use of DCS 
     1000 (or any similar system or device); 8. the criteria used 
     by the Department of Justice officials to review requests to 
     use DCS

[[Page S8736]]

     1000 (or any similar system or device); 9. a complete 
     description of the process used to submit, review, and 
     approve requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or 
     device); and 10. any information intercepted that was not 
     authorized by the court to be intercepted.
     Section 306. Study of allocation of litigating attorneys.
       Section 306 requires the Attorney General to report to 
     Congress within 180 days of enactment of this bill on the 
     allocation of funds, attorneys, and other personnel, per-
     attorney workloads, and number of cases opened and closed for 
     each office of U.S. Attorney and each division of the 
     Department of Justice.
     Section 307. Use of Truth-In-Sentencing and Violent Offender 
         Incarceration Grants.
       Section 307 provides states with flexibility to use 
     existing Truth-In-Sentencing and Violent Offender 
     Incarceration Grants to account for juveniles being housed in 
     adult prison facilities.
     Section 308. Authority of the Department of Justice Inspector 
         General.
       Section 308 codifies the Attorney General's order of July 
     11, 2001, which revised Department of Justice's regulations 
     concerning the Inspector General. The section insures that 
     the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has the 
     authority to decide whether a particular allegation of 
     misconduct by Department of Justice personnel, including 
     employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, should be investigated by the 
     Inspector General or by the internal affairs unit of the 
     appropriate component of the Department of Justice. 
     Consistent with the Attorney General's order, the one 
     exception is that allegations of misconduct that relate to 
     the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, 
     litigate, or provide legal advice should be referred to the 
     Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of 
     Justice.
     Section 309. Report on Inspector General and Deputy Inspector 
         General for Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       Section 309 requires the Attorney General to submit a 
     report and recommendation to the House and Senate Committees 
     on the Judiciary not later than 90 days after enactment of 
     this Act on whether there should be established an office of 
     Inspector General for the FBI or an office of Deputy 
     Inspector General for the FBI that shall be responsible for 
     supervising independent oversight of programs and operations 
     of the FBI.

                    Title IV--Violence Against Women

     Section 401. Short title.
       Section 401 establishes the ``Violence Against Women Office 
     Act'' as the short title.
     Section 402. Establishment of Violence Against Women Office.
       Section 402 establishes a Violence Against Women Office, 
     VAWO, within the Department of Justice, headed by a 
     presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed Director. The 
     Director is vested with authority for all grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts awarded by the VAWO. In addition, 
     the Director is prohibited from other employment during 
     service as Director or affiliation with organizations the may 
     create a conflict of interest.
       This section enumerates the following duties of the 
     Director: 1. serving as special counsel to the Attorney 
     General on violence against women; 2. maintaining a liaison 
     with the judicial branches of Federal and State Governments; 
     3. providing information to the President, the Congress, the 
     judiciary, State and local government, and to the general 
     public; 4. serving as a representative of the Justice 
     Department on domestic task forces, committees, or 
     commissions; 5. serving as a representative of the United 
     States Government on human rights and economic justice 
     matters at international forums; 6. carrying out the 
     functions of the Justice Department under the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 and other matters relating to 
     violence against women, including developing policy, the 
     development and management of grant and other programs, and 
     the award and termination of grants; 7. providing technical 
     assistance, coordination, support to other elements of the 
     Justice Department, other Federal, State, and Tribal 
     agencies, and to grantees; exercising other powers delegated 
     by the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General; 8. and 
     establishing rules, regulations, guidelines and necessary 
     procedures to carry out the functions of VAWO.
       This section requires the Attorney General to ensure that 
     VAWO receives adequate staff to support the Director in 
     carrying out the responsibilities of the VAWO Act.
       This section also authorizes such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out the VAWO Act.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of the 21st Century 
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which Senator 
Leahy and I have introduced today. Senator Leahy and I have been 
working for several years to pass a Department of Justice 
reauthorization bill, and I can say that it is once again a major 
priority of the Judiciary Committee this session. I want to emphasize 
to my colleagues how important it is that the Senate consider and pass 
this legislation to reauthorize the Department of Justice this year.
  It is simply inexcusable that over two decades have lapsed since 
Congress has passed a general authorization bill for the Department of 
Justice. It is in my view a matter of significant concern when any 
major cabinet department goes for such a long period of time without 
congressional reauthorization. Absence of reauthorization encourages 
administrative drift and permits important policy decisions to be made 
ad hoc through the adoption of appropriations bills or special purpose 
legislation. Moreover, our failure to reauthorize has also placed the 
undue burden on the appropriations committees in both houses to act as 
both authorizers and appropriators. This legislation will end the 
piecemeal funding of important programs and responsibilities which 
affect the day-to-day lives of all Americans.
  The Department of Justice's main duty is to provide justice to all 
Americans, certainly of central importance to our national life. It has 
the primary responsibility for the enforcement of our Nation's laws. 
Through its divisions and agencies including the FBI and DEA, it 
investigates and prosecutes violations of Federal criminal laws, 
protects the civil rights of our citizens, enforces the antitrust laws, 
and represents every department and agency of the United States 
government in litigation. Increasingly, its mission is international as 
well, protecting the interests of the United States and its people from 
growing threats of trans-national crime and international terrorism. 
Additionally, among the Department's key duties is providing much 
needed assistance and advice to State and local law enforcement.
  The vast importance of the Department's role is demonstrated by the 
growth of its budget in the last two decades. In FY 1979, the 
Department of Justice's budget was just $2.538 billion. In contrast, 
the Department of Justice's budget now exceeds $24 billion and it 
employs more than 125,000 people. Such a vast department requires 
Congress' full attention. Yet, it is fair to say that Congress has been 
less than vigilant in its job of overseeing the Department of Justice. 
Let me be clear that I am not advocating that we micro-manage the 
Department of Justice. I have full confidence in Attorney General 
Ashcroft and the thousands of employees who competently manage the 
Department daily. However, we cannot continue to neglect our 
responsibility to oversee closely this Department that so profoundly 
affects the lives of all Americans.
  The authorizations contained in the 1979 reauthorization act, the 
last Justice Department authorization bill that Congress passed, are 
hopelessly out of date and have been amended, patched, and tweaked by 
Congress every year since. The lack of a comprehensive authorization 
has needlessly increased the administrative burden on the Department of 
Justice by causing them to perform operations inefficiently or to delay 
implementation of programs until specific authorization is legislated. 
This bill authorizes and consolidates a host of appropriations 
authorities and makes them permanent. These authorities are essential 
to the administration of the Department of Justice and accomplishment 
of its mission.
  I want to take a moment to highlight some of the more important 
provisions of this bill. Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations 
for the major components of the Department for FY 2002. Among these 
authorizations are funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration to 
combat the trafficking of illegal drugs, the Immigration and 
Nationalization Service to enforce our country's immigration laws, and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to protect against cybercrime and 
terrorism. The authorization levels reflect the President's budget in 
all but two areas. First, the bill increases the President's request 
for the Department's Inspector General by $10 million. This increase is 
warranted because the IG's office has been cut severely over the last 
several years and the need for effective oversight, particularly over 
the FBI, is essential. Second, the bill increases by $10 million the 
request for the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section within 
the Department. With the number and severity of computer

[[Page S8737]]

crimes growing dramatically each year, this increase will enhance the 
Department's ability to investigate and prosecute computer related 
crimes, such as software counterfeiting crimes and denial of service 
attacks.
  Additionally, this bill codifies the Attorney General's recent order 
that extended the authority of the Inspector General's Office to 
oversee the programs and operations of the FBI and to investigate 
allegations of wrongdoing within the Bureau. The bill also directs the 
Attorney General to submit a report and recommendation to Congress to 
determine whether to establish an Office of Inspector General for the 
FBI or an office of Deputy Inspector General for the FBI, which would 
be responsible for supervising independent oversight of the programs 
and operations of the FBI. While I am confident that the FBI's new 
Director, Robert Mueller, has the knowledge and ability to correct some 
of the bureaucratic and managerial problems the FBI has experienced, I 
agree with the Attorney General that FBI should be subject to the 
oversight of the IG. I look forward to the Attorney General's report, 
and I am sure it will provide guidance as to whether additional 
measures are warranted to ensure the effective operation of the Bureau.
  Finally, the bill establishes a Violence Against Women Office, VAWO, 
within the Justice Department, which will be headed by a presidentially 
appointed and Senate confirmed Director. The bill enumerates the duties 
and responsibilities of the Director and requires the Attorney General 
to ensure that the Office is staffed adequately. The Director, in part, 
will serve as a special counsel to the Attorney General on issues 
related to violence against women, provide information to the 
President, the Congress, State and local governments, and the general 
public, and maintain a liaison with the judicial branches of federal 
and State governments. Establishing this office bespeaks our commitment 
to reducing violent crimes against women.
  This bill is a step in the right direction. It will undoubtedly 
revive Congress's role and interest in overseeing the Department of 
Justice. The Judiciary Committee has redoubled its efforts and plans to 
vote the Department of Justice reauthorization bill out of Committee 
soon after we return from the August recess. It is a highly important 
and overdue piece of legislation that deserves our immediate attention, 
and I am confident that it will receive the support of my colleagues 
and be enacted this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 1320. a bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal 
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting 
Act of 2001. This legislation will change the day for congressional and 
presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first 
weekend in November. This legislation is virtually identical to 
legislation that I first proposed in 1997 in the 105th Congress.
  Earlier this week, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform 
presented its recommendations to the President on how to improve the 
administration of elections in our country. These recommendations, 
coming on the heels of the contested Presidential election of last 
year, lay out some strong ideas for how we can strengthen our election 
system at a time when Congress may very well take action in this area. 
As a cosponsor of election reform legislation, I am hopeful that we can 
pass real election reform this year.
  One of the recommendations the National Commission made to the 
President is that we move Election Day to a national holiday, in 
particular Veterans Day. As might have been expected, this proposal has 
not been well received by veterans groups who rightly consider this a 
diminishment of their service and the day that historically has been 
designated to honor that service. While I agree with the Commission's 
goal of moving election day to a non-working day, I believe we can 
achieve all the benefits of holiday voting without offending our 
veterans by moving our elections to the weekend.
  My proposal for weekend voting would call for the polls to be open 
the same hours across the continental United States, addressing the 
challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a 
State, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. 
Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings 
available for poling stations and people available to work at the 
polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Weekend voting 
also has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters 
ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national 
holiday.
  Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period 
of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern 
time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. 
Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the 
overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them 
open. Because the polls are open from Saturday to Sunday, they also 
would not interfere with religious observances.
  Amidst all the discussion about election reform, there is growing 
support for uniform polling hours. The free-wheeling atmosphere 
surrounding election night last November, with the networks calling the 
outcome of elections in states when polling places were still open in 
many places, and in some cases even in the very states being called, 
cannot be repeated. While it is difficut to determine the impact this 
information has on voter turnout, there is no question that it 
contributes to the popular sentiment that voting doesn't matter. At the 
end of the day, as we assess how to make our elections better, we are 
not only seeking to make voting more equitable, we are also looking for 
ways to engage Americans in our democracy.

  I come from the business world, where you had a perfect gauge of what 
the public thought of you and your products. If you turned a profit, 
you knew the public liked your product--if you didn't, you knew you 
needed to make changes. If customers weren't showing up when your store 
was open, you knew you had to change your store hours.
  In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store 
hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first 
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was 
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land-
owning voters were often coming to town anyway.
  Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done 
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to 
make voting easier for the regular family. Sixty percent of all 
households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United 
States are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have 
only one or two hours to vote. As we saw in this last election, even 
with our relatively low voter turnout, long lines in many polling 
places kept some waiting even longer than one or two hours. If voters 
have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a 
long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote.
  We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all 
Americans, especially working families.
  Since I introduced my weekend voting legislation in 1997, a number of 
States have been experimenting with novel ways to increase voter 
turnout and satisfaction. Oregon conducted the first presidential 
elections completely by mail, resulting in impressive increases in 
voter turnout. Texas has implemented an early voting plan which also 
resulted in increased turnout. And California has relaxed restrictions 
on absentee voting, and even had weekend voting in some localities. 
Although there are security concerns that need to be ironed out, 
Internet voting has tremendous potential to transform the way we vote. 
In Arizona's Democratic primary 46 percent of all votes came via the 
Internet. The Defense Department coordinated a pilot program with 
several U.S. counties and the Federal Voting Assistance Program to have 
overseas voters, primarily military voters, cast their votes via the 
Internet. It is becoming increasingly clear that these new models can 
increase

[[Page S8738]]

voter turnout, and voters are much more pleased with the additional 
convenience and ease with voting.
  For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, 
about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote--that number 
dropped to 49 percent in the 1996 election. We saw a minor increase in 
this past election with voter turnout at 51 percent of eligible voters, 
however, not a significant increase given the closeness of the 
election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal.
  Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this drop off. Certainly, 
common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in 
government institutions is one logical reason. However, I'd like to 
point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both 
groups are equally disgruntled with government.
  Thus, we must explore ways to make our electoral process more user 
friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American 
public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing 
capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must 
continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive.
  Of 44 democracies surveyed, 29 of them allow their citizens to vote 
on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these nations, 
voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can do 
better. That is why I am proposing that we consider weekend voting.
  I recognize a change of this magnitude may take some time. But the 
many questions raised by our last election have given us a unique 
opportunity to reassess all aspects of voting in America. We finally 
have the momentum to accomplish real reform. How much lower should our 
citizens' confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more 
`consumer-friendly' polling system? How much more should voting turnout 
decline before we realize we need a change?
  The Weekend Voting Act will not solve all of this democracy's 
problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand 
democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's 
lifestyle of the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 1321. A bill to authorize the construction of a Native American 
Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; to the Committee 
on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as many people may be aware, my state of 
Oklahoma has well over a quarter of a million American Indians. Even 
Oklahoma derives its name from the Choctaw words, ``okla'' meaning 
people and ``humma'' meaning red. Today, I am pleased to introduce, 
along with my colleague, Senator Nickles, a bill that will provide a 
grant to help fund the construction and development of the Native 
American Cultural Center and Museum, which will be centrally located 
along the North Canadian River at the southeast corner of Interstate 35 
and Interstate 40, in Oklahoma City. This project marks the culmination 
of years of dreaming and planning by many people, including state 
Senator Kelly Haney, who is recognized world-wide for his Indian art.
  The Native American Cultural Center will provide people from all over 
the world with an extensive picture of American Indians from the 
earliest civilization in North America, to their current role in 
today's society. Through art, music and dance, visitors will be able to 
see the wide array of lifestyles, customs and language of American 
Indians come alive as they walk through the various displays. The 
Center will include a 300-seat theater, a museum store, a 40,000 
square-foot amphitheater, a festival market place, and artist and dance 
exhibits. As an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, it will share 
and showcase artifacts from one of the world's most renowned museums. 
An internationally acclaimed team of architects, planners, engineers, 
and technical consultants, who have participated in projects from the 
National Holocaust Museum to films such as Jurassic Park, have come 
together to create a complex that features the distinct characteristics 
of all of Oklahoma's tribes.
  By bringing economic development and cultural diversity to Oklahoma, 
the Native American Cultural Center and Museum will not only benefit 
the people of Oklahoma, but the nation as a whole. This important 
project will serve as a reminder of the rich heritage of the first 
Americans as well as a symbol of hope and progress for the future.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation with Senator Inhofe that will bring a long-overdue Native 
American Cultural Center to Oklahoma.
  For many years there has been a desire among Oklahomans to develop a 
facility to chronicle the history of the 39 tribes that currently 
reside in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is fortunate to have the second largest 
Native American population in the country.
  Senator Inhofe and I are introducing legislation today that will do 
just that. The Cultural Center will celebrate the influential role that 
Native Americans played in our country's history. The Center will also 
provide a common ground to meet and discuss the issues and concerns 
that continue to plague our Indian communities. The Cultural Center is 
a partnership with the Oklahoma Historical Society to become a member 
of the Smithsonian Affiliations Program.
  It is important to note that the Center will assist in communicating 
the history and culture of all Native Americans, not just Oklahomans.
  This project is strongly supported in Oklahoma. In fact, two-thirds 
of the funds for the Center will come from the State of Oklahoma and 
private donations, a maximum of one-third coming from the Federal 
Government.
  I look forward to the opening of a state-of-the-art Native American 
Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma.
  I want to thank Senator Inhofe for his hard work and I ask the 
support of my colleagues for this important project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1323. A bill entitled the ``SBIR and STTR Foreign Patent 
Protection Act of 2001''; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill to 
establish a five-year pilot program at the Small Business 
Administration to help protect the intellectual property of companies 
that are trying to export promising technology they have developed 
through the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation 
Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs. 
This week is a particularly appropriate time to introduce this 
legislation because 211 years ago, in 1790, the very first U.S. patent 
was issued. It was issued to Mr. Samuel Hopkins of Pennsylvania and 
signed by President George Washington himself.
  A lot has changed in the past two centuries, but the need to protect 
intellectual property remains as important as ever. Our forefathers had 
the wisdom to guarantee ``inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective . . . discoveries'' in the United States. Today, the need 
for foreign patent protection is equally critical for international 
sales.
  These small businesses need help because protecting the intellectual 
property of the technology they export requires them to file for 
foreign patents, and the costs associated with filing such patents are 
often prohibitively expensive. We know this because it has been 
documented through outside research and testimony before the Senate 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. For example, Mr. 
Clifford Hoyt, who is vice president and chief technology officer of 
Cambridge Research and Instrumentation, testified on June 21st, as part 
of the Committee's hearing on reauthorization of the STTR program, that 
``patent protection in Europe is $20,000.'' Information from the 
American Intellectual Property Law Association's, AIPLA, spring meeting 
shows that the costs of foreign patents range from $7,200 in Canada to 
$27,200 in Japan. Those costs include fees for filing, examination, 
translation and attorneys.
  Interestingly enough, foreign patent protection costs are not just an 
obstacle for small businesses; they also affect our universities. Let 
me quote Dr. Anthony Pirri, who is director of technology transfer for 
Northeastern University in Boston and also testified at the STTR 
hearing: ``For universities

[[Page S8739]]

like Northeastern with limited resources, the patent expense burden is 
large. It is especially large because many of our technologies have 
international significance and require us to patent, do foreign 
filings. Therefore, anything you can do to help in that world would be 
very desirable.''
  This problem was first identified in 1996 through a research study 
financed by the SBA's Office of Advocacy entitled ``Foreign Patenting 
Behavior in Small and Large Firms.'' That study found that 
``technology-based small businesses were filing fewer patents overseas 
than large businesses for similar innovative products primarily due to 
a lack of funds to obtain foreign patents.''
  Foreign patent protection is important to eventual commercialization. 
However, if technologies of small businesses aren't protected, large 
foreign-owned firms can replicate the product and benefit directly from 
a U.S. Federally funded research effort.
  I am obviously concerned about this. To help small innovative 
companies overcome such barriers, and to maximize our investment in the 
SBIR and STTR technologies, the Small Business Administration, SBA, 
should be authorized to provide grants to underwrite the costs of 
initial foreign patent applications filed by SBIR and STTR companies. 
Ultimately, the goal is for the grant fund to be self-sustaining, 
generating revenue from a percentage of the relevant technology's 
export sales and/or licensing fees.
  Here's how the grants would work: The SBA would be authorized to 
award grants of up to $25,000 to companies seeking foreign patent 
protection for their technology or product developed under the SBIR and 
STTR programs. Each company would be limited to one grant and, in order 
to be eligible for the grant, it must have already filed for patent 
protection in the United States. Both of these provisions are designed 
to ensure, to the extent possible, that companies apply for their most 
promising technology and therefore return money to the grant fund. By 
giving the companies only one shot at a grant to protect and make money 
from their SBIR or STTR technologies, it forces them to select the one 
most likely to succeed and have sales. At the same time, requiring 
companies to have already filed for patent protection in the United 
States prior to seeking a foreign patent grant is a gauge of the 
company's confidence in the commercial potential of its technology. It 
also demonstrates the company's commitment to protecting that 
technology.
  The bill establishes the program at $2.5 million in the first year 
and increases that amount gradually over four years to $10 million 
annually.
  In FY2003, the bill authorizes $2.5 million, in order to fund 100 
grants of $25,000.
  In FY2004, the bill authorizes $5 million, in order to fund 200 
grants of $25,000.
  In FY2005, the bill authorizes $7.5 million, in order to fund 300 
grants of $25,000.
  In FY2006 and FY2007, the bill authorizes $10 million a year, in 
order to fund 400 grants of $25,000.
  As I said earlier, ultimately the goal is for this to be a self-
sustaining grant fund. To realize that money, in return for the grants, 
each recipient would be obligated to pay between three percent and five 
percent of its related export sales or licensing fees to the fund, to 
be known as the ``SBIR and STTR Foreign Patent Protection Grant Fund.'' 
To maintain a reasonable incentive for the small businesses, the total 
amount would be capped at four times the amount of the grant, which for 
a $25,000 grant would be $100,000.
  I have talked about many of the needs and merits of this legislation, 
but in closing I would like to add that increased, successful exports 
by our innovative small businesses could mean a lot to the U.S. economy 
overall. We have seen the balance of trade deficits rise steadily for 
many years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade 
Division, in last year alone our country's trade balance deficit was 
$436 billion. The first four months of 2001 are slightly worse. We 
should be doing everything that we can to improve upon our exports, and 
small businesses can play an important role in that arena.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this bill. This 
pilot, if enacted and implemented properly, has the potential to 
greatly benefit small businesses, protect their innovations and promote 
their exports.
  I thank the President and ask that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1323

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``SBIR and STTR Foreign Patent 
     Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) small business concerns represent approximately 96 
     percent of all exporters of goods;
       (2) there has been dynamic growth in the number of small 
     business concerns exporting goods, and the dollar value of 
     their exports;
       (3) despite such growth, small business concerns encounter 
     problems in obtaining financing for exports;
       (4) growth in United States exports will depend primarily 
     on technology innovation, making the protection of 
     intellectual property in the global market of special 
     national interest;
       (5) the costs of filing for initial patent protection in 
     foreign markets can be prohibitive for small business 
     concerns involved in the Small Business Innovation Research 
     Program (referred to in this section as ``SBIR'') and the 
     Small Business Technology Transfer Program (referred to in 
     this section as ``STTR''), representing an insurmountable 
     barrier to obtaining the protection needed to pursue the 
     international markets;
       (6) to overcome such barriers and to maximize the Federal 
     investment in the SBIR and STTR programs, the Small Business 
     Administration should be authorized to provide grants to be 
     used to underwrite the costs of initial foreign patent 
     applications by SBIR and STTR awardees; and
       (7) a program established to provide such grants should, 
     over time, become self funding.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Foreign Patent Protection Grant Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--The Administrator shall make 
     grants from the Fund established under paragraph (6) for the 
     purpose of assisting SBIR and STTR awardees in seeking 
     foreign patent protection in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Number of grants.--The Administrator shall make 
     grants under this subsection to not more than--
       ``(A) a total of 100 SBIR and STTR awardees in fiscal year 
     2003;
       ``(B) a total of 200 SBIR and STTR awardees in fiscal year 
     2004;
       ``(C) a total of 300 SBIR and STTR awardees in fiscal year 
     2005; and
       ``(D) a total of 400 SBIR and STTR awardees in each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
       ``(3) Grant purposes.--Grants made under this subsection 
     shall be used by awardees to underwrite costs associated with 
     initial foreign patent applications for technologies or 
     products developed under the SBIR or STTR program, and for 
     which an application for United States patent protection has 
     already been filed.
       ``(4) Considerations.--In awarding grants under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(A) the size and financial need of the applicant;
       ``(B) the potential foreign market for the technology;
       ``(C) the time frames for filing foreign patent 
     applications; and
       ``(D) such other factors as the Administrator deems 
     relevant.
       ``(5) Grant amounts.--The amount of a grant made to any 
     SBIR or STTR awardee under this subsection may not exceed 
     $25,000, and no awardee may receive more than 1 grant under 
     this subsection.
       ``(6) Establishment of revolving fund.--There is 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a revolving 
     fund, which shall be--
       ``(A) known as the `SBIR and STTR Foreign Patent Protection 
     Grant Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the `Fund');
       ``(B) administered by the Office of Technology of the 
     Administration; and
       ``(C) used solely to fund grants under this subsection and 
     to pay the costs to the Administration of administering those 
     grants.
       ``(7) Royalty fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each recipient of a grant under this 
     subsection shall pay a fee to the Administration, to be 
     deposited into the Fund, based on the export sales receipts 
     or licensing fees, if any, from the product or technology 
     that is the subject of the foreign patent petition.
       ``(B) Annual installments based on receipts.--The fee 
     required under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be paid to the Administration in annual 
     installments, based on the export sales receipts or licensing 
     fees described in subparagraph (A) that are collected by the 
     grant recipient in that calendar year;

[[Page S8740]]

       ``(ii) shall not be required to be paid in any calendar 
     year in which no export sales receipts or licensing fees 
     described in subparagraph (A) are collected by the grant 
     recipient; and
       ``(iii) shall not exceed, in total, the lesser of--

       ``(I) an amount between 3 percent and 5 percent, as 
     determined by the Administrator, of the total export sales 
     receipts and licensing fees referred to in subparagraph (A); 
     or
       ``(II) 4 times the amount of the grant received.

       ``(8) Administrative provisions.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(A) issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
     this subsection; and
       ``(B) establish appropriate application and other 
     administrative procedures, as the Administrator deems 
     necessary.
       ``(9) Report.--The Administrator shall, on January 31, 
     2006, submit a report to the Congress on the grants 
     authorized by this subsection, which report shall include--
       ``(A) the number of grant recipients under this subsection 
     since the date of enactment of this subsection;
       ``(B) the number of such grant recipients that have made 
     foreign sales (or granted licenses to make foreign sales) of 
     technologies or products developed under the SBIR or STTR 
     program;
       ``(C) the total amount of fees paid into the Fund by 
     recipients of grants under this subsection in accordance with 
     paragraph (7);
       ``(D) recommendations for any adjustment in the percentages 
     specified in paragraph (7)(B)(iii)(I) or the amount specified 
     in paragraph (7)(B)(iii)(II) necessary to reduce to zero the 
     cost to the Administration of making grants under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(E) any recommendations of the Administrator regarding 
     whether authorization for grants under this subsection should 
     be extended, and any necessary legislation related to such an 
     extension.
       ``(10) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Fund, to remain 
     available until expended--
       ``(A) $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2003;
       ``(B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(C) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(D) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 
     2007.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
  S. 1324. A bill to provide relief from the alternative minimum tax 
with respect to incentive stock options exercised during 2000; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today I am introducing a second 
proposal with regard to the perverse impact of the Alternative Minimum 
Tax, AMT, on Incentive Stock Options, ISOs. I previously introduced a 
bill, S. 1142, addressing this issue going forward and today I am 
introducing a bill to provide relief to the victims of this perverse 
tax who filed returns and paid taxes this past April. As I will 
explain, they were hit by the tax equivalent of the perfect storm.
  The argument for reform of the AMT as applied to ISOs is 
overwhelming. An employee who receives ISOs is taxed on the phantom 
paper gains the tax code deems to exist when he or she exercises an 
option, and is required to pay the AMT tax on these ``gains'' even if 
the ``gains'' do not, in fact, exist. This means the taxpayer may have 
no gains, no profits or assets, with which to pay the AMT and might 
even have to borrow funds to pay the tax, go into default on his or her 
AMT liability, or even declare bankruptcy.
  This Kafkaesque situation is unfair. It is not fair to impose tax on 
``income'' or ``gains'' unless the income or gains exist. With the AMT 
tax on ISOs, it is not relevant if the ``gains'' exist in a financial 
sense. That they exist on paper is sufficient to trigger the tax.
  In terms of providing relief to taxpayers hit with the AMT on ISOs in 
their filing for 2000 taxes, let me make a series of points.
  First, there have been victims of the AMT/ISO tax going back before 
2000. But, there were an unprecedented number of victims this last year 
due to a convergence of events.
  Over the last decade, more and more companies have adopted broad-
based stock option plans where all or almost all employees are granted 
ISOs, rather than only senior management.
  In addition, the internet and telecommunications boom spawned an 
unprecedented number of start-up companies over the last few years.
  These start-ups overwhelmingly favor the use of ISOs as a means of 
attracting and motivating employees, and many of these companies grant 
options to most, if not all of their employees.
  Then, as we all know, the stock market, especially the technology-
driven NASDAQ, posted record highs in the spring of 2000, and then 
collapsed over the next 12 months, astounding even seasoned 
professionals. Many of the high-flying technology companies saw their 
stock value drop 80 percent to 90 percent during this period.
  As a result, the relatively unknown AMT caught many employees by 
surprise. Other employees were aware of the AMT but thought they could 
claim a full credit for the AMT once they sold the stock acquired by 
exercise of ISOs. Some were unable to sell before year-end, in order to 
eliminate the AMT hit, by trading restrictions. Others were naive in 
thinking that the value of the shares they held would rebound in 2001, 
in time to sell the stock and pay their AMT liability for 2000.
  In short, in tax year 2000 we saw the tax equivalent of the perfect 
storm.
  Second, the imposition of AMT on individuals discourages the very 
behavior that Congress wanted to encourage with the creation of ISOs. 
In 1984, the Senate Finance Committee noted the goal of ISOs to 
``encourage employee ownership of the stock on an employer's business'' 
by allowing for ``the deferral of tax until an employee disposes of the 
stock received through the exercise of an employee stock option''. To 
encourage individuals to hold shares with the promise of capital gains 
tax rates is the goal, but it is a goal that is defeated when the AMT 
is imposed at the time they exercise an option even if the ``gains'' 
are never realized. The taxpayers who held their shares and realized 
gain are the ones who deserve relief. They fell into a trap which the 
tax code created through its perverse and confusing structure.
  Third, the trap was one that many of these employees did not 
understand. They rightly assumed that the AMT was directed at taxing 
the wealthy and could not possibly affect them. This is a case where 
the complexity of the tax and the contradictory incentives it provides 
for ISOs lured the victims into the trap.
  Fourth, we are likely to see a major debate on AMT reform, but this 
is a broader debate about the fundamentals of the tax code, not a tax 
trap like we have with ISOs. An increasing number of taxpayers find 
themselves paying the AMT because they have large state tax deductions 
or large numbers of personal exemptions. The AMT is likely to snare 1.5 
million taxpayers this year and nearly 36 million by 2010. The AMT they 
may pay may be infuriating, but it would normally not substantially 
increase their overall tax liability. The AMT paid because of ISOs can 
be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars and can be 
devastating. It can cause a tax liability that is many times the 
taxpayer's total income. This is a problem that needs to be addressed 
not, now when we finally take up broad-based AMT reform.
  Let me be clear about the cost and budget implications of my bill. 
The Joint Tax Committee on Taxation has found that my proposal would 
reduce government tax revenues by $1.3 billion over ten years. This is 
substantially less expensive than the cost of my earlier bill, which 
was estimated to cost $12.412 billion over ten years. I will not 
propose to enact my bill unless this sum is financed and will have no 
impact on the Federal budget.
  The budget situation we face will not make it easy to enact these 
reforms. The massive tax cut of $1.3 trillion was financed from the 
surpluses. We are now finding that it was, as I and others feared, way 
too large and leaves us no room to take up additional tax measures. In 
fact, just last week we saw reports of a memo leaked where Republicans 
predicting that the Congressional Budget Office deficit/budget updates 
in August would find that we have zero available surplus beyond the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds in fiscal year 2002 and that 
Congress may have to dip into those trust funds by nearly $41 billion 
in fiscal year 2003. If this is true, it would leave no additional non-
trust fund surplus dollars available for other uses, such as growth tax 
incentives, fixing the ISO/AMT problem, education, energy or defense, 
in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 budget resolution bars 
Congress from spending any money in either the Social Security or 
Medicare Part A trust funds for any purpose other than Medicare or 
Social Security.

[[Page S8741]]

  I recount this here because it means that we must find a revenue or 
spending offset to finance our ISO/AMT proposal, or any other growth 
tax incentive. We cannot use the surplus. This raises a substantial 
barrier to enactment of this proposal and it is a barrier that we could 
have easily avoided had we enacted a tax cut we could afford.
  I am pleased that today Rep. Richard Neal, Tom Davis, Zoe Lofgren, 
and Jerry Weller are introducing the same bill in the other body. 
Earlier, Representative Lofgren introduced H.R. 1487, a bipartisan bill 
that has given a great deal of visibility to this issue. I look forward 
to working with my distinguished House colleagues to remedy this 
inequity in the tax code, both for victims in 2000 and going forward.
  Finally, let me note that I have proposed in S. 1134 to provide a 
special capital gains tax rate, in fact to set a zero tax rate, for 
stock purchased by employees in stock option plans, by investors in 
Initial Public Offerings, and similar purchases of company treasury 
stock. This zero rate would be effective, however, only if the shares 
are held for at least three years, so the AMT gamble with ISOs would be 
even more dramatic. During the first year of that holding period, the 
AMT would have to be paid and during the remaining period the value of 
the stock could well dive from the exercise price creating an even more 
invidious trap.
  We need to fix the ISO/AMT problem so that capital gains incentives 
for entrepreneurs will work as intended and provide the boost to 
economic growth.
  We need also to focus on the victims of the 2000 perfect storm.
  I ask that two documents be printed at this point in the Record, an 
explanation of my bill and a comparison of incentive and nonstatutory 
stock options. Both have been prepared by professionals with accounting 
firms.

Incentive Stock Options and the Alternative Minimum Tax--An Explanation 
          of the Lieberman-Neal-Davis-Lofgren-Weller Proposal

       Issue: The difference between the exercise price and the 
     fair market value at the time of exercise, the ``spread'', of 
     stock obtained with an incentive stock option, ``ISO'', is a 
     tax preference for purposes of the individual alternative 
     minimum tax, ``AMT''. If the ISO preference causes a taxpayer 
     to pay the AMT for the year of exercise, there may be a tax 
     credit carryforward that is available to offset regular tax 
     in a future year. However, if the stock declines 
     significantly in value between the date of exercise and the 
     date of its sale, there may not be sufficient regular income 
     in any future year to utilize the AMT credit. As a result, a 
     taxpayer may pay significant permanent AMT for what was 
     intended to be only a ``timing'' preference. This problem is 
     particularly acute for individuals who exercised incentive 
     stock options in 2000, prior to the significant decline in 
     the stock values of many companies.
       Example: In January, 2000, a sales manager for Silicon 
     Valley Company exercises options for 15,000 shares of stock 
     with an exercise price of $5 per share, the fair market of 
     the stock when the options were granted in 1997. At the date 
     of exercise, the stock is trading at $125 per share. The 
     spread gives rise to an AMT tax preference of $1.8 million 
     and generates a net AMT liability for 2000 of approximately 
     $500,000.00, over and above the manager's tax liability on 
     her $60,000 annual salary. Since ISO stock retained for at 
     least a year from the date of exercise is eligible for 
     capital gains treatment, manager does not immediately sell 
     her ISO shares. In April 2001, the company and the stock 
     market have setbacks and the stock again trades at $5 per 
     share.
       Under current law, the amount of AMT credit that the 
     manager can use annually is limited to approximately $5,000, 
     her expected regular tax over her AMT tax. As a result, it 
     would take roughly 100 years for the AMT credits to be fully 
     utilized.
       Lieberman/Neal/Davis/Lofgren/Weller Proposal: Limits the 
     amount of the AMT preference resulting from the exercise of 
     an incentive stock option in 2000 to an amount based on the 
     fair market value of the stock as of April 15, 2001, or, if 
     such stock is sold or exchanged on or before that date, to 
     the amount realized on such sale or exchange.
       Example: Under the same facts as above, a sales manager who 
     acquired stock through the exercise of an incentive stock 
     option would use the $5 per share April 15, 2001 fair market 
     value of the stock to calculate the AMT preference amount. If 
     the manager has already filed her 2000 tax return, she would 
     file an amended return for the 2000 tax year to reflect the 
     revised AMT preference amount of $0.00, the revised April 15, 
     2001 fair market value of $5.00 per share equals the original 
     $5.00 per share exercise price.


         Comparison of Incentive and Nonstatutory Stock Options

       The following is a broad overview of the basic tax concepts 
     that apply to U.S. taxpayers who receive stock options 
     granted by U.S. companies, for services rendered. It does not 
     address the tax consequences for non-U.S. taxpayers or the 
     company issuing the options. This outline assumes that the 
     stock received upon exercise is not restricted within the 
     meaning of IRC section 83. If there are restrictions on 
     the stock received upon exercise, the tax consequences 
     will differ significantly from that described in this 
     outline.


                                 Terms

       Grant Date--This is the date the stock options are granted 
     to you by the company. This date generally is reset if the 
     terms of the stock option are changed; e.g. exercise price is 
     lowered.
       Exercise Price--This is the price you have to pay to 
     purchase a share of stock under the terms of the option 
     agreement.
       Vesting Date--This is the date that you earn the right to 
     exercise your options. For example, your shares may vest over 
     four years, starting after one year. In this case, on each 
     anniversary of the grant date you earn the right to exercise 
     one fourth of your options.
       Exercise Date--This is the day you exercise your stock 
     options by paying the exercise price to purchase the shares 
     in which you are vested.
       Fair Market Value--This is the true value of the stock at 
     any given date, usually determined by the price at which the 
     stock is trading for on an established exchange. For a 
     private company, the fair market value should be determined 
     by an independent third party appraisal. If the company does 
     not have an outside appraisal performed, the Board should 
     establish the value using appropriate methods and current 
     information.
       Spread on Exercise Date--This is the difference between the 
     exercise price (what you pay for the stock) and the fair 
     market value (what the stock is worth) at the time you 
     exercise your stock options. This is often referred to as the 
     bargain element.
       Sale Date--This is the day you sell the shares of stock you 
     had previously purchased on the exercise date.
       Spread on Sale Date--This is the difference between the 
     exercise price (what you paid for the stock) and the fair 
     market value (what the stock is worth) on the day you sell 
     your shares.
       Incentive Stock Options (ISOs)--These are stock options 
     that qualify for special tax treatment by meeting a number of 
     special rules, the details of which are not included in this 
     memo. One of the key requirements is that the exercise price 
     is at least equal to the fair market value at the date of 
     grant. ISOs are contrasted with Nonstatutory Stock Options in 
     the following table.
       Nonstatutory Stock Options (NSOs; also referred to as NQOs, 
     as in nonqualified)--These are stock options that do not meet 
     all the rules for ISOs. They are less tax favored, but 
     generally more flexible.

 COMPARISON OF TAX CONSEQUENCES--INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION VS. NONSTATUTORY
                              STOCK OPTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Incentive stock     Nonstatutory stock
            Event                    options               options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Date: For example, you  The grant of an       The grant of a
 are granted the right to      incentive stock       nonstatutory stock
 purchase 1,000 shares at      option is not a       option is almost
 $1.50 per share vesting       taxable event.        always not a
 over 4 years.                                       taxable event. For
                                                     this comparison,
                                                     we'll assume it is
                                                     not a taxable
                                                     event.
Vesting Date: For example,    Vesting is not a      Vesting is not a
 after one year you have the   taxable event.        taxable event.
 right to purchase 250
 shares.
Exercise Date: For example,   ISOs: The exercise    NSOs: The spread at
 you pay $1,500 and purchase   of ISOs is not a      exercise ($12 per
 all 1,000 shares when they    taxable event for     share) is
 are worth $13.50 each, i.e.   regular tax.          compensation
 $13,500 for a spread of       However, the spread   income, reportable
 $12,000. (This discussion     or bargain element    on your W-2 and
 assumes the shares received   is a tax preference   subject to income
 upon exercise are not         item for the          and payroll tax
 restricted under tax law).    alternative minimum   withholding. You
                               tax (AMT), unless     get tax basis in
                               you exercise and      the stock equal to
                               sell your ISO stock   the Fair Market
                               within the same       Value on the
                               year, in which case   exercise date, i.e.
                               AMT does not apply.   $13.50 per share.
                                                     AMT does not apply
                                                     to NSOs.
Sale Date: For example, you   If you meet the       The difference
 hold the shares for a while   holding rules         between the sale
 and then sell them for        below, the entire     price, i.e. $15.00
 $15.00 each; i.e. you sell    spread ($13,500) on   and tax basis of
 the stock for $15,000 that    the date of sale is   $13.50 is a capital
 had cost $1,500, for a gain   taxed as a capital    gain. (You already
 of $13,500.                   gain. Regardless of   paid tax on the $12
                               how long you hold     per share spread at
                               the stock, you get    exercise.) For
                               a credit for any      sales after 12/31/
                               alternative minimum   97, you must hold
                               tax you may have      the shares for more
                               paid upon exercise,   than one year to
                               but you may not be    get long term
                               able to use it all    capital gain
                               in any given year.    treatment. You
                                                     could also have
                                                     loss, if so, it
                                                     would be a capital
                                                     loss.
Special ISO Holding Rule....  You must hold your    An earlier sale
                               ISO shares for more   turns the tax
                               than one year from    treatment of an ISO
                               the date of           into that of an
                               exercise and two      NSO. The spread on
                               years from the        exercise date (or
                               grant date before     the spread on sale,
                               you sell them; in     if less) is taxed
                               order to have the     as compensation,
                               entire spread taxed   reportable on your
                               as a capital gain.    W-2, but only in
                               Meeting these         the year of sale.
                               holding periods       If the sale occurs
                               converts the spread   in a year after the
                               (i.e. the bargain     year of exercise,
                               element on the date   you still are
                               of exercise) from     subject to
                               ordinary income to    alternative minimum
                               long term capital     tax in the year of
                               gains, taxed at a     exercise (based on
                               lower rate.           the spread at
                                                     exercise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S8742]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1325. A bill to ratify an agreement between the Aleut Corporation 
and the United States of America to exchange land rights received under 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on 
Adak Island, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will facilitate and promote the successful commercial reuse of 
the former Naval Air Facility on Adak Island, AK . At the same time, 
this legislation will allow the Aleut people of Alaska to reclaim the 
island and to make use of its modern infrastructure and important 
location.
  The legislation I introduce today is very similar to a bill I 
introduced nearly four years ago in the 105th Congress. It ratifies an 
agreement between the Aleut Corporation, an Alaska Native Regional 
Corporation, the Department of the Interior and the Department of the 
Navy. In 1997, The Aleut Corporation, the U.S. Navy and the Interior 
Department were still in the process of negotiating and structuring the 
Agreement to provide for the fair and responsible transfer of the 
former military facility. I am pleased to tell you that ``The Agreement 
Concerning the Conveyance of Property at the Adak Naval Complex, Adak 
AK'' was signed last September. Thus, the time is now appropriate for 
Congress to consider the Agreement and ratify its provisions to allow 
for final transfer.
  The bill and the Agreement also further the conservation of important 
wildlife habitat within the Aleutian Islands region of Alaska. A 
portion of Adak is within the Aleutian Islands subunit of the Alaska 
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The Agreement facilitates the 
Department of the Inferior's continued management and protection of the 
Refuge lands on Adak and even adds some of the Navy lands to the 
Refuge. More importantly, in exchange for the developed Navy lands, 
which are not suitable for the Refuge but are commercially useful, the 
Aleut Corporation will convey environmentally sensitive lands it holds 
elsewhere in the Refuge to the Department of the Interior. Thus, not 
only are the former military lands put to productive use, but the 
Refuge gains valuable new habitat.
  For many years the Navy has played an important role in Alaska's 
Aleutian Chain. Its presence was first established during World War II 
with the selection and development of the island because of Adak's 
ability to support a major airfield and its natural and protected deep 
water port. The Navy's presence contributed greatly to the defense of 
our Pacific coast during World War II and throughout the Cold War. 
Through the Navy's presence, Adak became the largest development in the 
Aleutians as well as Alaska's sixth largest community. With the end of 
the Cold War our defense needs changed, however, and Adak was selected 
for closure during the last base closure round.
  Those very same features that made Adak strategically important for 
defense purposes also make it important for commercial purposes. Adak 
is a natural stepping stone to Asia and is at the crossroads of air and 
sea trade between North America, Europe and Asia. With the ability to 
use Adak commercially, the Aleut people, through The Aleut Corporation, 
can establish it as an important intercontinental location with 
sufficient enterprise to provide year round jobs for the Aleut people. 
These goals are consistent with the promises and the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act, the legislation that created the corporation.
  This rebirth of Adak is already well underway. The local Aleut 
residents assumed responsibility for the operation of the Island from 
the Navy last October and there are a number of new commercial 
enterprises and endeavors. At the same time a new community has begun 
to take shape. Just last month the new City of Adak was established as 
a result of a public referendum and it is now in the process of taking 
over responsibility for the docks, utilities, roads and other public 
facilities.
  The Agreement resolves a number of important issues related to the 
transfer of this former military base and the establishment of the new 
community on Adak, including responsibility for environmental 
remediation, institutional controls, indemnification, required public 
access and reservation of lands for government use. The environmental 
remediation work of the Navy is still ongoing and will continue to an 
extent for several more years. However, all the interested parties 
agree that a final transfer can occur within the next twelve months. 
Hence the need for this legislation.
  This bill furthers our Nation's objective of conversion of closed 
defense facilities into successful commercial reuse, it benefits the 
Aleut people and restores them to their ancestral lands and it benefits 
the National Wildlife Refuge System. I believe everyone will agree that 
such legislation is important and worthy of our support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 1326. a bill to extend and improve working lands and other 
conservation programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Working 
Lands Conservation Act. The bill is intended to achieve two major 
goals: first, to assist our farmers and ranchers in meeting short-term 
environmental challenges, such as water and air quality concerns and 
the regulation of animal feeding operations; and, secondly, to enhance 
the long-term quality of our environment and sustainability of our 
natural resources.
  As some of my colleagues may recall, the Senate Agriculture Committee 
has a long history of bipartisan cooperation on conservation. From the 
Conservation Reserve, to the Wetlands Reserve, to the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program, we have conscientiously sought to do what 
is best for our Nation's environment. We have laid aside partisan 
differences when it has come to conservation and our natural resources 
are better because of our joint efforts.
  In that spirit, my bill joins those of several of my colleagues and 
represents a foundation for our work on the conservation title of the 
farm bill. Senator Harkin has introduced the Conservation Security 
Act--an innovative idea that would reward good conservation farmers for 
their environmental efforts and thus foster conservation and 
environmental improvements.
  Senators Craig, Feinstein, and Thomas have introduced a Grasslands 
Reserve Act that would protect and restore one million acres of our 
fragile grasslands while allowing the owners to maintain economic use 
of the land. Senators Hutchinson and Lincoln have a bill that 
reauthorizes and expands the Wetlands Reserve Program.
  Senator Crapo has introduced a bill, of which I am a cosponsor, that 
covers many of the items in the conservation title of the current farm 
bill. I know he has put much thought into his bill and I look forward 
to working with him and my other colleagues as we fashion the 
conservation title of the new farm bill.
  While there are many valid approaches on how we should foster 
improvements in our environment, this bill invests in our working 
lands--the land we use to grow our food, our fiber; the land we depend 
upon for sustenance. This working land cropland, pasture, rengeland, 
and private forests, makes up some 70 percent of the land areas of the 
contiguous 48 States. How this land is managed has profound effects on 
our economy and environment. The farm bill we are cross developing is 
one of the most important pieces of environmental and natural resource 
legislation this Congress will address. It is essential that the 
conservation title be a major component of the legislation we develop 
together.
  Since 1985, the last time Congress made a major investment in 
conservation as part of a farm bill, we have spent most of our 
conservation dollars through programs that set aside productive 
cropland as a primary means of achieving our environmental goals. These 
efforts are certainly worthwhile and I support continuing them. Indeed 
the preeminent land-idling program we have, the Conservation Reserve, 
was introduced on my farm in Indiana and I continue to support it.

  But we cannot land-idle our way to environment performance. The folly 
of this, solely from a resource conservation standpoint--is evident 
from the situation we now see after fifteen years

[[Page S8743]]

of extensive land idling through the Conservation Reserve. After having 
set aside up to 36.4 million acres at one point, State water quality 
reports today will name nonpoint source pollution as the Nation's 
biggest water quality challenge and agriculture as the biggest culprit, 
primarily due to sediment, nutrient loadings, and pathogens. While the 
Conservation Reserve has many benefits, particularly wildlife habitat 
in the Great Plains, it is obvious that large-scale land-idling schemes 
will not solve all of the problems associated with water and air 
quality. Yet these are the environmental challenges that confront most 
farmers today, and the ones most likely to result in costly new 
regulation for our farmers and ranchers. How we deal with these 
environmental challenges will affect the commercial viability of 
farming and ranching over the next decade.
  A quick review of how we are spending our voluntary conservation 
dollars will show just how much ground we have to make up. In 1985, 97 
cents of every financial assistance dollar from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture went to working lands; three cents went to land retirement. 
Today, the situation is nearly reversed with some 85 cents going toward 
land retirement, primarily through the Conservation Reserve, and only 
15 cents going toward working lands. This over-reliance on removing 
land from production comes at the expense of caring for working lands, 
and, given the contemporary environmental issues facing landowners, 
this imbalance must be addressed during our reauthorization of the farm 
bill.
  For our working lands to continue to be productive, and to ensure 
that agriculture can tend to its environmental concerns, I believe that 
the overarching goal of the new conservation title should be to 
emphasize conservation on working agricultural lands. Much as President 
Theodore Roosevelt championed public land conservation early in the 
last century, today we must champion the care of our working lands.
  Bringing conservation programs up to levels needed to address 
priority issues will require new funding. If you exclude the short-term 
emergency funding, the budget resolution provides an additional $66.15 
billion for agriculture above the baseline. I believe that a 
significant portion of this new spending should be devoted to 
conservation. My bill increases mandatory conservation spending by 
approximately $2 billion per year. This amount would effectively double 
our investment in voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. 
And, because of the funding provided by the budget resolution, we can 
enhance our working lands programs without cutting or diminishing our 
existing land retirement programs.
  To focus on working lands, our first order of business is to 
strengthen the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. EQIP, as it is 
called, offers financial, technical and educational assistance to 
farmers and ranchers and is generally seen as the workhorse 
conservation program for working lands. Congress created EQIP in 1996 
by merging four other conservation programs and provided $200 million a 
year in mandatory spending. Today, requests for EQIP assistance far 
outstrip available funds and analyses show there is a demonstrated need 
for an additional $1.2 billion per year to address the anticipated 
needs of the livestock industry alone. My bill established national 
priorities for EQIP, makes several needed reforms to the program such 
as shortening the length of the contract and removing discriminatory 
size restrictions, and provides $1.5 billion a year to be phased-in 
over a three year period.

  In addition, my bill provides more flexibility and financial 
incentives within EQIP to create partnerships at the state and local 
level, partnerships that are essential to meeting the environmental 
challenges agriculture faces. My bill establishes a grants section 
within EQIP to leverage federal funds with funding from non-federal 
entities and encourages states to develop plans that bring together 
multiple Federal, State, and local programs to create coordinated 
conservation initiatives to address critical environmental challenges. 
There is already good experience on this score through the Conservation 
Reserve Enhancement Program and the continuous signup program for 
buffer practices.
  My bill expands this concept by making private and other non-federal 
entities eligible for a special $100 million matching grant program 
within EQIP. The grant program would create cooperative federal/non-
federal ventures that would spur conservation on private lands through 
market-based initiatives. Under my proposal, non-federal entities would 
bid to have their projects approved and then combine their funds with 
federal money to stimulate more use of market-based solutions in areas 
such as water quality or carbon credit trading. For example, drinking 
water suppliers facing the necessity, and cost, of building new 
treatment facilities might find it less expensive to pay upstream 
farmers and ranchers to voluntarily make reductions in pollutant 
discharges, thereby obviating the need for new treatment facilities. 
Taken together, these provisions will spark creative and innovative 
approaches to conservation that work better for farmers, ranchers, 
communities, and the environment.
  Reforming, adequately funding, and focusing the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program on national environmental issues will dramatically 
accelerate the amount of conservation on our landscape. But it will 
also require that we resolve one of the key problems we face today--the 
lack of qualified technical assistance to help our farmers and ranchers 
plan, design, install, and maintain conservation practices. 
Insufficient annual appropriations for USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service over the past decade have caused a steady decline 
in real terms in the number of field staff available to give landowners 
technical advice. At the same time, demand for technical assistance has 
ballooned as producers grapple with conservation challenges.
  My bill ensures that technical assistance will be available to 
implement conservation by reforming the so-called section 11 Cap in the 
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. The Commodity Credit 
Corporation is allowed to reimburse agencies for work they do for the 
various programs under the Corporation, but the section 11 cap limits 
total reimbursements to no more than $36.2 million annually. The cap 
was put on by Congress to control computer purchases by the Department 
of Agriculture, but is has also had the unintended side effect of 
limiting technical assistance reimbursement for conservation programs. 
To resolve the problem, my bill exempts conservation technical 
assistance reimbursements from the cap.

  Reforming the section 11 Cap will help solve part of the problem, but 
my bill also looks to the private and nonprofit sector to help fill the 
technical assistance gap. Crop advisors, farm managers, private 
agronomists and engineers, conservation district professionals, and 
other qualified individuals could help fill the technical assistance 
gap for many landowners who are willing to pay for their services. My 
bill creates a fee-based certification program within USDA to increase 
the number of technical assistance providers and provides for the use 
of incentive payments to help farmers and ranchers pay for qualified 
technical assistance for nutrient management plans. In all cases, work 
done by third parties would have to meet the technical standards of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  Maintaining the confidentiality of producer information contained in 
USDA files is vital to voluntary private lands conservation. Farmers 
and ranchers must be confident that their private business information 
will not be compromised if they participate in a conservation program. 
Farmers and ranchers are increasingly concerned about this issue as 
both government agencies and non-governmental entities have attempted 
to secure USDA data for regulatory purposes. In order to maintain the 
trust that exists between producers and USDA, my bill includes 
provisions to protect the confidentiality of the information farmers 
and ranchers disclose when developing and implementing conservation 
plans without affecting current Freedom of Information Act procedures.
  Strengthening EQIP and our technical assistance capabilities are the 
two most important priorities my bill

[[Page S8744]]

addresses. But there are other programs that add important features to 
a comprehensive conservation program that my bill reauthorizes and 
funds.
  My bill reauthorizes and increase funding for the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives program. Created in the 1996 farm bill, this program 
provides technical and financial assistance to landowners that agree to 
develop wildlife habitat. The program was originally funded at $50 
million over the seven year life of the 1996 farm bill. My bill 
increases the funding level to $50 million per year, devoting an 
aggregate of one-half billion dollars to wildlife habitat over the life 
of the bill.
  Similarly, my bill reauthorizes, amends, and increase funding for the 
Farmland Protection Program. This voluntary program, also created in 
the 1996 farm bill, assist state and local programs purchase 
development rights on farms and helps farmers on the urban-rural 
interface stay in farming. The program has been lauded for its 
assistance to communities wishing to preserve agriculture, open space, 
wildlife habitat and other environmental benefits. My bill expands 
participation in the program to non-profit organizations, allows 
grassland easements, and increases funding to $65 million per year.
  My bill preserves the Conservation Reserve Program at its current 
level of 36.4 million acres. This leaves room for enrolling more than 2 
million acres of additional land right now, as well as the acres that 
become available as existing contracts expire. The bill amends the 
program to create an incentive to increase the amount of hardwood trees 
entering the program and statutorily reserves 4 million acres for the 
continuous signup and for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. 
Both the continuous signup and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
Program target high priority environmental concerns such as water 
quality.
  My bill also makes a major new commitment to wetland restoration 
through the Wetlands Reserve Program by reauthorizing the program and 
adding 2.5 million acres to the enrollment authorization, more than 
doubling the rate of wetland restoration we have achieved since 1990. 
Of the new acreage, the bill targets 50,000 acres of wetland 
restoration a year to cooperative agreements with States for high 
priority environmental needs such as hypoxia, eutrophication, wildlife 
habitat, flooding, and groundwater recharge.
  In the area of reform, within existing USDA conservation programs 
there are numerous overlaps and redundancies. My bill requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to aggressively look at the entire range of 
USDA conservation programs to identify program overlaps, explore 
potential consolidations, develop ways to simplify and streamline 
program administration, and then report her recommendations to 
Congress.
  As we continue the process of reauthorizing the farm bill, several 
fundamental choices lie before us and will require us to make decisions 
that will set the course of voluntary private lands conservation 
efforts for the next decade. The choices we make will determine the 
overall health of our environment. The Working Lands Conservation Act 
provides a solid basis for making those conservation decisions. The 
bill helps restore balance between working lands programs and land-
idling programs without cutting popular programs such as the 
Conservation Reserve. The focus of my conservation reforms is to assist 
farmers and ranchers to not only meet regulatory requirements, but to 
proactively resolve them before they enter a regulatory context. It 
increases the coherence of conservation policy, protects producer 
confidentiality, and assures that more technical assistance will be 
available to our farmers and ranchers.
  As a Nation, we entrust the care of over 50 percent of our land to 
just two percent of our citizens--the farmers and ranchers who work the 
land and produce the food and fiber we demand. This bill recognizes 
that farmers and ranchers are much more than food and fiber producers. 
They are the most important natural resource managers in this Nation. 
My bill will give them the technical and financial tools they need to 
care for the land--and our environment, as they make a living from it. 
It recognizes that conservation is a shared responsibility; a 
partnership between farmers, ranchers, and the public. This bill 
strengthens those partnerships and ensures conservation will be a 
fundamental part of the mission of this Committee, Congress, and the 
Department of Agriculture.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1326

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Working 
     Lands Conservation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--WORKING LANDS CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Environmental quality incentives program.
Sec. 102. Conservation reserve program.
Sec. 103. Wetlands reserve program.
Sec. 104. Farmland protection program.
Sec. 105. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.

             TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS AND EXTENSIONS

Sec. 201. Privacy of personal information relating to natural resources 
              conservation programs.
Sec. 202. Reform and consolidation of conservation programs.
Sec. 203. Certification of private providers of technical assistance.
Sec. 204. Extension of conservation authorities.
Sec. 205. Technical amendments.
Sec. 206. Effect of amendments.

              TITLE I--WORKING LANDS CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) is 
     amended to read as follows:

         ``CHAPTER 4--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1240. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of the environmental quality incentives 
     program established by this chapter are to promote 
     agricultural production and environmental quality as 
     compatible national goals, and to maximize environmental 
     benefits per dollar expended, by--
       ``(1) assisting producers in complying with this title, the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and other Federal, 
     State, and local environmental laws (including regulations);
       ``(2) avoiding, to the maximum extent practicable, the need 
     for resource and regulatory programs by assisting producers 
     in protecting soil, water, air, and related natural resources 
     and meeting environmental quality criteria established by 
     Federal, State, and local agencies;
       ``(3) providing flexible technical and financial assistance 
     to producers to install and maintain conservation systems 
     that enhance soil, water, related natural resources 
     (including grazing land and wetland), and wildlife while 
     sustaining production of food and fiber;
       ``(4) assisting producers to make beneficial, cost 
     effective changes to cropping systems, grazing management, 
     nutrient management associated with livestock, pest or 
     irrigation management, or other practices on agricultural 
     land;
       ``(5) facilitating partnerships and joint efforts among 
     producers and governmental and nongovernmental organizations; 
     and
       ``(6) consolidating and streamlining conservation planning 
     and regulatory compliance processes to reduce administrative 
     burdens on producers and the cost of achieving environmental 
     goals.

     ``SEC. 1240A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Comprehensive nutrient management.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `comprehensive nutrient 
     management' means any combination of structural practices, 
     land management practices, and management activities 
     associated with crop or livestock production described in 
     subparagraph (B) that collectively ensure that the goals of 
     crop or livestock production and preservation of natural 
     resources, especially the preservation and enhancement of 
     water quality, are compatible.
       ``(B) Elements.--For the purpose of subparagraph (A), 
     structural practices, land management practices, and 
     management activities associated with livestock production 
     are--
       ``(i) manure and wastewater handling and storage;
       ``(ii) land treatment practices;
       ``(iii) nutrient management;
       ``(iv) recordkeeping;
       ``(v) feed management; and
       ``(vi) other waste utilization options.
       ``(C) Practice.--
       ``(i) Planning.--The development of a comprehensive 
     nutrient management plan shall be a practice that is eligible 
     for incentive payments and technical assistance under this 
     chapter.
       ``(ii) Implementation.--The implementation of a 
     comprehensive nutrient plan shall

[[Page S8745]]

     be accomplished through structural and land management 
     practices identified in the plan.
       ``(2) Eligible land.--The term `eligible land' means 
     agricultural land (including cropland, rangeland, pasture, 
     and other land on which crops or livestock are produced), 
     including agricultural land that the Secretary determines 
     poses a serious threat to soil, water, or related resources 
     by reason of the soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, 
     topographic, flood, or saline characteristics, or other 
     factors or natural hazards.
       ``(3) Land management practice.--The term `land management 
     practice' means a site-specific nutrient or manure 
     management, integrated pest management, irrigation 
     management, tillage or residue management, grazing 
     management, air quality management, or other land management 
     practice carried out on eligible land that the Secretary 
     determines is needed to protect, in the most cost-effective 
     manner, water, soil, or related resources from degradation.
       ``(4) Livestock.--The term `livestock' means dairy cattle, 
     beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, sheep, 
     and such other animals as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Maximize environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `maximize environmental 
     benefits per dollar expended' means to maximize environmental 
     benefits to the extent the Secretary determines is 
     practicable and appropriate, taking into account the amount 
     of funding made available to carry out this chapter.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The term `maximize environmental 
     benefits per dollar expended' does not require the 
     Secretary--
       ``(i) to provide the least cost practice or technical 
     assistance; or
       ``(ii) to require the development of a plan under section 
     1240E as part of an application for payments or technical 
     assistance.
       ``(6) Practice.--The term `practice' means 1 or more 
     structural practices, land management practices, and 
     comprehensive nutrient management planning practices.
       ``(7) Producer.--The term `producer' means a person that is 
     engaged in livestock or agricultural production, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(8) Structural practice.--The term `structural practice' 
     means--
       ``(A) the establishment on eligible land of a site-specific 
     animal waste management facility, terrace, grassed waterway, 
     contour grass strip, filterstrip, tailwater pit, permanent 
     wildlife habitat, constructed wetland, or other structural 
     practice that the Secretary determines is needed to protect, 
     in the most cost-effective manner, water, soil, or related 
     resources from degradation; and
       ``(B) the capping of abandoned wells on eligible land.

     ``SEC. 1240B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During each of the 2003 through 2011 
     fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments to 
     producers, that enter into contracts with the Secretary, 
     through an environmental quality incentives program in 
     accordance with this chapter.
       ``(2) Eligible practices.--
       ``(A) Structural practices.--A producer that implements a 
     structural practice shall be eligible for any combination of 
     technical assistance, cost-share payments, and education.
       ``(B) Land management practices.--A producer that performs 
     a land management practice shall be eligible for any 
     combination of technical assistance, incentive payments, and 
     education.
       ``(C) Comprehensive nutrient management planning.--A 
     producer that develops a comprehensive nutrient management 
     plan shall be eligible for any combination of technical 
     assistance, incentive payments, and education.
       ``(3) Education.--The Secretary may provide conservation 
     education at national, State, and local levels consistent 
     with the purposes of the environmental quality incentives 
     program to--
       ``(A) any producer that is eligible for assistance under 
     this chapter; or
       ``(B) any producer that is engaged in the production of an 
     agricultural commodity.
       ``(b) Application and Term.--A contract between a producer 
     and the Secretary under this chapter may--
       ``(1) apply to 1 or more structural practices, land 
     management practices, and comprehensive nutrient management 
     planning practices;
       ``(2) have a term of not less than 3, nor more than 10, 
     years, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending 
     on the practice or practices that are the basis of the 
     contract; and
       ``(3) in the case of a structural practice or comprehensive 
     nutrient management planning practice, have a term of less 
     than 3 years if the Secretary determines that a lesser term 
     is consistent with the purposes of the program under this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) Application and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     application and evaluation process for awarding technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments to a 
     producer in exchange for the performance of 1 or more 
     practices that maximizes environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.
       ``(2) Comparable environmental value.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process 
     for selecting applications for technical assistance, cost-
     share payments, and incentive payments when there are 
     numerous applications for assistance for practices that would 
     provide substantially the same level of environmental 
     benefits.
       ``(B) Criteria.--The process under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be based on--
       ``(i) a reasonable estimate of the projected cost of the 
     proposals described in the applications; and
       ``(ii) the priorities established under this subtitle and 
     other factors that maximize environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.
       ``(3) Consent of owner.--If the producer making an offer to 
     implement a structural practice is a tenant of the land 
     involved in agricultural production, for the offer to be 
     acceptable, the producer shall obtain the consent of the 
     owner of the land with respect to the offer.
       ``(4) Bidding down.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     environmental values of 2 or more applications for technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, or incentive payments are 
     comparable, the Secretary shall not assign a higher priority 
     to the application only because it would present the least 
     cost to the program established under this chapter.
       ``(d) Cost-Share Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Federal share of cost-share payments to a producer proposing 
     to implement 1 or more practices shall be not more than 75 
     percent of the projected cost of the practice, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Limited resource and beginning farmers; natural 
     disasters.--The Secretary may increase the maximum Federal 
     share under paragraph (1) to not more than 90 percent if the 
     producer is a limited resource farmer or a beginning farmer 
     or to address a natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Cost-share assistance from other sources.--Any cost-
     share payments received by a producer from a State or private 
     organization or person for the implementation of 1 or more 
     practices shall be in addition to the Federal share of cost-
     share payments provided to the producer under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Other payments.--A producer shall not be eligible for 
     cost-share payments for practices on eligible land under this 
     chapter if the producer receives cost-share payments or other 
     benefits for the same practice on the same land under chapter 
     1 and this chapter.
       ``(e) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary shall make 
     incentive payments in an amount and at a rate determined by 
     the Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to 
     perform 1 or more practices.
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funding 
     under this chapter for the provision of technical assistance 
     according to the purpose and projected cost for which the 
     technical assistance is provided for a fiscal year.
       ``(2) Amount.--The allocated amount may vary according to--
       ``(A) the type of expertise required;
       ``(B) the quantity of time involved; and
       ``(C) other factors as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Funding for technical assistance under 
     this chapter shall not exceed the projected cost to the 
     Secretary of the technical assistance provided for a fiscal 
     year.
       ``(4) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical 
     assistance under this chapter shall not affect the 
     eligibility of the producer to receive technical assistance 
     under other authorities of law available to the Secretary.
       ``(5) Non-federal assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may request the services 
     of, and enter into a cooperative agreement with, a State 
     water quality agency, State fish and wildlife agency, State 
     forestry agency, or any other governmental or nongovernmental 
     organization or person considered appropriate to assist in 
     providing the technical assistance necessary to develop and 
     implement conservation plans under the program.
       ``(B) Private sources.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     processes of writing and developing proposals and plans for 
     contracts under this chapter, and of assisting in the 
     implementation of practices covered by the contracts, are 
     open to private persons, including--

       ``(I) agricultural producers;
       ``(II) representatives from agricultural cooperatives;
       ``(III) agricultural input retail dealers;
       ``(IV) certified crop advisers;
       ``(V) persons providing technical consulting services; and
       ``(VI) other persons, as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.

       ``(ii) Other conservation programs.--The requirements of 
     this subparagraph shall also apply to each other conservation 
     program of the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(6) Incentive payments for technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--A producer that is eligible to receive 
     technical assistance for a practice involving the development 
     of a comprehensive nutrient management plan may obtain an 
     incentive payment that can be used to obtain technical 
     assistance associated with the development of any component 
     of the comprehensive nutrient management plan.

[[Page S8746]]

       ``(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the payment shall be to 
     provide a producer the option of obtaining technical 
     assistance for developing any component of a comprehensive 
     nutrient management plan from a private person earlier than 
     the producer would otherwise receive the technical assistance 
     from the Secretary.
       ``(C) Payment.--The incentive payment shall be--
       ``(i) in addition to cost-share or incentive payments that 
     a producer would otherwise receive for structural practices 
     and land management practices;
       ``(ii) used only to procure technical assistance from a 
     private person that is necessary to develop any component of 
     a comprehensive nutrient management plan; and
       ``(iii) in an amount determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, taking into account--

       ``(I) the extent and complexity of the technical assistance 
     provided;
       ``(II) the costs that the Secretary would have incurred in 
     providing the technical assistance; and
       ``(III) the costs incurred by the private provider in 
     providing the technical assistance.

       ``(D) Eligible practices.--The Secretary may determine, on 
     a case by case basis, whether the development of a 
     comprehensive nutrient management plan is eligible for an 
     incentive payment under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Certification by secretary.--
       ``(i) In general.--Only private persons that have been 
     certified by the Secretary under section 16 of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act shall be eligible to 
     provide technical assistance under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Quality assurance.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     certified private providers are capable of providing 
     technical assistance regarding comprehensive nutrient 
     management in a manner that meets the specifications and 
     guidelines of the Secretary and that meets the needs of 
     producers under the environmental quality incentives program.
       ``(F) Advance payment.--On the determination of the 
     Secretary that the proposed comprehensive nutrient management 
     of a producer is eligible for an incentive payment, the 
     producer may receive a partial advance of the incentive 
     payment in order to procure the services of a certified 
     private provider.
       ``(G) Final payment.--The final installment of the 
     incentive payment shall be payable to a producer on 
     presentation to the Secretary of documentation that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary and that demonstrates--
       ``(i) completion of the technical assistance; and
       ``(ii) the actual cost of the technical assistance.
       ``(g) Partnerships and Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary may designate special 
     projects, as recommended by the State Conservationist, with 
     advice from the State technical committee, to enhance 
     technical and financial assistance provided to several 
     producers within a specific area to address environmental 
     issues affected by agricultural production with respect to--
       ``(A) meeting the purposes and requirements of--
       ``(i) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.) or comparable State laws in impaired or 
     threatened watersheds;
       ``(ii) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) 
     or comparable State laws in watersheds providing water for 
     drinking water supplies; or
       ``(iii) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or 
     comparable State laws; or
       ``(B) watersheds of special significance or other 
     geographic areas of environmental sensitivity; or
       ``(C) enhancing the technical capacity of producers to 
     facilitate community-based planning, implementation of 
     special projects, and conservation education involving 
     multiple producers within an area.
       ``(2) Incentives.--To realize the objectives of the special 
     projects under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide 
     incentives to producers participating in the special projects 
     to encourage partnerships and sharing of technical and 
     financial resources among producers and among producers and 
     governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
       ``(3) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make available 5 
     percent of funds provided for each fiscal year under this 
     chapter to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Special projects.--The purposes of the special 
     projects under this subsection shall be to encourage--
       ``(i) producers to cooperate in the installation and 
     maintenance of conservation systems that affect multiple 
     agricultural operations;
       ``(ii) sharing of information and technical and financial 
     resources; and
       ``(iii) cumulative environmental benefits across operations 
     of producers.
       ``(4) Flexibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may enter into agreements 
     with States, local governmental and nongovernmental 
     organizations, and persons to allow greater flexibility to 
     adjust the application of eligibility criteria, approved 
     practices, innovative conservation practices, and other 
     elements of the programs described in subparagraph (B) to 
     better reflect unique local circumstances and goals in a 
     manner that is consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
       ``(B) Applicable programs.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply 
     to--
       ``(i) the environmental quality incentives program 
     established by this chapter;
       ``(ii) the program to establish conservation buffers 
     announced on March 24, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 14109) or a 
     successor program;
       ``(iii) the conservation reserve enhancement program 
     announced on May 27, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 28965) or a successor 
     program; and
       ``(iv) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1.
       ``(5) Unused funding.--Any funds made available for a 
     fiscal year under this subsection that are not obligated by 
     June 1 of the fiscal year may be used to carry out other 
     activities under this chapter during the fiscal year in which 
     the funding becomes available.
       ``(h) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
       ``(1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary 
     may modify or terminate a contract entered into with a 
     producer under this chapter if--
       ``(A) the producer agrees to the modification or 
     termination; and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the modification or 
     termination is in the public interest.
       ``(2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate 
     a contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines 
     that the producer violated the contract.

     ``SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

       ``In evaluating applications for technical assistance, 
     cost-share payments, and incentive payments, the Secretary 
     shall accord a higher priority to assistance and payments 
     that--
       ``(1) maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended; 
     and
       ``(2)(A) address national conservation priorities 
     involving--
       ``(i) comprehensive nutrient management;
       ``(ii) water quality, particularly in impaired watersheds;
       ``(iii) soil erosion; or
       ``(iv) air quality;
       ``(B) are provided in conservation priority areas 
     established under section 1230(c); or
       ``(C) are provided in special projects under section 
     1240B(g) with respect to which State or local governments 
     have provided, or will provide, financial or technical 
     assistance to producers for the same conservation or 
     environmental purposes.

     ``SEC. 1240D. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.

       ``To receive technical assistance, cost-share payments, or 
     incentive payments under this chapter, a producer shall 
     agree--
       ``(1) to implement an environmental quality incentives 
     program plan that describes conservation and environmental 
     goals to be achieved through 1 or more practices that are 
     approved by the Secretary;
       ``(2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch 
     that would tend to defeat the purposes of this chapter;
       ``(3) on the violation of a term or condition of the 
     contract at any time the producer has control of the land, to 
     refund any cost-share or incentive payment received with 
     interest, and forfeit any future payments under this chapter, 
     as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the 
     producer in land subject to the contract, unless the 
     transferee of the right and interest agrees with the 
     Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to 
     refund all cost-share payments and incentive payments 
     received under this chapter, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to 
     determine compliance with the environmental quality 
     incentives program plan and requirements of the program; and
       ``(6) to comply with such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the 
     environmental quality incentives program plan.

     ``SEC. 1240E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, or incentive payments under 
     the environmental quality incentives program, an owner or 
     producer of a livestock or agricultural operation must submit 
     to the Secretary for approval a plan of operations that 
     incorporates practices covered under this chapter, and is 
     based on such principles, as the Secretary considers 
     necessary to carry out the program, including a description 
     of the practices to be implemented and the objectives to be 
     met by the implementation of the plan.
       ``(b) Avoidance of Duplication.--The Secretary shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of 
     planning activities under the environmental quality 
     incentives program and comparable conservation programs.

     ``SEC. 1240F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist a 
     producer in achieving the conservation and environmental 
     goals of an environmental quality incentives program plan 
     by--
       ``(1) providing technical assistance in developing and 
     implementing the plan;
       ``(2) providing technical assistance, cost-share payments, 
     or incentive payments for developing and implementing 1 or 
     more practices, as appropriate;
       ``(3) providing the producer with information, education, 
     and training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
       ``(4) encouraging the producer to obtain technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, or

[[Page S8747]]

     grants from other Federal, State, local, or private sources.

     ``SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the total 
     amount of cost-share and incentive payments paid to a 
     producer under this chapter may not exceed--
       ``(1) $50,000 for any fiscal year; or
       ``(2) $150,000 for any multiyear contract.
       ``(b) Adjustments.--The Secretary may modify the payment 
     limitations for producers under subsection (a), on a case-by-
     case basis, if the Secretary determines that a different 
     limitation--
       ``(1) is warranted in light of 1 or more practices for 
     which the payment is made; and
       ``(2) maximizes environmental benefits per dollar expended 
     and is consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

     ``SEC. 1240H. CONSERVATION INNOVATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds made available to carry out 
     this chapter, the Secretary shall use $100,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year to pay the Federal share of competitive grants 
     that are intended to stimulate innovative approaches to 
     leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement 
     and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production, 
     through the environmental quality incentives program.
       ``(b) Use.--The Secretary shall award grants under this 
     section to governmental and nongovernmental organizations and 
     persons, on a competitive basis, to carry out projects that--
       ``(1) involve producers that are eligible for payments or 
     technical assistance under this chapter;
       ``(2) implement innovative projects, such as--
       ``(A) market-based pollution credit trading; and
       ``(B) provision of funds to promote adoption of best 
     management practices; and
       ``(3) leverage funds made available to carry out this 
     chapter with matching funds provided by State and local 
     governments and private organizations to promote 
     environmental enhancement and protection in conjunction with 
     agricultural production.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of a grant made to 
     carry out a project under this section shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the cost of the project.
       ``(d) Unused Funding.--Any funds made available for a 
     fiscal year under this section that are not obligated by June 
     1 of the fiscal year may be used to carry out other 
     activities under this chapter during the fiscal year in which 
     the funding becomes available.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 1241(b) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$130,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2002,'' and inserting ``$650,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     and $1,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2011,''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Obligation of funds.--If a contract under the 
     environmental quality incentives program is terminated prior 
     to the date set out for the expiration for the contract and 
     funds obligated for the contract are remaining, the remaining 
     funds may be used to carry out any other contract under the 
     program during the same fiscal year in which the original 
     contract was terminated.''.
       (c) Cooperation With Other Government Agencies.--Section 11 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714i) is amended in the last sentence by inserting ``but 
     excluding transfers and allotments for conservation technical 
     assistance'' after ``activities''.

     SEC. 102. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended--
       (A) in subsections (a), (b)(3), and (d), by striking 
     ``2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``2011''; and
       (B) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``the 2001 and 2002'' 
     and inserting ``each of the 2001 through 2011''.
       (2) Duties of owners and operators.--Section 1232(c) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (b) Conservation Buffers and Conservation Reserve 
     Enhancement Program.--Section 1231(d) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, of which not less than 4,000,000 acres shall 
     be enrolled--
       ``(1) to establish conservation buffers as part of the 
     program announced on March 24, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 14109) or a 
     successor program; and
       ``(2) through the conservation reserve enhancement program 
     announced on May 27, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 28965) or a successor 
     program.''.
       (c) Hardwood Trees.--Section 1231(e)(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(e)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In the'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--In the'';
       (2) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Existing hardwood tree contracts.--The Secretary''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Extension of hardwood tree contracts.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of land devoted to hardwood 
     trees under a contract entered into under this subchapter 
     before the date of enactment of this subparagraph, on the 
     request of the owner or operator of the land, the Secretary 
     shall extend the contract for a term of 15 years.
       ``(ii) Rental payments.--The amount of a rental payment for 
     a contract extended under clause (i) shall be 50 percent of 
     the rental payment that was applicable to the contract before 
     the contract was extended.''.
       (d) Haying and Grazing on Buffer Strips.--Section 
     1232(a)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3832(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``except that the Secretary--'' and 
     inserting ``except that--'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``(A) may'' and inserting ``(A) the 
     Secretary may''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``(B) shall'' and inserting ``(B) the 
     Secretary shall''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (4) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) for maintenance purposes, the Secretary shall permit 
     harvesting or grazing or other commercial uses of forage, in 
     a manner that is consistent with the purposes of this 
     subchapter and a conservation plan approved by the Secretary, 
     on acres enrolled--
       ``(i) to establish conservation buffers as part of the 
     program announced on March 24, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 14109) or a 
     successor program; and
       ``(ii) into the conservation reserve enhancement program 
     announced on May 27, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 28965) or a successor 
     program.''.
       (e) Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003 
     through 2011''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, including technical 
     assistance'' before the semicolon at the end.

     SEC. 103. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1237(b)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``975,000 acres'' and inserting ``3,475,000 acres''.
       (b) Extension of Program.--Section 1237(c) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (c) Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program.--Section 1237 of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with State or local governments, and with private 
     organizations, to develop, on land that is enrolled, or is 
     eligible to be enrolled, in the wetland reserve established 
     under this subchapter, wetland restoration activities in 
     watershed areas.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the agreements shall be to 
     address critical environmental issues, including hypoxia, 
     eutrophication, wildlife habitat, flooding, and groundwater 
     recharge.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The total number of acres that may be 
     covered by agreements entered into under this subsection 
     shall not exceed 50,000 acres for each calendar year.''.
       (d) Monitoring and Maintenance.--Section 1237C(a)(2) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837c(a)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``assistance 
     (including monitoring and maintenance)''.
       (e) Technical Assistance.--Section 1241(a)(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including technical assistance'' before the 
     semicolon at the end.

     SEC. 104. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 104-127) 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 388. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definition of Agricultural Land.--In this section, 
     the term `agricultural land' means land on a farm or ranch 
     that is--
       ``(1) cropland;
       ``(2) rangeland or grassland;
       ``(3) pastureland; or
       ``(4) private forest land.
       ``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish and carry out a farmland protection program under 
     which the Secretary shall purchase conservation easements or 
     other interests in agricultural land with prime, unique, or 
     other productive soil that is subject to a pending offer for 
     the purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting nonagricultural 
     uses of the land from--
       ``(1) any agency of any State or local government, or 
     federally recognized Indian tribe, including farmland 
     protection boards and land resource councils established 
     under State law; and
       ``(2) any organization that--
       ``(A) is organized for, and at all times since the 
     formation of the organization has been operated principally 
     for, 1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

[[Page S8748]]

       ``(B) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of 
     that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) 
     of that Code;
       ``(C) is described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code; or
       ``(D) is described in section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is 
     controlled by an organization described in section 509(a)(2) 
     of that Code.
       ``(c) Conservation Plan.--Any agricultural land for which a 
     conservation easement or other interest is purchased under 
     this section shall be subject to the requirements of a 
     conservation plan that ensures that continued agricultural 
     use of the agricultural land--
       ``(1) will not degrade the environment; and
       ``(2) in the case of cropland, will require the conversion 
     of the agricultural land to less intensive uses, at the 
     option of the Secretary.
       ``(d) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall make available $65,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011 for providing 
     technical assistance and purchasing conservation easements 
     under this section.''.

     SEC. 105. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       Section 387(c) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3836a(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``a total of $50,000,000 shall be made available for 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``the 
     Secretary shall make available $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     year 2003 through 2011''.

             TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS AND EXTENSIONS

     SEC. 201. PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO NATURAL 
                   RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 1244 and 1245 (16 U.S.C. 
     3844, 3845) as sections 1245 and 1246, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1243 (16 U.S.C. 3843) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1244. PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO 
                   NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Information Received for Technical and Financial 
     Assistance.--Except as provided in subsection (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, information 
     provided to, or developed by, the Secretary (including a 
     contractor of the Secretary) for the purpose of providing 
     technical or financial assistance to an owner or operator 
     with respect to any natural resources conservation program 
     administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or 
     the Farm Service Agency--
       ``(1) shall not be considered to be public information; and
       ``(2) shall not be released to any person or Federal, 
     State, local, or tribal agency outside the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``(b) Inventory, Monitoring, and Site Specific 
     Information.--Except as provided in subsection (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to 
     maintain the personal privacy, confidentiality, and 
     cooperation of owners and operators, and to maintain the 
     integrity of sample sites, the specific geographic locations 
     of the National Resources Inventory of the Department of 
     Agriculture data gathering sites and the information 
     generated by those sites--
       ``(1) shall not be considered to be public information; and
       ``(2) shall not be released to any person or Federal, 
     State, local, or tribal agency outside the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``(c) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Release and disclosure for enforcement.--The 
     Secretary may release or disclose to the Attorney General 
     information covered by subsection (a) or (b) to the extent 
     necessary to enforce the natural resources conservation 
     programs referred to in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Disclosure to cooperating persons and agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may release or disclose 
     information covered by subsection (a) or (b) to a person or 
     Federal, State, local, or tribal agency working in 
     cooperation with the Secretary in providing technical and 
     financial assistance described in subsection (a) or 
     collecting information from National Resources Inventory data 
     gathering sites.
       ``(B) Use of information.--The person or Federal, State, 
     local, or tribal agency that receives information described 
     in subparagraph (A) may release the information only for the 
     purpose of assisting the Secretary--
       ``(i) in providing the requested technical or financial 
     assistance; or
       ``(ii) in collecting information from National Resources 
     Inventory data gathering sites.
       ``(3) Statistical and aggregate information.--Information 
     covered by subsection (b) may be disclosed to the public if 
     the information has been transformed into a statistical or 
     aggregate form that does not allow the identification of any 
     individual owner, operator, or specific data gathering site.
       ``(4) Consent of owner or operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--An owner or operator may consent to the 
     disclosure of information described in subsection (a) or (b).
       ``(B) Condition of other programs.--The participation of 
     the owner or operator in, and the receipt of any benefit by 
     the owner or operator under, this title or any other program 
     administered by the Secretary may not be conditioned on the 
     owner or operator providing consent under this paragraph.
       ``(d) Violations; Penalties.--Section 1770(c) shall apply 
     with respect to the release of information collected in any 
     manner or for any purpose prohibited by this section.''.

     SEC. 202. REFORM AND CONSOLIDATION OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop 
     a plan for--
       (1) consolidating conservation programs administered by the 
     Secretary that are targeted at agricultural land; and
       (2) to the maximum extent practicable--
       (A) designing forms that are applicable to all such 
     conservation programs;
       (B) reducing and consolidating paperwork requirements for 
     such programs;
       (C) developing universal classification systems for all 
     information obtained on the forms that can be used by other 
     agencies of the Department of Agriculture;
       (D) ensuring that the information and classification 
     systems developed under this paragraph can be shared with 
     other agencies of the Department through computer 
     technologies used by agencies; and
       (E) developing 1 format for a conservation plan that can be 
     applied to all conservation programs targeted at agricultural 
     land.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report that describes the plan developed under 
     subsection (a), including any recommendations for 
     implementation of the plan.
       (c) National Conservation Plan.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a plan and estimated budget for 
     implementing the appraisal of the soil, water, and related 
     resources of the Nation contained in the National 
     Conservation Program under section 5 of the Soil and Water 
     Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2004) as the 
     primary vehicle for managing conservation on agricultural 
     land in the United States.

     SEC. 203. CERTIFICATION OF PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF TECHNICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act is amended 
     by inserting after section 15 (16 U.S.C. 590o) the following:

     ``SEC. 16. CERTIFICATION OF PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF TECHNICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish procedures for certifying private persons to 
     provide technical assistance to agricultural producers and 
     landowners participating in conservation programs 
     administered by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish standards 
     for the conduct of--
       ``(1) the certification process conducted by the Secretary; 
     and
       ``(2) periodic recertification by the Secretary of private 
     providers.
       ``(c) Certification Required.--A private provider may not 
     provide technical assistance under any conservation program 
     administered by the Secretary without certification approved 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Fee.--In exchange for certification, a private 
     provider shall pay a fee to the Secretary in an amount 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Provider.--Except as provided in section 1240B(f)(6) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 3839aa-(f)(6)), 
     the Secretary shall determine under what individual cases and 
     conservation programs technical assistance may be delivered 
     by private providers or by the Secretary.
       ``(f) Other Requirements.--The Secretary may establish 
     other requirements as the Secretary determines are necessary 
     to carry out this section.''.

     SEC. 204. EXTENSION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES.

       (a) ECARP Authority.--Section 1230(a)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (b) Conservation Farm Option.--Section 1240M(h)(6) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb(h)(6)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and inserting ``each of 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011''.
       (c) Flood Risk Reduction.--Section 385(a) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7334(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.
       (d) Resource Conservation and Development Program.--Section 
     1538 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3461) 
     is amended in the first sentence by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2011''.
       (e) Forestry.--
       (1) Office of international forestry.--Section 2405(d) of 
     the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 6704(d)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.
       (2) Forestry incentives program.--Section 4(j) of the 
     Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2103(j)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.

     SEC. 205. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Delineation of Wetlands; Exemptions to Program 
     Ineligibility.--
       (1) References to producer.--Section 322(e) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law

[[Page S8749]]

     104-127; 110 Stat. 991) is amended by inserting ``each place 
     it appears'' before ``and inserting''.
       (2) Good faith exemption.--Section 1222(h)(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(h)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``to actively'' and inserting ``to be actively''.
       (3) Determinations.--Section 1222(j) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)) is amended by striking 
     ``National'' and inserting ``Natural''.
       (b) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.--Section 387 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 3836a) is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``incentives'' and inserting ``incentive''.

     SEC. 206. EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     in this Act and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not affect 
     the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a 
     conservation program for any of the 1996 through 2002 fiscal 
     or calendar years under a provision of law in effect 
     immediately before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Liability.--A provision of this Act or an amendment 
     made by this Act shall not affect the liability of any person 
     under any provision of law as in effect immediately before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 1327. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code to provide 
emergency Secretarial authority to resolve airline labor disputes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Airline Labor Dispute 
Resolution Act. This bill would give the Secretary of Transportation 
the authority to send airline labor disputes to binding arbitration in 
order to prevent labor actions that might cripple the national air 
transportation system. The intent of this bill is to fix a collective 
bargaining process that is not serving the unions, the airlines, or the 
traveling public. Senators Lott and Burns are joining me as original 
co-sponsors of this legislation.
  The Commerce Committee held a hearing in April on the status of labor 
issues in the airline industry. The hearing made it clear to most 
everyone that the current process for resolving airline labor disputes 
is not working. While labor negotiations in the airline industry have 
been ongoing for years, things have begun to worsen. The trend towards 
larger airlines has given unions greater leverage, which appears to 
have contributed to a mind set that views any work stoppage as 
legitimate. Normally, even acrimonious labor negotiations are a part of 
the negotiating process with both sides using what leverage is 
available to them to reach the best deal. However, times have changed, 
and these acrimonious negotiations now adversely affect the American 
people.
  As I have said before, I have no problems with the labor 
organizations exercising their legal rights. At the moment, strikes are 
a permitted action under applicable labor statutes, provided that 
specific steps have been taken to resolve the dispute. Increasingly, 
however, courts have found that airline labor unions have illegally 
resorted to self-help measures. In the past, United, American, 
Northwest and Delta have obtained court ordered relief from these 
alleged illegal job actions. In American's case, the court fined 
American's pilots over $45 million for not adhering to an injunction.
  These actions have affected millions of consumers. Middle America has 
too often been stranded as a result of this illegal union activity. 
According to published reports, United canceled over 23,000 flights 
last year as a result of its pilots' refusal to fly overtime, 
destroying carefully planned vacations and business trips. Northwest 
and Delta cancelled thousands of flights preemptively over the holiday 
seasons to combat alleged slowdowns by mechanics and failures to fly 
overtime by pilots, respectively. The pilots' sickout at American in 
1999 left thousands of people stranded, some of whom have banded 
together to sue the pilots for damages.
  The unions are not the only ones to blame for the current situation--
airline management must also shoulder some of the responsibility. 
Airlines have skillfully used the existing process to draw out 
negotiations and leave employees bound for years to the terms of old 
agreements. As one witness at our hearing testified, airlines use the 
current procedures to prolong negotiations and avoid accountability at 
the bargaining table. Employees can become quite frustrated and have 
reportedly lost faith in the existing system. That is no excuse for 
illegal job actions, but it is another indication that the current 
process is broken. These matters should be resolved more quickly and 
with more certainty.
  Those who seek to maintain the status quo will undoubtedly say that 
the current collective bargaining process is not perfect but works well 
enough. They will point out that several significant agreements were 
reached in the industry this year without any disruption to commercial 
air transportation. It is true that several unions and major airlines 
were able to avoid strikes this year. But that does not mean the 
process cannot or should not be improved. Air transportation has become 
an integral part of our economy and society, and each year our 
dependence upon it grows. If we do not act now to address the flaws in 
the system, we will pay a very high price in the future when the very 
threat of a disruption in air service may be devastating.
  Because airlines are so important to the well being of the country, 
the traveling public can be held hostage by both sides in these 
disputes. With few large air carriers, a job action at a major airline 
can have a catastrophic effect on the aviation system and the consumer. 
The rest of the airlines would have a difficult time absorbing the 
excess passengers in the event of a strike, and the system could come 
to a standstill. While management and labor are affected by this, both 
parties have contingencies planned in the event of work stoppages. The 
consumer is the one most affected by a job action.
  The dispute resolution process in this bill is modeled on the process 
used by Major League Baseball to resolve contract disputes between 
individual players and teams. If binding arbitration is ordered by the 
Secretary, each side must make its last, best offer. A panel of five 
arbitrators would be chosen: three neutral persons and one each 
selected by the two sides. That panel would then choose one proposal or 
the other--it could not, for example, split the difference between the 
two proposals. This would naturally force each side to be as reasonable 
as possible, otherwise it would risk having to live by terms proposed 
by the other side. This system has worked well for baseball and can be 
adapted for the airline industry.
  This bill would give much greater certainty to the public, the 
unions, and the airlines that contract disputes will get resolved 
without disruption to the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this effort to improve the system for resolving labor-
management disputes in the airline industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1328. A bill entitled the ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act''; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, today I rise to introduce perhaps the 
most significant conservation effort ever considered by the Congress.
  The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, is bipartisan landmark 
legislation that makes a multi-year commitment to conservation programs 
benefitting all 50 States. It reinvests revenues earned from the 
depletion of a nonrenewable asset, oil and gas reserves on the Outer 
Continent Shelf, for the protection and enhancement of our natural and 
cultural heritage, threatened coastal areas and wildlife. It also 
reinvests in our local communities and our children through enhanced 
outdoor recreational opportunities. By enacting CARA, we can ensure 
that this century begins with the most significant commitment of 
resources to conservation ever.
  During the 106th Congress the House of Representatives passed almost 
identical legislation by an overwhelming vote of 315 to 102 and the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a version 
with the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member. In addition, a 
bipartisan group of 63 Senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Lott 
and Minority Leader Daschle on September 19, 2000 requesting that CARA 
be brought to the floor of the Senate for consideration before the 
adjournment of the 106th Congress. Just last week the

[[Page S8750]]

House Committee on Resources reported the bill by a vote of 29 to 12 
and it currently has two-hundred and thirty nine co-sponsors. CARA is 
supported by Governors, Mayors and a coalition of over 5,000 
organizations from throughout the country.
  This legislation provides $3.125 billion for eight distinct 
reinvestment programs including: Impact Assistance and Coastal 
Conservation for all coastal states and eligible local governments and 
to mitigate the various impacts of producing states that serve as the 
``platform'' for the crucial development of federal offshore energy 
resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, restoring Congressional 
intent with respect to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, by 
providing stable and annual funding for the state and federal side of 
the LWCF at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the 
rights of private property rights owners; establishing a Wildlife 
Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the 
successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development 
of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife 
conservation and education; providing funding for the Urban Parks and 
Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local 
governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and 
facilities enabling cities and towns to focus on the needs of its 
populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer 
greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth; providing 
funding for the Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the 
Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining 
the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous 
historic preservation programs and fully funding the Payment In-Lieu of 
Taxes (PILT) program.
  The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource 
for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the 
conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to 
do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally 
irresponsible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1329. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax incentive for land sales for conservation purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, together with Senators Bingaman, 
Hatch, Grassley, Daschle, Durbin, Bond, and Chafee, I am today 
introducing the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 2001. As an 
incentive for voluntary conservation of environmentally significant 
land, this bill allows landowners to exclude from income fifty percent 
of the gain they realize on sales, for conservation purposes, of land 
or easements in land. This proposal, included in President Bush's 
Budget Blueprint, was a central element in his environmental platform 
during the campaign. It is a sensible, modest tax proposal to help the 
environment and is supported by a wide range of groups, including the 
American Farm Bureau, the Association of State Foresters, Defenders of 
Wildlife, and the Nature Conservancy.
  Landowners have a stake in the quality of life of their communities' 
environment. They also have a right to reap the economic benefits of 
their investments in land. Landowners able to make charitable 
contributions of land for conservation purposes can realize tax 
benefits that make it possible to achieve both their financial and 
conservation goals. For many taxpayers, however, in Vermont and 
elsewhere throughout the country, holdings in land represent a major 
financial asset they cannot afford to donate. Others may not have 
sufficient income to be able to take full advantage of the tax benefit 
of a charitable donation. For these landowners, a sale of the land for 
development may be the only viable way to realize the full economic 
return on their investment in land. We need new federal tax incentives 
to help these ``land-rich, cash-poor'' landowners protect their 
investments and at the same time achieve permanent conservation 
interests. This bill provides a market-based, voluntary land 
conservation incentive to help those who own and want to conserve 
environmentally sensitive land but cannot afford to give it away.
  The need for this bill has never been more pressing. We are consuming 
land at an alarming pace. The pace of land development exceeds by far 
both the rate of population growth and the rate of open space 
conservation. In the United States, two acres of farmland per minute, 
about a million acres per year, are lost to development. Almost one-
third of the species in the United States are extinct or under threat 
of extinction. Loss of open space not only threatens biodiversity, but 
also quality of life. It increases traffic congestion, and air and 
water pollution; it decreases opportunities for recreation; and it 
threatens productive agricultural land. Healthy communities are made up 
to complex systems of forests, productive soils, rivers, and other 
interdependent resources. Deforestation, the paving over of 
agricultural land, the filling-in of wetlands, and urban sprawl are 
consuming the landscape and straining the balance of wild and human 
habitat. The sustainability of a healthy quality of life is 
increasingly in jeopardy.
  My bill's approach to these problems creates no new regulatory 
authority; it requires no appropriations; and it has no new attempts to 
define conservation. It creates a simple, voluntary incentive for 
private, market-rate sales of land, or interests in land, to government 
agencies or qualified non-profit organizations. 
Incorporating definitions and concepts that already exist in the tax 
code, this bill provides substantial conservation benefits at a minimal 
cost--about $66 million per year, as estimated by the Joint Committee 
on Taxation. Projections show that every year the bill could protect 
land valued at up to $150 million.

  In drafting the bill, we were careful to ensure that land acquired 
with this new tax incentive would truly serve conservation purposes. 
The only qualified purchasers are publicly supported conservation 
charitable organizations and governmental natural resource and 
environmental agencies; these entities have long and respected records 
of serving the public interest in acquiring and managing land for 
conservation purposes. The bill builds on that record of trust and 
responsible stewardship without imposing new and cumbersome 
requirements to ensure that the public interest is served.
  In addition, the bill requires a statement by the conservation 
purchasers memorializing their intent to serve the specified 
conservation purposes. This language was crafted to protect the 
public's conservation investment and does not create a tax-driven land 
use restriction. In essence, we want to make sure that the intention to 
conserve land does not rob the land of the commercial value for which 
the landowner must be compensated. The required statement of the 
purchaser's intent should not be construed to impose restrictions on 
the property or covenants running with the land, which might result in 
an appraisal that could deny sellers the full value of their land. 
Property should be appraised at its unencumbered, full fair market 
value. Furthermore, the value of property in the hands of the 
purchasing conservation entity should be its full fair market value, 
regardless of the purchaser's intent of conservation and regardless of 
the required statement of intent. This principle is important, because 
it means that a land trust could serve as the original conservation 
purchaser and subsequently transfer the property to another cooperating 
conservation purchaser, such as a governmental agency, receiving the 
full fair market value on the subsequent transfer.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support. In the 106th Congress, a 
majority of the Members of the Senate Finance Committee supported it as 
an element of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. It is a 
modest, bipartisan, innovative proposal that should be a part of this 
year's environment and tax agenda, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in support.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senators Jeffords and Hatch, as an original co-sponsor of the 
Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 2001. The great conservationist Aldo 
Leopold once stated. ``That land is a community is the basic

[[Page S8751]]

concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an 
extension of ethics'' This legislation is in keeping with the 
conservation ethic so eloquently articulated by Mr. Leopold decades 
ago.
  The bill that we are introducing today will greatly expand the 
benefits of our existing conservation land easement laws which will 
have an enormous impact on the preservation of our nation's forests, 
prairies, deserts and open space. This legislation will save millions 
of acres of our nation's land for future generations by reducing by 50 
percent the tax on capital gains that would normally be owned on a sale 
provided the land or easements are sold to public or private 
conservation entities for conservation purposes. These types of sales 
of conservation and preservation organizations will enhance 
opportunities for recreation, maintain open space, help to retain lands 
in agricultural production, and preserve important habitat.
  Whether it is riparian habitat in New Mexico, mixed grass prairie in 
the Midwest, open space in California and the foothills of the Rocky 
Mountains, or woodlands of the Southeast, this legislation would 
provide enhanced conservation through the voluntary actions of 
citizens. It would help to address the dramatic loss of farmland 
acreage to development. It would ensure that important habitat for 
wildlife is conserved. It would eliminate tax disincentive that keeps 
landowners who wish to see their land preserved from reaching their 
goal.
  This bill will have positive impacts in New Mexico. The legislation 
will help landowners who wish to ensure that their lands remain in 
ranching in future decades or who want to preserve other open lands for 
future generations. The bill would provide a boost to the efforts of 
state and local government to stretch limited conservation dollars. And 
it will enhance the ability of local land conservation organizations to 
craft voluntary agreements with landowners to conserve lands.
  I believe enactment of this legislation would have significant 
consequences for our nation's landscape for generations to come. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to secure its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1330. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that amounts paid for foods for special dietary use, dietary 
supplements, or medical foods shall be treated as medical expenses; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation, the 
Dietary Supplement Tax Fairness Act, on behalf of myself and my 
distinguished colleague Senator Hatch. This legislation will make the 
cost of dietary supplements, medical foods, and foods for special 
dietary when offered as a health insurance plan tax deductible for 
employers and excluded from taxable income for employees. 
Unfortunately, today the tax code provides this sensible tax treatment 
for these products only if they are prescribed drugs.
  Our current policy is unfair and is failing to take full advantage of 
the potential to improve health and hold down health care costs through 
preventive health care practices available to consumers. Many Americans 
are using these healthcare products to improve their health and to stay 
healthy and would like to be able to have access to these products in 
the form of an insurance benefit. Insurance companies and employers 
responding to this consumer demand have been frustrated by being unable 
to offer a benefit like this in a manner consistent with other health 
care practices which receive favorable consideration in the Internal 
Revenue Code. The White House Commission on Complementary and 
Alternative Health Care Policy has consistently heard in testimony of 
the need for greater insurance coverage of products like the ones in my 
legislation. Bringing the code up to date to recognize and allow for 
this important need for wellness and health promotion is an important 
step forward to overall sound healthcare policy.
  I want to emphasize the importance our legislation places on quality. 
Consumers need and deserve to know that the products they are buying 
are of a high quality and consistency. With that in mind, the Dietary 
Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 called on the Food and Drug 
Administration, FDA, to develop and implement Good Manufacturing 
Practice Standards, GMPs, for dietary supplements. Senator Hatch and I 
have repeatedly pushed the FDA to produce and implement these important 
consumer protections. After seven years, draft GMPs were published in 
the Federal Register but have not been finalized. I am hopeful that 
these final standards will be put in place without further delay. The 
legislation we are introducing requires that dietary supplement and 
other products meet good manufacturing practice standards in order to 
receive the improved tax treatment. This will offer a strong incentive 
to maintain and improve quality.
  I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and I hope they will 
join us in support and join us in our effort to win its passage. 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. 1330

       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 shall be known as the ``Dietary Supplement Tax 
     Fairness Act of 2001.''

     SECTION 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the inclusion of foods for special dietary use, dietary 
     supplements, and medical foods in the deduction for medical 
     expenses does not subject such items to regulation as drugs,
       (2) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 treats such items as 
     allowable for the medical expense deduction, but only if such 
     items are prescribed drugs,
       (3) such items have been shown through research and 
     historical use to be a valuable benefit to human health, in 
     particular disease prevention and overall good health, and
       (4) children with inborn errors of metabolism, metabolic 
     disorders, and autism, and all individuals with diabetes, 
     autoimmune disorders, and chronic inflammatory conditions, 
     frequently require daily dietary interventions as well as 
     medical interventions to manage their conditions and such 
     dietary interventions often become a significant economic 
     burden on such individuals.

     SEC. 3. AMOUNTS PAID FOR FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USE, 
                   DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, OR MEDICAL FOODS TREATED 
                   AS MEDICAL EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 213(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical, dental, 
     etc., expenses) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) 
     and (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) for foods for special dietary use, dietary 
     supplements (as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act), and medical foods,''.
       (b) Special Rule for Insurance Covering Foods for Special 
     Dietary Use, Dietary Supplements, and Medical Foods.--
     Subsection (d) of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to medical, dental, etc., expenses) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Special rule for insurance covering foods for 
     special dietary use, dietary supplements, and medical 
     foods.--Amounts paid for insurance covering foods and 
     supplements referred to in paragraph (1)(C) shall be treated 
     as described in paragraph (1)(E) only if such foods and 
     supplements comply with applicable good manufacturing 
     practices prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration or 
     with other comparable standards.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (E) of section 213(d)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by subsection (a), is 
     amended by striking ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)''.
       (2) The last sentence of section 213(d)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (E)''.
       (3) Paragraph (6) of section 213(d) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C), and (D)'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (1)(D)'' in subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting ``paragraph (1)(E)''.
       (4) Paragraph (7) of section 213(d) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C), and (D)''.
       (5) Sections 72(t)(2)(D)(i)(III) and 7702B(a)(4) of such 
     Code are each amended by striking ``section 213(d)(1)(D)'' 
     and inserting ``section 213(d)(1)(E)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 1332. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
certain

[[Page S8752]]

severance payment amounts from income; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a bill that is 
intended to provide tax relief for people who have lost their jobs due 
to the current economic slowdown and the fact that many corporations 
are now forced to downsize their workforces. The number of layoffs this 
calendar year is approaching an all-time high. There were over 770,000 
job cuts during the first six (6) months of the year. U.S. employers 
cut 124,852 jobs during the month of June. The June figure increased 56 
percent from May, 80,140, and marked the sixth time in seven months 
that job cuts exceeded 100,000. Last month the number was actually 624 
percent, over June, 2000 when job cuts totaled just 17,241 which was a 
three (3) year record low.
  I am introducing a bill which will provide tax relief to these 
displaced workers. This legislation will exclude the first $5,000 of 
severance pay received by people who may be adjusting to an extended 
period of unemployment in an economy that is no longer bustling. This 
exclusion is available for any displaced worker whose overall severance 
payment does not exceed $125,000.
  Under present tax law, severance payments are included in gross 
income. However, severance pay is not intended to be included as part 
of a worker's wage. Rather, it is intended to be a supplement to assist 
them during unemployment. Displaced workers often lose nearly a third 
of their severance packages to taxes. The lump sums they receive in 
severance pay drives them up into a higher tax bracket that is not 
representative of their true income or standard of living.
  Corporations are already allowed to write-off the severance packages 
they provide to laid off employees, yet the workers are often adversely 
effected. For good reasons this body has devoted much time and 
attention this session to determining how to return to American tax 
payers that which is rightfully theirs. Clearly, these displaced 
workers deserve what is truly fair tax treatment at a time when they 
could truly benefit from it.
  The economic prosperity of the last decade benefitted most Americans. 
Unfortunately, many of the industries most adversely effected by the 
current economic cycle contributed greatly to our unprecedented growth. 
Therefore, it is inexcusable for our government to disregard the needs 
of these displaced workers. It is important that our government take 
steps to help these workers by removing the unfair tax burden that is 
placed upon them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1333. A bill to enhance the benefits of the national electric 
system by encouraging and supporting State programs for renewable 
energy sources, universal electric service, affordable electric 
service, and energy conservation and efficiency, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
establish renewable energy targets for electricity sales, an electric 
systems benefit fund, and net metering programs to ensure a clean, 
sustainable energy future. I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Lieberman, 
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kerry in introducing the ``Renewable 
Energy and Energy Efficiency Investment Act of 2001''.
  This bill will help bring renewable energy sources and energy 
efficiency technologies from the minds of the American entrepreneur to 
the fields of the American farmer, to the hills where strong winds 
blow, and to the roofs of our homes. Investing in and utilizing these 
technologies offers tremendous benefits for the health of our citizens, 
environment and economy. It is time for our Nation to transition from 
smokestacks, coal power and smog to a future with windmills, solar 
power and blue skies.
  Our Nation has vast, untapped resources than can power our homes and 
businesses using the heat of the earth, the brilliance of the sun and 
the strength of the wind. Unlike the limited fossil fuel resources, 
these sources of energy are forever replacing themselves. All we have 
to do is harness them.
  Today, renewables are beginning to take hold. Wind power, for 
example, is the fastest growing form of energy in the world. Worldwide 
almost 4,000 megawatts of new wind energy capacity were added in the 
year 2000. Other forms of renewable energy, such as solar, biomass and 
geothermal, offer the same potential and the same benefits. These 
technologies provide high-tech jobs for U.S. workers. They help reduce 
acid rain and other forms of air pollution, including greenhouse gas 
emissions. They are not subject to supply changes that lead to large 
fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels and they help us reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels.
  There is perhaps no better time to push these technologies forward. 
Our Nation is focused on energy issues make it was in the last decade. 
We are at crossroads where we can begin to see the end of the path 
toward a clean, sustainable energy future. Renewable energy is the most 
important landmark on that path. Let me describe how this bill will 
make this happen.
  First, our bill will put in place a Nation-wide wires charge to 
create an electric system benefit fund. This will help develop 
renewable energy sources, promote energy efficiency and assist low-
income residents meet their energy needs.
  Second, our legislation will make it cheaper and easier for consumers 
to install renewable energy sources in their homes, farms, and small 
business by simplifying the metering process.
  Third, our bill has a comprehensive disclosure provision, giving 
consumers honest and verifiable information regarding their energy 
choices.
  Finally, our bill will require the suppliers of electricity to 
include a minimum amount of renewable energy in the products that they 
sell. We start with 2.5 percent in the first year and work up to 20 
percent by the year 2020. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 
this program is achievable and will lead to tremendous reductions in 
air, water and other pollutants that turn our blue skies to grey. 
Energy Information Administration also found that this program would 
lead to an 18 percent decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide we 
release compared to the status quo and ease supply pressures on and 
prices of natural gas. All these benefits come at the same time that we 
establish our nation as a leader in developing and manufacturing the 
cutting edge technologies that will not only power our economy, but the 
economies of countries all over the world.
  Our nation's future depends on having clean, reliable, and 
sustainable sources of energy. With this bill we can ensure that future 
becomes a reality. At the same time, we can capture the global market 
for renewable energy and we can increase our energy security. Most 
importantly, we can know that our children and grandchildren will thank 
us for giving them a clean, sustainable energy supply.
  I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1333

       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 ``Renewable Energy and Energy 
     Efficiency Investment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the generation of electricity is unique in its combined 
     influence on the security, environmental quality, and 
     economic efficiency of the United States;
       (2) the generation and sale of electricity has a direct and 
     profound impact on interstate commerce;
       (3) the Federal Government and the States have a joint 
     responsibility for the maintenance of public purpose programs 
     affected by the national electric system;
       (4) notwithstanding the public's interest in and enthusiasm 
     for programs that enhance the environment, encourage the 
     efficient use of resources, and provide for affordable and 
     universal service, the investments in those public purposes 
     by existing means continues to decline;
       (5) the dependence of the United States on foreign sources 
     of fossil fuels is contrary to our national security;
       (6) alternative, sustainable energy sources must be 
     pursued;
       (7) consumers have a right to certain information in order 
     to make objective choices on their electric service 
     providers; and

[[Page S8753]]

       (8) net metering of small systems for self-generation of 
     electricity is in the public interest in order to encourage 
     private investment in renewable energy resources, stimulate 
     economic growth, and enhance the continued diversification of 
     the energy resources used in the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means--
       (A) organic material from a plant that is planted 
     exclusively for the purpose of being used to produce 
     electricity; and
       (B) nonhazardous, cellulosic or agricultural animal waste 
     material that is segregated from other waste materials and is 
     derived from--
       (i) a forest-related resource, including--

       (I) mill and harvesting residue;
       (II) precommercial thinnings;
       (III) slash; and
       (IV) brush;

       (ii) an agricultural resource, including--

       (I) orchard tree crops;
       (II) vineyards;
       (III) grain;
       (IV) legumes;
       (V) sugar; and
       (VI) other crop by-products or residues;

       (iii) miscellaneous waste such as--

       (I) waste pallet;
       (II) crate;
       (III) dunnage; and
       (IV) landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings, but not 
     including--

       (aa) municipal solid waste;
       (bb) recyclable postconsumer wastepaper;
       (cc) painted, treated, or pressurized wood;
       (dd) wood contaminated with plastic or metals; or
       (ee) tires; and
       (iv) animal waste that is converted to a fuel rather than 
     directly combusted, the residue of which is converted to 
     biological fertilizer, oil, or activated carbon.
       (3) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Electric 
     System Benefits Board established under section 4.
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (5) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the National Electric 
     System Benefits Fund established by section 5.
       (6) Landfill gas.--The term ``landfill gas'' means gas 
     generated from the decomposition of household solid waste, 
     commercial solid waste, and industrial solid waste disposed 
     of in a municipal solid waste landfill unit (as those terms 
     are defined in regulations promulgated under subtitle D of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.)).
       (7) Pollutant.--The term ``pollutant'' means--
       (A) carbon dioxide, mercury nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, 
     or any other substance that the Administrator identifies by 
     regulation as a substance that, when emitted into the air 
     from a combustion device used in the generation of 
     electricity, endangers public health or welfare (within the 
     meaning of section 302(h) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7602(h));
       (B) any substance discharged into water that is regulated 
     under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
     permit issued under section 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); and
       (C) any substance disposed of in a solid or hazardous waste 
     facility that is regulated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
       (8) Renewable energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means 
     electricity generated from--
       (A) a renewable energy source; or
       (B) hydrogen that is produced from a renewable energy 
     source.
       (9) Renewable energy source.--The term ``renewable energy 
     source'' means--
       (A) wind;
       (B) biomass;
       (C) landfill gas; or
       (D) a geothermal, solar thermal, or photovoltaic source.
       (10) Retail electric supplier.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``retail electric supplier'' 
     means a person or entity that sells retail electricity to 
     consumers.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``retail electric supplier'' 
     includes--
       (i) a regulated utility company (including affiliates or 
     associates of such a company);
       (ii) a company that is not affiliated or associated with a 
     regulated utility company;
       (iii) a municipal utility;
       (iv) a cooperative utility;
       (v) a local government; and
       (vi) a special district.
       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM BENEFITS BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     National Electric System Benefits Board to carry out the 
     functions and responsibilities described in this section.
       (b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of--
       (1) 1 representative of the Commission appointed by the 
     Commission;
       (2) 2 representatives of the Secretary appointed by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) 2 persons nominated by the national organization 
     representing State regulatory commissioners and appointed by 
     the Secretary;
       (4) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing State utility consumer advocates and appointed 
     by the Secretary;
       (5) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing State energy offices and appointed by the 
     Secretary;
       (6) 1 person nominated by the national organization 
     representing energy assistance directors and appointed by the 
     Secretary; and
       (7) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     appointed by the Administrator.
       (c) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall select a member of 
     the Board to serve as Chairperson of the Board.
       (d) Manager.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Board shall by contract appoint an 
     electric systems benefits manager for a term of not more than 
     3 years, which term may be renewed by the Board.
       (2) Compensation.--The compensation and other terms and 
     conditions of employment of the manager shall be determined 
     by a contract between the Board and the individual or the 
     other entity appointed as manager.
       (3) Functions.--The manager shall--
       (A) monitor the amounts in the Fund;
       (B) receive, review, and make recommendations to the Board 
     regarding applications from States under section 6(b); and
       (C) perform such other functions as the Board may require 
     to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall establish an account or 
     accounts at 1 or more financial institutions, which account 
     or accounts shall be known as the ``National Electric System 
     Benefits Fund'', consisting of amounts deposited in the fund 
     under subsection (c).
       (2) Status of fund.--The wires charges collected under 
     subsection (c) and deposited in the Fund--
       (A) shall constitute electric system revenues and shall not 
     constitute funds of the United States;
       (B) shall be held in trust by the manager of the Fund 
     solely for the purposes stated in subsection (b); and
       (C) shall not be available to meet any obligations of the 
     United States.
       (b) Use of Fund.--
       (1) Funding of system benefit programs.--Amounts in the 
     Fund shall be used by the Board to provide matching funds to 
     States for the support of State system benefit programs 
     relating to--
       (A) renewable energy sources;
       (B) assisting low-income households in meeting home energy 
     needs;
       (C) energy conservation and efficiency; or
       (D) research and development in areas described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C).
       (2) Distribution.--
       (A) In general.--Except for amounts needed to pay costs of 
     the Board in carrying out its duties under this section, the 
     Board shall instruct the manager of the Fund to distribute 
     all amounts in the Fund to States to fund system benefit 
     programs under paragraph (1).
       (B) Fund share.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Fund share of 
     a system benefit program funded under paragraph (1) shall be 
     50 percent.
       (ii) Proportionate reduction.--To the extent that the 
     amount of matching funds requested by States exceeds the 
     maximum projected revenues of the Fund, the matching funds 
     distributed to the States shall be reduced by an amount that 
     is proportionate to each State's annual consumption of 
     electricity compared to the aggregate annual consumption of 
     electricity in the United States.
       (iii) Additional state funding.--A State may apply funds to 
     system benefit programs in addition to the amount of funds 
     applied for the purpose of matching the Fund share.
       (3) Program criteria.--The Board shall recommend 
     eligibility criteria for system benefits programs funded 
     under this section for approval by the Secretary.
       (4) Application.--Not later than August 1 of each year, a 
     State seeking matching funds for the following year shall 
     file with the Board, in such form as the Board may require, 
     an application--
       (A) certifying that the funds will be used for an eligible 
     system benefit program;
       (B) stating the amount of State funds earmarked for the 
     program; and
       (C) summarizing the manner in which amounts from the Fund 
     were used in the State during the previous calendar year.
       (c) Wires Charge.--
       (1) Determination of needed funding.--Not later than 
     September 1 of each year, the Board shall determine and 
     inform the Commission of the aggregate amount of wires 
     charges that it will be required to be paid into the Fund to 
     pay matching funds to States and the operating costs of the 
     Board in the following year.
       (2) Imposition of wires charge.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than December 15 of each year, 
     the Commission shall impose a nonbypassable, competitively 
     neutral wires charge to be paid directly into the Fund by the 
     operator of the wire on the amount of electricity carried 
     through the wire in interstate commerce.
       (B) Measurement.--For the purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       (i) electricity generated in the United States shall be 
     measured as the electricity exits the busbar at a generation 
     facility; and

[[Page S8754]]

       (ii) electricity generated outside the United States shall 
     be measured at the point of delivery to the system of the 
     wire operator.
       (C) Amount of wires charge.--The wires charge shall be set 
     at a rate equal to the lesser of--
       (i) 2 mills per kilowatt-hour; or
       (ii) a rate that is estimated to result in the collection 
     of an amount of wires charges that is as nearly as possible 
     equal to the amount of needed funding determined under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Deposit in the fund.--The wires charge shall be paid by 
     the operator of the wire directly into the Fund at the end of 
     each month during the calendar year for distribution by the 
     electric systems benefits manager under section 5.
       (4) State wires charge.--
       (A) In general.--A State that imposes a wires charge may 
     pay into the Fund some or all of the wires charge imposed 
     under this subsection on behalf of wire operators serving 
     that State.
       (B) Payment.--Payments by the State into the Fund under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be applied towards the wires charge 
     imposed under this subsection.
       (5) Penalties.--The Commission may assess against a wire 
     operator that fails to pay a wires charge as required by this 
     subsection a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more 
     than the amount of the unpaid wires charge.
       (d) Auditing.--
       (1) In general.--The Fund shall be audited annually by a 
     firm of independent certified public accountants in 
     accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
       (2) Access to records.--Representatives of the Secretary 
     and the Commission shall have access to all books, accounts, 
     reports, files, and other records pertaining to the Fund as 
     necessary to facilitate and verify the audit.
       (3) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--A report on each audit shall be submitted 
     to the Secretary, the Commission, and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, who shall submit the report to the President and 
     Congress not later than 180 days after the close of the 
     fiscal year.
       (B) Requirements.--An audit report shall--
       (i) set forth the scope of the audit; and
       (ii) include--

       (I) a statement of assets and liabilities, capital, and 
     surplus or deficit;
       (II) a statement of surplus or deficit analysis;
       (III) a statement of income and expenses;
       (IV) any other information that may be considered necessary 
     to keep the President and Congress informed of the operations 
     and financial condition of the Fund; and
       (V) any recommendations with respect to the Fund that the 
     Secretary or the Commission may have.

     SEC. 6. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION STANDARDS.

       (a) Renewable Energy Credits.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than April 1 of each year, each 
     retail electric supplier shall submit to the Secretary 
     renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the required 
     annual percentage of the retail electric supplier's total 
     amount of kilowatt-hours of electricity sold to consumers 
     during the previous calendar year.
       (2) Rate.--The rates charged to each class of consumers by 
     a retail electric supplier shall reflect an equal percentage 
     of the cost of generating or acquiring the required annual 
     percentage of renewable energy under subsection (b).
       (3) Eligible resources.--A retail electric supplier shall 
     not represent to any customer or prospective customer that 
     any product contains more than the percentage of eligible 
     resources if the additional amount of eligible resources is 
     being used to satisfy the renewable generation requirement 
     under subsection (b).
       (4) State renewable energy program.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this section precludes any 
     State from requiring additional renewable energy generation 
     in the State under any renewable energy program conducted by 
     the State.
       (B) Limitation.--A State may limit the benefits of any 
     State renewable energy program to renewable energy generators 
     located within the boundaries of the State or other 
     boundaries (as determined by the State).
       (b) Required Renewable Energy.--Of the total amount of 
     electricity sold by each retail electric supplier during a 
     calendar year, the amount generated by renewable energy 
     sources shall be not less than the percentage specified in 
     the following table:

Calendar year:                                    Percentage reduction:
  2002.........................................................2.5 ....

  2003...........................................................3 ....

  2004...........................................................4 ....

  2005...........................................................5 ....

  2006...........................................................6 ....

  2007...........................................................7 ....

  2008...........................................................8 ....

  2009...........................................................9 ....

  2010..........................................................10 ....

  2011..........................................................11 ....

  2012..........................................................12 ....

  2013..........................................................13 ....

  2014..........................................................14 ....

  2015..........................................................15 ....

  2016..........................................................16 ....

  2017..........................................................17 ....

  2018..........................................................18 ....

  2019..........................................................19 ....

  2020 and thereafter..........................................20. ....

       (c) Submission of Renewable Energy Credits.--To meet the 
     requirements under subsection (a)(1), a retail electric 
     supplier may submit to the Secretary--
       (1) renewable energy credits issued under subsection (d) 
     for renewable energy generated by the retail electric 
     supplier during the calendar year for which renewable energy 
     credits are being submitted or any previous calendar year; or
       (2) renewable energy credits--
       (A) issued under subsection (d) to any renewable energy 
     generator for renewable energy generated during the calendar 
     year for which renewable energy credits are being submitted 
     or a previous calendar year; and
       (B) acquired by the retail electric supplier under 
     subsection (e).
       (d) Issuance of Renewable Energy Credits.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     program to issue, monitor the sale or exchange of, and track 
     renewable energy credits.
       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Under the program established under 
     paragraph (1), an entity that generates electric energy 
     through the use of a renewable energy resource may apply to 
     the Secretary for the issuance of renewable energy credits.
       (B) Requirements.--An application under subparagraph (A) 
     shall identify--
       (i) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce 
     the electric energy;
       (ii) the State in which the electric energy was produced; 
     and
       (iii) any other information that the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (3) Number of renewable energy resource credits.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue to an entity 1 
     renewable energy credit for each kilowatt-hour of electric 
     energy that the entity generates through the use of a 
     renewable energy resource in any State in calendar year 2001 
     and each year thereafter.
       (B) Partial credit.--If both a renewable energy resource 
     and a nonrenewable energy resource are used to generate the 
     electric energy, the Secretary shall issue renewable energy 
     credits based on the proportion of the renewable energy 
     resource used.
       (4) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a renewable energy 
     credit under this subsection, the unit of electricity 
     generated through the use of a renewable energy resource 
     shall be sold or used by the generator.
       (5) Identification of renewable energy credits.--The 
     Secretary shall identify renewable energy credits by--
       (A) the type of generation; and
       (B) the State in which the generating facility is located.
       (6) Fee.--
       (A) In general.--To receive a renewable energy credit, the 
     entity shall pay a fee, calculated by the Secretary, in an 
     amount that is equal to the lesser of--
       (i) the administrative costs of issuing, recording, 
     monitoring the sale of exchange of, and tracking the 
     renewable energy credit; or
       (ii) 5 percent of the national average market value (as 
     determined by the Secretary) of that quantity of renewable 
     energy credits.
       (B) Use.--The Secretary shall use the fee to pay the 
     administrative costs described in subparagraph (A)(i).
       (e) Sale or Exchange.--A renewable energy credit may be 
     sold or exchanged by the entity issued the renewable energy 
     credit or by any other entity that acquires the renewable 
     energy credit.
       (f) Verification.--The Secretary may collect the 
     information necessary to verify and audit--
       (1) the annual electric energy generation and renewable 
     energy generation of any entity applying for renewable energy 
     credits under this section;
       (2) the validity of renewable energy credits submitted by a 
     retail electric supplier to the Secretary; and
       (3) the amount of electricity sales of all retail electric 
     suppliers.
       (g) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may bring an action in 
     United States district court to impose a civil penalty on a 
     retail electric supplier that fails to comply with subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Amount of penalty.--A retail electric supplier that 
     fails to submit the required number of renewable energy 
     credits under subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil 
     penalty of not more than 3 times the estimated national 
     average market value (as determined by the Secretary) of that 
     quantity of renewable energy credits for the calendar year 
     concerned.

     SEC. 7. NET METERING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Customer-generator.--The term ``customer-generator'' 
     means a retail electric customer that generates electricity 
     measured by a net metering system.
       (2) Electric company.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``electric company'' means a 
     company that is engaged in the business of distributing 
     electricity to retail electric customers.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``electric company'' includes an 
     investor-owned utility, public utility district, irrigation 
     district, port district, electric cooperative, or municipal 
     electric utility.
       (3) Net metering.--The term ``net metering'' means the 
     measuring of the difference between--

[[Page S8755]]

       (A) the quantity of electricity supplied by an electric 
     company to a customer-generator during a billing period; and
       (B) the quantity of electricity generated by a customer-
     generator and fed back to the electric company by a net 
     metering system during the billing period.
       (4) Net metering system.--The term ``net metering system'' 
     means a facility for generation of electricity that--
       (A) is of not more than 100 kilowatts capacity;
       (B) is interconnected and operates in parallel with the 
     transmission and distribution system of an electric company;
       (C) is intended primarily to offset some or all of the 
     electricity requirements of a customer-generator;
       (D) is located on the premises of a customer-generator; and
       (E) employs a renewable energy source.
       (b) Requirement To Allow Net Metering.--An electric company 
     shall allow a retail electric customer to interconnect and 
     employ a net metering system using--
       (1) a kilowatt-hour meter capable of registering the flow 
     of electricity in 2 directions; or
       (2) another type of comparably equipped meter that would 
     otherwise be applicable to the customer's usage but for the 
     use of net metering.
       (c) Net Metering Accounting.--
       (1) In general.--Electric energy measurements for a net 
     metering system shall be calculated in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       (2) Rates and charges.--An electric company--
       (A) shall charge a customer-generator rates and charges 
     that are identical to those that would be charged other 
     retail electric customers of the electric company in the same 
     rate class; and
       (B) shall not charge a customer-generator any additional 
     standby, capacity, interconnection, or other rate or charge.
       (3) Measurement.--An electric company that supplies 
     electricity to a customer-generator shall measure the 
     quantity of electricity produced by the customer-generator 
     and the quantity of electricity consumed by the customer-
     generator during a billing period in accordance with normal 
     metering practices.
       (4) Electricity supplied exceeding electricity generated.--
     If the quantity of electricity supplied by an electric 
     company during a billing period exceeds the quantity of 
     electricity generated by the customer-generator and fed back 
     to the electric distribution system during the billing 
     period, the electric company may bill the customer-generator 
     for the net quantity of electricity supplied by the electric 
     company, in accordance with normal metering practices.
       (5) Electricity generated exceeding electricity supplied.--
     If the quantity of electricity generated by a customer-
     generator during a billing period exceeds the quantity of 
     electricity supplied by the electric company during the 
     billing period--
       (A) the electric company may bill the customer-generator 
     for the appropriate charges for the billing period in 
     accordance with paragraph (1); and
       (B) the customer-generator shall be credited for the excess 
     kilowatt-hours generated during the billing period, with the 
     kilowatt-hour credit appearing on the bill for the following 
     billing period.
       (6) Unused credits.--At the beginning of each calendar 
     year, any unused kilowatt-hour credits accumulated by a 
     customer-generator during the previous calendar year shall 
     expire without compensation to the customer-generator.
       (d) Safety.--
       (1) Requirements.--
       (A) Interim provision.--A net metering system using 
     photovoltaic generation shall conform to applicable 
     electrical safety, power quality, and interconnection 
     requirements established by the National Electrical Code, the 
     Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and 
     Underwriters Laboratories.
       (B) Regulation.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall adopt electrical 
     safety, power quality, and interconnection requirements for 
     net metering systems that use generation technology other 
     than photovoltaic technology.
       (2) Testing and inspection.--An electric company may, at 
     its own expense, and upon reasonable written notice to a 
     customer-generator, perform such testing and inspection of a 
     net metering system as is necessary to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the electric company that the system conforms 
     to applicable electric safety, power quality, and 
     interconnection requirements.
       (3) Additional meters.--An electric company may, at its own 
     expense and with the written consent of a customer-generator, 
     install 1 or more additional meters to monitor the flow of 
     electricity in each direction.

     SEC. 9. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Emissions data.--The term ``emissions data'' means the 
     type and amount of each pollutant emitted or released by a 
     generation facility in generating electricity.
       (2) Generation data.--The term ``generation data'' means 
     the type of fuel (such as coal, oil, nuclear energy, or solar 
     power) used by a generation facility to generate electricity.
       (b) Disclosure System.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     system of disclosure that--
       (1) enables retail consumers to knowledgeably compare 
     retail electric service offerings, including comparisons 
     based on generation source portfolios, emissions data, and 
     price terms; and
       (2) considers such factors as--
       (A) cost of implementation;
       (B) confidentiality of information; and
       (C) flexibility.
       (c) Regulation.--Not later than March 1, 2002, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Board, and with the 
     assistance of a Federal interagency task force that includes 
     representatives of the Commission, the Federal Trade 
     Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall promulgate a 
     regulation prescribing--
       (1) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data and generation data of electricity by 
     generation facilities to electricity wholesalers or retail 
     companies and by wholesalers to retail companies;
       (2) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data, generation data, and the price of electricity 
     by retail companies to ultimate consumers; and
       (3) the form, content, and frequency of disclosure of 
     emissions data, generation data, and the price of electricity 
     by generation facilities selling directly to ultimate 
     consumers.
       (d) Access to Records.--The Secretary shall have full 
     access to the records of all generation facilities, 
     electricity wholesalers, and retail companies to obtain any 
     information necessary to administer and enforce this section.
       (e) Failure To Disclose.--The failure of a retail company 
     to accurately disclose information as required by this 
     section shall be treated as a deceptive act in commerce under 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations, conduct such investigations, and take such other 
     actions as are necessary or appropriate to implement and 
     obtain compliance with this section and regulations 
     promulgated under this section.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, today Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Snowe, and I are introducing the Renewable Energy Act of 2001. This is 
a landmark bill as it sets a national goal of fueling 20 percent of our 
electricity generation with renewable energy sources by the year 2020. 
For our long-term energy policy, setting such a goal is important. In 
addition to supporting traditional hydrocarbon fuel sources, we must 
also invest in those sources, like solar, wind, geothermal, and 
biomass, that will not eventually run dry. Such investments will also 
significantly lessen our vulnerability to our foreign energy suppliers. 
Furthermore, nations such as Japan and Denmark have already made great 
strides in advancing renewable technologies and it is in our economic 
interest to be able to compete on the international market. While some 
of the details of the bill need ongoing evaluation and tuning, we 
should view this bill as stating a goal, not as the detailed road map 
on how to get there. For example, the definition of renewables needs 
further attention and expansion. But I believe the Renewable Energy Act 
sets laudable goals to aspire to and makes a useful statement about our 
national priorities as we approach the energy debate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER.
  S. 1334. A bill to require increases in the strengths of the full-
time support personnel for the Army National Guard of the United States 
through fiscal year 2001 to support the readiness and training of the 
Army National Guard of the United States to meet increasing mission 
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
fulfill an urgent need of the Army National Guard.
  I recently visited the Headquarters of the Virginia National Guard 
and the Maneuver Training Center at Fort Pickett. I conferred with 
Major General Claude A. Williams, the Adjutant General, of the Virginia 
National Guard. Major General Williams heads a superb organization 
composed of outstanding units, including the 29th Infantry Division, 
Light, the 91st Troop Command, the 28th Engineer Brigade, the 54th 
Field Artillery Brigade, and the 192nd Fighter Wing. The Maneuver 
Training Center at Fort Picket and its personnel perform a vital 
training mission for units of the active Army, Army Guard, and Reserve.
  I was astonished to learn during my visit last month that the Army 
has funded only 59 percent of the validated operational billets for 
Active Guard and Reserve, ``AGRs'', and military technicians within the 
Army National Guard units. The ``full rate'' in Virginia is even lower 
than this national

[[Page S8756]]

average, only 51 percent. I raised a question about this and expressed 
my concern to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army 
at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
  The legislation I am introducing today requires annual increases in 
the numbers of full time active-duty officers and military technicians 
in the Army National Guard--724 AGRs and 487 military technicians each 
year for the next 11 years. The legislation is based on a plan drawn 
up, cooperatively, by the Active Army and the Army National Guard. When 
fully implemented, the increases contained in the legislation will 
raise the Guard's ``fill rate'' from its present level of 59 percent of 
valid personnel requirements, to a level of 71 percent--an acceptable 
level within current force structure and readiness planning parameters.
  AGRs and Military Technicians are critically important force 
multipliers for Army National Guard units. They directly impact 
training, command and control, technical, functional, and military 
expertise required to effectively train, administer, and prepare ready 
units and equipment for transition from peacetime to a wartime posture. 
AGRs and Military Technicians perform functions vital for meeting 
supply, training, and maintenance requirements of the Army National 
Guard units.
  The increases in authorized end strengths set forth in this 
legislation are essential because of the increased reliance on Guard 
units to carry out Army missions. Each Army National Guard division has 
been assigned rotational duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina with the 
Stabilization Force, SFOR, missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 29th 
Infantry Division, Light, of the Virginia National Guard is now fully 
engaged in executing its phased deployment to Bosnia and will be in 
place in October of this year. I applaud the Army for its ongoing 
efforts to integrate the National Guard in its operational planning. 
The Guard needs these soldiers in place in their full time support 
roles to ensure its success.
  I know that Army leaders must make difficult decisions each year 
based on changing priorities and requirements and that the President 
must do the same in his annual budget submission. I am convinced, 
however, that the increases in end strength prescribed in this 
legislation are necessary and must be assigned the highest priority.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 1335. A bill to support business incubation in academic settings; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing the LEADERS Act--the Linking Educators And Developing 
Entrepreneurs for Reaching Success Act. Our bipartisan goal is to bring 
together entrepreneurs and academic institutions to encourage small 
businesses. These innovative centers can have a significant role in the 
modern economy, and provide needed cutting-edge educational and 
entrepreneurial opportunities for college students.
  I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership in developing this 
bipartisan legislation, and for his continuing leadership on economic 
and education issues. We agree that college-affiliated business 
incubators can be effective tools in improving education and the 
economy, and this legislation is designed to encourage them.
  A business incubator facilitates economic development by providing 
specific resources and services to entrepreneurial, start-up companies. 
This assistance often includes office space at discounted rent, access 
to telephone and Internet services, consulting opportunities, and other 
appropriate technical assistance. The goal of such business incubators 
is to produce successful firms that will be successful in the long run 
through modest and timely start-up assistance.
  Business incubators can have an important role in strengthening and 
sustaining local economies. Several studies have shown that incubated 
businesses tend to survive longer, create more jobs, remain in their 
communities, and provide worthwhile benefits to their employees.
  One of the best ways to encourage entrepreneurship is to enhance the 
role of colleges and universities in developing new ideas into 
sustainable businesses that prosper, remain in their communities, and 
provide good jobs and good benefits to local workers in the cities and 
towns that need them most. Business incubators will benefit colleges 
and universities as well, because they can provide students with real-
life examples of emerging businesses and case studies to enhance their 
educational experience.
  Our legislation creates a program in the Department of Education to 
support academic-affiliated business incubators. A $20 million fund 
will offer competitive grants to acquire or renovate space, develop 
curricula and training for incubator businesses or managers, and 
conduct feasibility studies for developing and locating incubators.
  Eligible applicants will include non-profit organizations that have 
an affiliation with a college or university and that manage an 
incubator. Priority is given to incubators in economically distressed 
areas, to applications which provide strong educational opportunities 
in entrepreneurship, and to applications that emphasize cooperation by 
businesses, academic institutions, local economic leaders, and local 
government officials.
  Small business entrepreneurs have an outstanding track record of 
products that improve and often save lives. Today these entrepreneurs 
take advantage of innovative ideas and turn them into job and economic 
growth. Entrepreneurs can benefit immensely from contacts with academic 
institutions, and Congress should encourage those contacts.

  Colleges and universities often have well-equipped laboratories, good 
computer systems, and extensive libraries. They can be a source of 
ideas that spur business creation. Colleges and universities can also 
provide the skills and experience of a dedicated faculty, and the 
enthusiasm and potential of today's students.
  Current studies show that nearly seven out of ten teenagers want to 
control their own destinies by becoming entrepreneurs. Six in ten young 
women, seven in ten Hispanic youth, and nearly eight in ten African-
American youth are interested in starting a business of their own. But 
too many of these young men and women say they know little about how to 
start their own business. A large majority are taught little about how 
business or the economy works.
  Students who benefit from such instruction start more new business, 
develop more new products, and are more likely to be involved in high-
technology initiatives than their peers. Most entrepreneurs say that 
they ``learned by doing''--through hands-on access to mentors and 
similar opportunities. Our legislation will provide access to real-
world examples of entrepreneurship and business development, and help 
lay a stronger foundation for growing and thriving firms.
  More and more, academic institutions across the country recognize 
this opportunity by establishing successful business incubators. In 
Massachusetts, Salem State College and the University of Massachusetts 
at Lowell have created successful incubators on their campuses.
  Other incubators are reaching out to colleges and universities. The 
Commonwealth Corporation, a leader in workforce training in 
Massachusetts, has established an incubator and is actively pursuing 
ties in Boston with The University of Massachusetts.
  Increasingly today, business leaders are recognizing the advantages 
of affiliations with institutions of higher learning, and academic 
leaders are welcoming the idea of including entrepreneurial projects in 
their curricula. In many cases, faculty members themselves are 
launching incubators.
  It makes sense for Congress to support these constructive 
partnerships. The LEADERS Act can make a worthwhile contribution to 
this growing movement, and I look forward to early action by the Senate 
to approve it.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today, along with my good friend, 
Senator Kennedy, to introduce the ``Linking Educators And Developing 
Entrepreneurs for Reaching Success

[[Page S8757]]

Act of 2001'' (LEADERS Act). This bipartisan measure will help foster 
business development by strengthening academic affiliated business 
incubators.
  Our Nation's ability to expand economically hinges on new business 
growth. Small businesses provide 75 percent of the new jobs in this 
country, and in 1999, the number of new employer firms outnumbered the 
amount of business closures. Though our American entrepreneurial spirit 
is alive and well, as most businessmen and women can attest, starting 
and maintaining a business is very difficult. In the first two years, 
more than half of all new businesses fail and, after four years, the 
failure rate climbs to more than 60 percent.
  That's why business incubation is so important. These incubators are 
centers designed to accelerate the successful development of new 
companies. They offer an array of business support resources. Most of 
the incubators provide their clients with access to appropriate rental 
space and flexible leases, shared services and equipment, technology 
support services, and assistance in obtaining financing for growth. 
They also provide a range of services like management guidance, 
technical assistance, and consulting. Such support an incubation 
increases the chance of small business survival to about 86 percent.
  Our LEADERS Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to provide 
competitive grants to nonprofit organizations that manage incubators 
and are affiliated with academic institutions. These grants can be used 
to acquire or renovate space for an incubator or to support curriculums 
developed by businesses, faculty, entrepreneurs, and local leaders. The 
Secretary also can award a grant to help fund feasibility studies to 
help colleges or local development officials determine the viability of 
an incubator in their respective communities.
  The Act would authorize $20 million for grants in each of the next 
three fiscal years. The nonprofit organizations that receive funding 
under the bill would be required to match federal contributions dollar 
for dollar, and their proposals must have the support of local 
community leaders.
  Many of the non-profit incubators include universities, which are an 
integral part of the business incubation process. Academic affiliated 
incubators provide unique educational opportunities for students and 
entrepreneurs. This is accomplished with enhanced access to a skilled 
workforce and a wealth of resources. Ohio is the home of one of the 
oldest university-based business incubators, the Ohio University 
Innovation Center, which was established in 1982. Since it's inception, 
the Center has created 625 jobs, including 125 for students. A number 
of other important institutions in Ohio, such as The Ohio State 
University, Bowling Green State University, Case Western Reserve 
University, Franklin University, John Carroll University, University of 
Cincinnati, and University of Dayton operate business incubators.
  The goal of the incubator is simple: to produce successful, 
financially viable firms. And, studies show that business incubation 
works. Almost 87 percent of incubated companies remain in operation, 
with roughly 84 percent of them remaining in their home communities. It 
is vital that we give small businesses the necessary tools to stay 
afloat and to prosper. This legislation will help to foster the next 
generation of successful entrepreneurs and ultimately further bolster 
the stability of our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and our efforts to 
help America's entrepreneurs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 1337. A bill to provide for national digital school districts; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Digital School District Act, a bill that embraces the powerful role 
technology can have as a tool in educating our nation's children.
  Just as technology has brought innovation and efficiency to our daily 
lives and our businesses, technology has already demonstrated its 
enormous potential to enhance the ways that we can prepare our children 
to meet the educational demands of the changing economy.
  Across the country, we have seen how proper uses of technology can 
transform a conventional curriculum into a multi-media, interactive 
experience that not only helps children learn more effectively, but 
does so in a way that is enjoyable and fosters a student's passion for 
learning.
  In numerous recent studies, including those done by the Department of 
Education, the White House Office on Science and Technology and the 
RAND Corporation, researchers have found that technology has a very 
positive impact on serving the goals of education in important ways, 
including:
  1. Supporting student performance--technology provides opportunities 
for acquiring problem-solving skills and methods for learning in 
innovative and interactive ways.
  2. Increased motivation and self-esteem--studies have found that one 
of the most common effects of technology on students was an increase in 
the motivation of students who experience education in new and 
enjoyable ways.
  3. Preparing students for the future--as both higher education and 
the workplace are increasingly becoming infused with technology, 
technology is a crucial component of student preparation, and;
  The potential impact of technology on education is no secret. In 
fact, schools have dramatically increased their focus on putting 
technology in the classroom. Both the public and private sector have 
been diligently wiring school buildings and putting computers in many 
classrooms, making access to computers and the Internet increasingly 
commonplace.
  But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you 
can't make it drink. The same is true for children, just putting 
technology into a school does not ensure that teachers know how to use 
it or children are able to learn from it.
  Unless technology is properly integrated into curriculum, the 
students will not realize the benefits of having the access. Without 
teachers who know how to use computers to teach the kids, the kids will 
not benefit.
  In addition to computers and access, we need to assure teacher 
training and curriculum development. This legislation is a good first 
step toward fixing this problem, in effect, bridging the technology and 
teaching divide.
  To accomplish this goal, our bill takes two tracks, first, the 
legislation establishes a grant program in which the state and federal 
government share the responsibility to create model programs to team 
technology with curriculum and teacher training--to develop 
comprehensive approaches to using technology in education.
  Second, to help identify best practices, the legislation will also 
require a study to evaluate and highlight which of these strategies 
work and which do not work in bringing technology to the classroom.
  Schools across the country are being given the tool of technology. 
Indeed, the total annual investment in education technology is 
currently almost $5 billion per year.
  According to a recently released study by NetDay, although 97 percent 
of teachers have some type of access to computers in their schools, 
only 32 percent of teachers say that computers are well integrated into 
their classrooms and curricula.
  We can do better.
  Teachers around the country are finding ways to enhance the classroom 
experience by teaching conventional topics with technological tools. 
Schools and businesses in my home State of Washington are leaders in 
these areas.
  For example, in rural, agricultural Eastern Washington, Diane 
Peterson wanted to improve her Waterville Elementary 4th and 5th 
graders' success with math, science, reading, and writing. She found 
that University of Washington scientists needed data gathered on local 
vegetation and weather--she put those facts together and came up with a 
plan. Students were able to use 3-mail and shared web-sites to write, 
organize and present a useful study to the Western Washington 
scientists. The students are learning math and science skills through 
real-world experience, possible only through the use of the Internet. 
And helping science to boot.
  Also, administrators in districts around the countries are 
increasingly

[[Page S8758]]

finding particular methods and strategies that are crucial to realizing 
the value of technology. The Seattle Public School District, for 
example, has undertaken an effort to employ at every school a person 
who, with expertise in both education and technology, trains and 
advises teachers in how to use technology to teach different subjects. 
Teachers now have a resource to guide them as they bring technology 
into the classroom. The district has found that having a person who can 
educate teachers and help them make the most of the technology 
available to them can make the difference between technology as an 
educational tool or as a waste of money.

  The Bill and Melinda Gates foundations have been leaders in improving 
education through the use of technology. For example, in Washington 
State, the Foundation had created the $45 million ``Teacher Leadership 
Project,'' a grant program to provide leadership development for 1,000 
K-12 teachers a year, over three years. Participants receive in-depth 
training, as well as hardware and software to create a technology-rich 
learning environment. Teachers attend workshops and seminars, 
participate in e-mail discussions, keep records of the experiences, and 
assist with assessment and evaluation. Clearly, assessment and 
evaluation are critical to the future application for this program. 
This program is an excellent model to bring technology into the 
classroom.
  These programs show that when used effectively, technology can 
enhance learning.
  But to fully employ technology as an educational tool across the 
country we must develop programs that take into account the real needs 
for education and that can be scaled for implementation by any school 
or district.
  Successful strategies are those that not only install computers, but 
also integrate these resources in three crucial ways, through:
  1. Teacher Training and professional development--We must teach the 
teachers so they can use technology to teach the children.
  2. Curriculum development--Technology isn't helpful unless it is 
incorporated into lesson plans.
  3. Resource allocation--In order to be successful, a program should 
match the technology needs to the goals of the program.
  The National Digital School District Act addresses these important 
elements of technology in education by requiring that local and state 
agencies incorporate these criteria into their education plans.
  Through these requirements, the National Digital School District Act 
will encourage the development of best practices for the use of 
technology in schools; practices that can be scaled up in states and 
local districts around the country.
  Additionally, this legislation will ensure that the Department of 
Education leads the way in identifying best practices for the use of 
technology by assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of these 
strategies.
  Teachers, administrators, private sector organizations, and non-
profit groups are developing innovative approaches in countless 
classrooms, schools and districts.
  Too often, however, the programs and strategies are springing up in 
isolation--without any mechanisms to facilitate the evaluation and 
sharing of the results of these efforts.
  My bill will bridge this information gap. Not only will this 
legislation help provide assistance to schools, districts and states as 
they begin using technology in the classroom, but this will help ensure 
that federal monies are spent prudently and effectively.
  The National Digital School District Act directs the Secretary of 
Education to complete a comprehensive report after three years to 
describe what works and what doesn't work--providing guidance to 
educators and policymakers at the federal, state and local levels. This 
report will describe the strategies being implemented around the 
country that best achieve their intended goals.
  Using this report we will be able to identify which programs work 
well and could be adapted successfully for use in other school 
districts. The report need not be exhaustive, but it must be 
comprehensive--if a program works, we should know about it. We need a 
clear inventory of successful programs to identify the best practices 
educators can implement.
  The National Digital School District Act will succeed in identifying 
these practices and helping to bridge the gap between the vast 
potential for technology as an educational tool, and the challenges 
facing teachers who uses it in the classroom.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1338. A bill to expand and enhance the Little Bighorn Battlefield 
National Monument; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, the ultimate test of patriotism has 
always been the willingness to die for one's country. To step in harm's 
way, to face shots fired in anger for the sake of defending those 
things one holds sacred, these are acts of courage that people admire 
almost instinctively. So much so that we even admire the courage 
displayed by our enemies.
  Those of us who witness such bravery, either up close or from 
accounts written years ago, often feel compelled to make some gesture 
that acknowledges the heroism and sacrifice of those who were willing 
to endure the horror of war.
  For this reason, our Nation has a long tradition of setting aside and 
preserving the sites where important battles have occurred, believing 
that such ground is hallowed by those who gave their lives in conflict, 
and in the hope that understanding the events of our past helps us to 
understand the kind of people we are. A necessary part of this honoring 
is attempting to preserve the appearance of the places where these 
battles occurred as the combatants would have experienced them and to 
freeze these locations in time as much as possible.
  Today, I am proud to offer a bill that will continue to protect the 
sanctity of one such place: the Little Bighorn Battlefield National 
Monument in southern Montana, the site where Gen. George Armstrong 
Custer and the U.S. Seventh Cavalry were defeated by a united force of 
Northern Cheyenne, Arapaho and Lakota Indians, in 1876.
  Anyone who has stood, looking down past the grave markers to the 
trees along the Little Bighorn River, can tell you that it is a 
haunting place to visit. As you walk along Battle Ridge where soldiers 
of the U.S. Seventh Cavalry and Indian warriors struggled furiously, it 
is easy to imagine exactly how it looked on that hot June day when so 
many men died.
  But anyone who has stood on that same hill recently can also tell you 
that beyond the trees are the telltale signs of commercial development 
creeping up on the borders of the Monument. For years the site was 
protected by its sheer isolation. That is no longer the case. The 
actual battle occurred across a wide area, and only a very small part 
of that area is protected by inclusion in the Monument. Other 
historically important sites nearby have already been overrun by 
development. Hills have been graded and geographical features have been 
altered. Action must be taken quickly if we are to preserve the 
Monument looking as it did over a century ago.

  The bill I am introducing proposes a way for additional lands to be 
protected by the Monument. This bill does this by establishing a 
Committee composed of all interested parties, both those with current 
interests and those with historical interests in this piece of land, 
which will keep a registry of important sites that might be taken into 
the Monument. It is my belief that through a consultative process and 
cooperation, all interests can be accommodated. I have used this 
inclusionary process before with the research and protection of the 
Sand Creek National Historic Site in Colorado.
  In the 102nd Congress, while serving as a member of the House, I 
introduced the bill that changed the name of this monument from the 
Custer Battlefield National Monument to the Little Bighorn National 
Monument, to recognize that there were heroes on both sides of this 
conflict: not only Custer, but also Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse and 
thousands of other warriors.
  I wanted to reclaim the memory of that day for Indian people, and to 
make clear that the tragedy of June 26, 1876, was just one small part 
of a much larger tragedy: the near destruction of a people and the 
ending of a way of life.

[[Page S8759]]

The Indian victory at the Little Bighorn that day was only a brief 
pause in the march of history, it was the beginning of the end. One 
week later the Untied States marked its first centennial, only one 
hundred years of existence.
  This country needs places like the Little Bighorn Battlefield, just 
as we need places like Bunker Hill and Gettsburg and Omaha Beach, 
locations made special by the extraordinary events that occurred there. 
We need to keep them separate and sacred and dedicated to the belief 
that some things are worthy of laying down your life. They are, in the 
fullest sense of the word, monuments: reminders of what is important.
  The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is such a place. I 
ask this Congress to join me in ensuring that this Monument remain a 
special place for generations to come.
  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. 1338

       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 ``Little Bighorn Battlefield 
     National Monument Enhancement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The following events were key in the creation of the 
     Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument:
       (A) On June 25 and 26, 1876, a historic battle between the 
     United States Seventh Cavalry, led by General George 
     Armstrong Custer, and an opposing force of Arapaho, Northern 
     Cheyenne, and Lakota Indians, was fought near the Little 
     Bighorn River in southern Montana.
       (B) On August 1, 1879, the battlefield was officially 
     recognized and designated as a national cemetery under 
     General Order No. 78, Headquarters of the Army.
       (C) On December 7, 1886, Executive Order No. 337443 
     established the boundary, approximately one mile square, for 
     the National Cemetery of Custer's Battlefield Reservation.
       (D) On April 14, 1926, the Reno-Benteen Battlefield was 
     acquired by an Act of Congress (44 Stat. 168), and the Army 
     was ordered to take charge of the site.
       (E) On April 15, 1930, by an Act of Congress (46 Stat. 
     168), all rights, titles and privileges of the Crow tribe, 
     from whose reservation the battlefield site was carved, were 
     granted to the United States.
       (F) On August 10, 1939, a public historical museum was 
     authorized (53 Stat. 1337).
       (G) On June 3, 1940, Executive Order No. 8428 transferred 
     management of the area to the National Park Service, 
     Department of the Interior.
       (H) On March 22, 1946, by an Act of Congress (Public Law 
     79-332) the area was redesignated, Custer Battlefield 
     National Monument.
       (I) On January 3, 1991, by an Act of Congress (Public Law 
     102-201), Custer Battlefield National Monument was 
     redesignated as Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Monument''), and an Indian 
     memorial was authorized.
       (2) The current total size of the Monument is 765.34 acres. 
     This includes the areas immediately surrounding the cemetery 
     and a separate area, the Reno-Benteen Battlefield, a few 
     miles from the cemetery. There are additional sites of 
     historical interest related to the 1876 battle that are not 
     contained within the boundaries of the Monument as it is 
     presently constituted.
       (3) The United States has a tradition of preserving the 
     sites of historic battles, in the conviction that such ground 
     is hallowed by the sacrifices of those who gave their lives 
     in conflict, and in the hope that understanding the events of 
     our past, especially tragic events, helps us to understand 
     the people we have become. A necessary part of this 
     preserving and honoring is attempting, as much as is 
     possible, to maintain the appearance of the places where 
     these struggles occurred as the participants would have 
     experienced them.
       (4) The area surrounding the Monument has seen markedly 
     increased commercial development in recent years. Such 
     development not only threatens to intrude on the experience 
     of visitors to the Monument, but in many instances the 
     development has actually taken place directly on sites of 
     historical importance, irrevocably altering physical features 
     of the landscape that are crucial for understanding what took 
     place at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
       (5) It is in the interest of the United States to preserve 
     the integrity of the site of the Battle of the Little 
     Bighorn, an event of lasting significance for the United 
     States and for the sovereign Indian nations. In order to 
     preserve this historical treasure, it is imperative that 
     additional lands surrounding the Monument be set aside and 
     given protected status or be made part of the Monument 
     itself.
       (6) All areas of the Monument, as well as the other areas 
     of historical interest, are completely contained within the 
     external boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation.
       (7) There is every indication that additional land and 
     facilities are available for inclusion in the Monument 
     through either voluntary conveyance or by gift or donation 
     from private individuals and entities.
       (b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to establish a cooperative and collaborative process 
     for expanding and enhancing the Monument;
       (2) to ensure that the process established by this Act 
     reflects the social, historical and cultural concerns of the 
     Indian tribes participating in such processes in a manner 
     consistent with the long-standing Federal policy to encourage 
     tribal self-determination; and
       (3) to ensure that the resources within the Monument are 
     protected and enhanced by--
       (A) providing for partnerships between the Crow Tribe, the 
     National Park Service, and the Native American Tribes who 
     participated in the Battle of Little Bighorn; and
       (B) encouraging private individuals and entities to donate 
     land and facilities to the Monument.

     SEC. 3. LITTLE BIGHORN BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL MONUMENT 
                   ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--There is established a committee to be 
     known as the ``Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 
     Enhancement Committee'' (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Committee'').
       (b) Composition.--The Committee shall be composed of--
       (1) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Interior to 
     represent the Department of Interior;
       (2) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of Interior to 
     represent the Native American tribes who participated in the 
     Battle of Little Bighorn; and
       (3) 1 member appointed by the Crow Indian tribe.
       (c) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) Quorum; meetings.--Three members of the Committee shall 
     constitute a quorum. The Committee shall act and provide 
     advise by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members 
     voting at a meeting at which a quorum is present. The 
     Committee shall meet on a regular basis. Notice of meetings 
     and the agenda shall be published in local newspapers which 
     have a distribution which generally covers the area affected 
     by the Monument. Committee meetings shall be held at 
     locations and in such a manner as to ensure adequate public 
     involvement.
       (2) Advisory functions.--The Committee shall advise the 
     Secretary to ensure that the Monument, its resources and 
     landscape, is sensitive to the history being portrayed and 
     artistically commendable.
       (3) Technical staff.--In order to provide staff support and 
     technical services to assist the Committee in carrying out 
     its duties under this Act, upon the request of the Committee, 
     the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to detail any 
     personnel of the National Park Service to the Committee.
       (4) Compensation.--Members of the Committee shall serve 
     without compensation but shall be entitled to travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the 
     same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government 
     service under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Charter.--The provisions of section 14(b) of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix; 86 Stat. 
     776), are hereby waived with respect to the Committee.
       (d) Duties.--The Committee shall--
       (1) maintain a registry of facilities and land that may be 
     offered by private individuals and entities by gift, sale, 
     transfer, or other voluntary conveyance for inclusion in the 
     Monument;
       (2) by a majority vote determined whether some or all of a 
     parcel of land or facility listed on the registry under 
     paragraph (1) is appropriate for inclusion as a part of the 
     Monument; and
       (3) in the case of a positive recommendation under 
     subparagraph (A), provide advise to the Secretary on--
       (A) whether the land or facility involved may be available 
     for no or nominal consideration or under what terms and 
     conditions the owner of such land or facility would be 
     willing to transfer such land or facility for inclusion in 
     the Monument for no or nominal consideration; or
       (B) whether the Committee recommends the use of the Fund 
     established under section 5 to acquire such land or facility.

     SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit or impair 
     the jurisdiction or authority of the Crow Indian tribe.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.

       There is established in the Treasury of the United States a 
     fund to be known as the ``Little Bighorn Battlefield National 
     Monument Enhancement Fund''. The Fund shall be used as 
     provided for in section 3(d)(3)(B) and shall include--
       (1) all amounts appropriated to the Fund; and
       (2) all amounts donated to the Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1339. A bill to amend the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000 to 
provide an asylum program with regard to American Persian Gulf War POW/
MIAs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page S8760]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce the 
``Persian Gulf War POW/MIA Accountability Act of 2001.'' This bill will 
help persuade foreign Nations and their inhabitants to take necessary 
and sometimes risky steps needed to return any surviving American POW/
MIAs from the Persian Gulf War by providing asylum to those foreign 
nationals who cooperate.
  This bill builds on S. 484, the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000, 
which I introduced in the 106th Congress. This legislation was signed 
into law last November. As many of you know, this law provides for the 
granting of refugee status in the United States to nations of certain 
foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American 
Korean War POW/MIAs may be present.
  On January 17, 1991, Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher's F-18 was 
shot down over Western Iraq during the first hours of the Persian Gulf 
War. Based on the accounts of other pilots flying in the mission and 12 
hours of radio silence, Lieutenant Commander Speicher was declared 
Missing in Action, MIA, the next day. On May 22, 1991, his status was 
changed to Killed in Action/Body Not Recovered, KIA/BNR.
  In December 1995, investigators from the Army and Navy found the 
crash site of Lieutenant Commander Speicher's F-18. Located at the 
crash site were used flares and parts of a survival kit. Near the site, 
the canopy of the plane was found which would indicate that Lieutenant 
Commander Speicher ejected from his plane before it crashed. Based on 
this and other information, the Navy came to the conclusion that they 
could no longer assume that Lieutenant Commander Speicher was indeed 
KIA. On January 11, of this year, the Navy changed his official status 
from KIA/BNR back to MIA.
  News reports indicated one of the major breaks in this case was 
provided by an Iraqi defector. According to his information, during the 
first days of the war, he drove a downed American pilot to Baghdad. The 
pilot was alive and alert. This defector was able to pass two lie 
detector tests and pointed to Lieutenant Commander Speicher in a photo 
lineup.
  Under this legislation, if Lieutenant Commander Speicher were found 
alive and returned home, this defector and his family would be granted 
refugee status in the United States. As a veteran and a proud American, 
I will not rest until we have exhausted every avenue available to 
repatriate the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for the 
freedom we enjoy. This legislation provides the kinds of incentives we 
need to help bring American POW/MIAs home alive.
  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. 1339

       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 ``Persian Gulf War POW/MIA 
     Accountability Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMERICAN PERSIAN GULF WAR POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

       (a) Asylum Program.--The Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-484; 114 Stat. 2195; 8 U.S.C. 1157 note) is 
     amended by inserting after section 3 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 3A. AMERICAN PERSIAN GULF WAR POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Attorney General shall grant 
     refugee status in the United States to any alien described in 
     subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--Refugee status shall be granted under 
     subsection (a) to--
       ``(1) any alien who--
       ``(A) is a national of Iraq or a nation of the Greater 
     Middle East Region (as determined by the Attorney General in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State); and
       ``(B) personally delivers into the custody of the United 
     States Government a living American Persian Gulf War POW/MIA; 
     and
       ``(2) any parent, spouse, or child of an alien described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) American persian gulf war pow/mia.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `American Persian Gulf War POW/MIA' means an 
     individual--
       ``(i) who is a member of a uniformed service (within the 
     meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in 
     a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title 
     and this subsection) as a result of the Persian Gulf War, or 
     any successor conflict, operation, or action; or
       ``(ii) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code) in a missing status (as defined 
     in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Persian 
     Gulf War, or any successor conflict, operation, or action.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include an individual 
     with respect to whom it is officially determined under 
     section 552(c) of title 37, United States Code, that such 
     individual is officially absent from such individual's post 
     of duty without authority.
       ``(2) Missing status.--The term `missing status', with 
     respect to the Persian Gulf War, or any successor conflict, 
     operation, or action, means the status of an individual as a 
     result of the Persian Gulf War, or such conflict, operation, 
     or action, if immediately before that status began the 
     individual--
       ``(A) was performing service in Kuwait, Iraq, or another 
     nation of the Greater Middle East Region; or
       ``(B) was performing service in the Greater Middle East 
     Region in direct support of military operations in Kuwait or 
     Iraq.
       ``(3) Persian gulf war.--The term `Persian Gulf War' means 
     the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending on the 
     date thereafter prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by 
     law.''.
       (b) Broadcasting Information.--Section 4(a)(2) of that Act 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Iraq, Kuwait, or any other country of the Greater 
     Middle East Region (as determined by the International 
     Broadcasting Bureau in consultation with the Attorney General 
     and the Secretary of State).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1340. A bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to provide 
for probate reform with respect to trust or restricted lands; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today, I am pleased to introduce the 
Indian Probate Reform Act of 2001 which builds on the solid foundations 
of the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-462, 
which I also sponsored.
  The Land Consolidation Act Amendments were necessary for two reasons. 
First, it rewrote the parts of the existing law that were held 
unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
  Second, many of the laws dealing with Indian probate and the use of 
Indian land had been in place for more than a century. Through P.L. 
106-462, Congress was able to revisit those laws to remove provisions 
that were based on out-dated, misguided, and discredited federal 
policies.
  As my colleagues know Federal Indian policy is sometimes out-dated, 
and counter-productive Federal laws impede tribal efforts to achieve 
economic self determination and sufficiency.
  As Congress worked on the Land Consolidation Act Amendments, it 
became clear that other laws also needed to be updated but could not be 
addressed until we enacted P.L. 106-462. With that work completed, we 
now have an opportunity to remove a number of complications concerning 
the probate of Indian estates and lands.
  Presently about 20 different State laws of interstate succession 
apply to the inheritance of Indian allotments. This makes it almost 
impossible for the Federal Government to provide general probate 
planning advice to allotment owners.
  Also, administrative law judges must monitor developments and changes 
in the probate laws of every State where allotments are located. This 
is simply an unnecessary waste of their time and tax dollars. The 
average Indian estate takes more than a year to probate, and in some 
cases a decedent's heirs will have died before the decedent's probate 
is completed. We can do better.
  I am pleased that Interior Secretary Norton is making trust fund 
reform such a high priority. But we in Congress have to do our part to 
support these efforts. I trust that my colleagues share my commitment 
to ensure that adequate resources are available to support real trust 
reform efforts. We must also be willing to roll up our sleeves and take 
a good hard look at the laws that provide the framework for the use and 
probate of Indian trust lands, especially trust lands that are in 
individual Indian ownership.

[[Page S8761]]

  This bill is the next step in completing the work we began last 
Congress by establishing uniform federal Indian probate rules.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1340

       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 ``Indian Probate Reform Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                  ``Subtitle B--Indian Probate Reform

     ``SEC. 231. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) The General Allotment Act of 1887 (commonly known as 
     the ``Dawes Act''), which authorized the allotment of Indian 
     reservations, did not allow Indian allotment owners to 
     provide for the testamentary disposition of the land that was 
     allotted to such owners.
       ``(2) The Dawes Act provided that allotments would descend 
     according to State law of intestate succession based on the 
     location of the allotment.
       ``(3) The Federal Government's reliance on the State law of 
     intestate succession with respect to the descendency of 
     allotments has resulted in numerous problems to Indian 
     tribes, their members, and the Federal Government. These 
     problems include--
       ``(A) the increasing fractionated ownership of trust and 
     restricted land as these lands are inherited by successive 
     generations of owners as tenants in common;
       ``(B) the application of different rules of intestate 
     succession to each of a decedent's interests in trust and 
     restricted land if such land is located within the boundaries 
     of different States which makes probate planning 
     unnecessarily difficult and impedes efforts to provide 
     probate planning assistance or advice;
       ``(C) the absence of a uniform general probate code for 
     trust and restricted land which makes it difficult for Indian 
     tribes to work cooperatively to develop tribal probate codes; 
     and
       ``(D) the failure of Federal law to address or provide for 
     many of the essential elements of general probate law, either 
     directly or by reference, which is unfair to the owners of 
     trust and restricted land and their heirs and devisees and 
     which makes probate planning more difficult.
       ``(4) Based on the problems identified in paragraph (3), a 
     uniform Federal probate code would likely--
       ``(A) reduce the number of unnecessary fractionated 
     interests in trust or restricted land;
       ``(B) facilitate efforts to provide probate planning 
     assistance and advice;
       ``(C) facilitate inter-tribal efforts to produce tribal 
     probate codes pursuant to section 206; and
       ``(D) provide essential elements of general probate law 
     that are not applicable on the date of enactment of this 
     subtitle to interests in trust or restricted land.

     ``SEC. 232. RULES RELATING TO INTESTATE INTERESTS AND 
                   PROBATE.

       ``(a) In General.--Any interest in trust or restricted land 
     that is not disposed of by a valid will shall--
       ``(1) descend according to a tribal probate code that is 
     approved pursuant to section 206; or
       ``(2) in the case of an interest in trust or restricted 
     land to which such a code does not apply, be considered an 
     `intestate interest' and descend pursuant to subsection (b), 
     this Act, and other applicable Federal law.
       ``(b) Intestate Succession.--An interest in trust or 
     restricted land described in subsection (a)(2) (intestate 
     interest) shall descend as provided for in this subsection in 
     the following order:
       ``(1) Surviving indian spouse.--
       ``(A) Sole heir.--A surviving Indian spouse of the decedent 
     shall receive all of the decedent's intestate interests if no 
     Indian child or grandchild of the decedent survives the 
     decedent.
       ``(B) Other heirs.--A surviving Indian spouse of the 
     decedent shall receive a one-half interest in each of the 
     decedent's intestate interests if the decedent is also 
     survived by Indian children or grandchildren.
       ``(C) Heirs of the first or second degree other than 
     surviving indian spouse.--The one-half interest in each of 
     the decedent's intestate interests that do not descend to the 
     surviving Indian spouse under subparagraph (B) shall descend 
     in the following order:
       ``(i) To the Indian children of the decedent in equal 
     shares, or to the Indian grandchildren of the decedent, if 
     any, in equal shares by right of representation if 1 or more 
     of the Indian children of the decedent do not survive the 
     decedent.
       ``(ii) If the decedent is not survived by Indian children 
     or grandchildren, to the surviving Indian parent of the 
     decedent, or to both of the surviving Indian parents of the 
     decedent as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
       ``(iii) If the decedent is not survived by any person who 
     is eligible to inherit under clause (i) or (ii), to the 
     surviving Indian brothers and sisters of the decedent.
       ``(iv) If the decedent is not survived by any person who is 
     eligible to inherit under clause (i), (ii), or (iii), the 
     intestate interests shall descend, or may be acquired, as 
     provided for in section 207(a)(3)(B), 207(a)(4), or 
     207(a)(5).
       ``(2) No surviving indian spouse.--If the decedent is not 
     survived by an Indian spouse, the intestate interests of the 
     decedent shall descend to the individuals described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) who survive the decedent in the 
     following order:
       ``(A) To the Indian children of the decedent in equal 
     shares, or to the Indian grandchildren of the decedent, if 
     any, in equal shares by right of representation if 1 or more 
     of the Indian children of the decedent do not survive the 
     decedent.
       ``(B) If the decedent is not survived by Indian children or 
     grandchildren, to the surviving Indian parent of the 
     decedent, or to both of the surviving Indian parents of the 
     decedent as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
       ``(C) If the decedent is not survived by any person who is 
     eligible to inherit under subparagraph (A) or (B), to the 
     surviving Indian brothers and sisters of the decedent.
       ``(D) If the decent is not survived by any person who is 
     eligible to inherit under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), the 
     intestate interests shall descend, or may be acquired, as 
     provided for in section 207(a)(3)(B), 207(a)(4), or 
     207(a)(5).
       ``(3) Surviving non-indian spouse.--
       ``(A) No descendants.--A surviving non-Indian spouse of the 
     decedent shall receive a life estate in each of the intestate 
     interests of the decedent pursuant to section 207(b)(2) if 
     the decedent is not survived by any children or 
     grandchildren.
       ``(B) Descendants.--A surviving non-Indian spouse of the 
     decedent shall receive a life estate in one-half of the 
     intestate interests of the decedent pursuant to section 
     207(b)(2) if the decedent is survived by at least one of the 
     children or grandchildren of the decedent.
       ``(C) Descendants other than surviving non-indian spouse.--
     The one-half life estate interest in each of the decedent's 
     intestate interests that do not descend to the surviving non-
     Indian spouse under subparagraph (B) shall descend to the 
     children of the decedent in equal shares, or to the 
     grandchildren of the decedent, if any, in equal shares by 
     right of representation if 1 or more of the children of the 
     decedent do not survive the decedent.
       ``(4) No surviving spouse or indian heirs.--If the decedent 
     is not survived by a spouse, a life estate in the intestate 
     interests of the decedent shall descend in the following 
     order:
       ``(A) To the children of the decedent in equal shares, or 
     to the grandchildren of the decedent, if any, in equal shares 
     by right of representation if 1 or more of the children of 
     the decedent do not survive the decedent.
       ``(B) If the decedent has no surviving children or 
     grandchildren, to the surviving parents of the decedent.
       ``(5) Remainder interest from life estates.--The remainder 
     interest from a life estate established under paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) shall descend in the following order:
       ``(A) To the Indian children of the decedent in equal 
     shares, or to the Indian grandchildren of the decedent, if 
     any, in equal shares by right of representation if 1 or more 
     of the children of the decedent do not survive the decedent.
       ``(B) If there are no surviving Indian children or 
     grandchildren of the decedent, to the surviving Indian parent 
     of the decedent or to both of the surviving Indian parents of 
     the decedent as joint tenant with the right of survivorship.
       ``(C) If there is no surviving Indian child, grandchild, or 
     parent, to the surviving Indian brothers or sisters of the 
     decedent in equal shares.
       ``(D) If there is no surviving Indian descendant or parent, 
     brother or sister, the intestate interests of the decedent 
     shall descend, or may be acquired, as provided for in section 
     207(a)(3)(B), 207(a)(4), or 207(a)(5).
       ``(c) Special Rule Relating to Survival.--For purposes of 
     this section, an individual who fails to survive a decedent 
     by at least 120 hours is deemed to have predeceased the 
     decedent for purposes of intestate succession, and the heirs 
     of the decedent shall be determined accordingly. If it is not 
     established by clear and convincing evidence that an 
     individual who would otherwise be an heir survived the 
     decedent by at least 120 hours, such individual shall be 
     deemed to have failed to survive for the required time-period 
     for purposes of the preceding sentence.
       ``(d) Pretermitted Spouses and Children.--
       ``(1) Spouses.--For purposes of this section, if the 
     surviving spouse of a testator married the testator after the 
     testator executed his or her will, the surviving spouse shall 
     receive the intestate share in trust or restricted land that 
     such spouse would have otherwise received if the testator had 
     died intestate. The preceding sentence shall not apply to an 
     interest in trust or restricted lands where--
       ``(A) the will is executed before the date specified in 
     section 234(a);
       ``(B) the testator's spouse is a non-Indian and the 
     testator has devised his or her interests in trust or 
     restricted land to an Indian or Indians;

[[Page S8762]]

       ``(C) it appears from the will or other evidence that the 
     will was made in contemplation of the testator's marriage to 
     the surviving spouse;
       ``(D) the will expresses the intention that it is to be 
     effective notwithstanding any subsequent marriage; or
       ``(E) the testator provided for the spouse by a transfer of 
     funds or property outside of the will and an intent that the 
     transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is 
     demonstrated by the testator's statements or is reasonably 
     inferred from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.
       ``(2) Children.--For purposes of this section, if a 
     testator executed his or her will prior to the birth of 1 or 
     more children of the testator and the omission is the product 
     of inadvertence rather than an intentional omission, such 
     children shall share in the decedent's intestate interests in 
     trust or restricted lands as if the decedent had died 
     intestate.Any person recognized as an heir by virtue of 
     adoption under the Act of July 8, 1940 (54 Stat 746) shall be 
     treated as a decedent's child under this section.
       ``(e) Divorce.--
       ``(1) Surviving spouse.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, an 
     individual who is divorced from the decedent, or whose 
     marriage to the decedent has been annulled, shall not be 
     considered to be a surviving spouse unless, by virtue of a 
     subsequent marriage, such individual is married to the 
     decedent at the time of death. A decree of separation that 
     does not terminate the status of husband and wife shall not 
     be considered a divorce for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be construed to prevent an entity responsible for 
     adjudicating interests in trust or restricted land from 
     giving force and effect to a property right settlement if one 
     of the parties to the settlement dies before the issuance of 
     a final decree dissolving the marriage of the parties to the 
     property settlement.
       ``(2) Effect of subsequent divorce on a will or devise.--If 
     after executing a will the testator is divorced or the 
     marriage of the testator is annulled, upon the effective date 
     of the divorce or annulment any disposition of interests in 
     trust or restricted land made by the will to the former 
     spouse shall be deemed to be revoked unless the will 
     expressly provides otherwise. Property that is prevented from 
     passing to a former spouse based on the preceding sentence 
     shall pass as if the former spouse failed to survive the 
     decedent. Any provision of a will that is revoked solely by 
     operation of this paragraph shall be revived by the 
     testator's remarriage to the former spouse.
       ``(f) Notice.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall notify the owners of trust and restricted land of the 
     provisions of this title. Such notice may, at the discretion 
     of the Secretary, be provided together with the notice 
     required under section 207(g).

     ``SEC. 233. COLLECTION OF PAST-DUE AND OVER-DUE CHILD SUPPORT

       ``The Secretary shall establish procedures to provide for 
     the collection of past-due or over-due support obligations 
     entered by a tribal court or any other court of competent 
     jurisdiction from the revenue derived from an interests in 
     trust or restricted land.

     ``SEC. 234. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of this title shall not 
     apply to the estate of an individual who dies prior to the 
     later of--
       ``(1) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this subtitle; or
       ``(2) the date specified in section 207(g)(5).''.
       (b) Other Amendments.--The Indian Land Consolidation Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after section 202, the following:

              ``Subtitle A--General Land Consolidation'';

       (2) in section 206 (25 U.S.C. 2205)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Tribal probate codes.--A tribal probate code shall 
     not prevent the devise of an interest in trust or restricted 
     land to non-members of the tribe unless the code--
       ``(i) provides for the renouncing of interests, reservation 
     of life estates, and payment of fair market value in the 
     manner prescribed under subsection (c)(2); and
       ``(ii) does not prohibit the devise of an interest in an 
     allotment to an Indian person if such allotment was 
     originally allotted to the lineal ancestor of the devisee.''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``In general.--Paragraph'' and inserting 
     the following:

       ``(A) Nonapplicability to certain interests.--
       ``(i) In general.--Paragraph'';

       (II) by striking ``if, while'' and inserting the following: 
     ``if--
       ``(I) while'';
       (III) by striking the period and inserting ``; or'';
       (IV) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(II) the interest is part of a family farm that is 
     devised to a member of the decedent's family if the devisee 
     agrees that the Indian tribe that exercises jurisdiction over 
     the land will have the opportunity to acquire the interest 
     for fair market value if the interest is offered for sale to 
     an entity that is not a member of the family of the owner of 
     the land.

       ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i)(II) 
     shall be construed to prevent or limit the ability of an 
     owner of land to which such clause applies to mortgage such 
     land or to limit the right of the entity holding such a 
     mortgage to foreclose or otherwise enforce such a mortgage 
     agreement pursuant to applicable law.''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``207(a)(6)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``207(a)(6)'';
       (3) in section 207 (25 U.S.C. 2206)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(6), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Devise to others.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), an owner 
     of trust or restricted land--

       ``(I) who does not have an Indian spouse or an Indian 
     lineal descendant may devise his or her interests in such 
     land to his or her spouse, lineal descendant, heirs of the 
     first or second degree, or collateral heirs of the first or 
     second degree;
       ``(II) who does not have a spouse or an Indian lineal 
     descendent may devise his or her interests in such land to 
     his or her lineal descendant, heirs of the first or second 
     degree, or collateral heirs of the first or second degree; or
       ``(III) who does not have a spouse or lineal descendant may 
     devise his or her interests in such land to his or her heirs 
     of the first or second degree, or collateral heirs of the 
     first or second degree.

       ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Any devise of an interest in 
     trust or restricted land under clause (i) to a non-Indian 
     will be construed to devise a life estate unless the devise 
     explicitly states that the testator intends for the devisee 
     to take the interest in fee.
       ``(B) Unexercised rights of redemption.--
       ``(i) In general.--This subparagraph (B) shall only apply 
     to interests in trust or restricted land that are held in 
     trust or restricted status as of the date of enactment of the 
     Indian Probate Reform Act of 2001, and interests in any 
     parcel of land, at least a portion of which is in trust or 
     restricted status as of such date of enactment, that is 
     subject to a tax sale, tax foreclosure proceeding, or similar 
     proceeding.
       ``(ii) Exercise of right.--If the owner of such an interest 
     referred to in clause (i) fails or refuses to exercise any 
     right of redemption that is available to that owner under 
     applicable law, the Indian tribe that exercises jurisdiction 
     over the trust or restricted land referred to in such clause 
     may exercise such right of redemption.
       ``(iii) Penalties and assessments.--To the extent permitted 
     under the Constitution of the United States, an Indian tribe 
     acquiring an interest under clause (i) may acquire such an 
     interest without being required to pay--

       ``(I) penalties; or
       ``(II) past due assessments that exceed the fair market 
     value of the interest.''; and

       (B) in subsection (g)(5), by striking ``this section'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
       (4) in section 217 (25 U.S.C. 2216)--
       (A) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``prospective 
     applicants for the leasing, use, or consolidation of'' and 
     insert ``any person that is leasing, using or consolidating, 
     or is applying to, lease, use, or consolidate,''; and
       (B) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``After the expiration of the limitation 
     period provided for in subsection (b)(2) and prior'' and 
     inserting ``Prior''; and
       (B) by striking ``sold, exchanged, or otherwise conveyed 
     under this section''.
       (c) Issuance of Patents.--Section 5 of the Act of February 
     8, 1887 (24 Stat. 348) is amended by striking the second 
     proviso and inserting the following: ``Provided, That the 
     rules of intestate succession under the Indian Land 
     Consolidation Act, or a tribal probate code approved under 
     such Act and regulations, shall apply thereto after such 
     patents have been executed and delivered:''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1341. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
human clinical trials qualifying for the orphan drug credit, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
clarify and expand the expenses qualifying for the orphan drug tax 
credit. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by Senators 
Kennedy and Jeffords.
  As the original sponsor of the legislation authorizing the orphan 
drug program, and a leader in the Senate in our successful effort in 
1996 to make the tax credit permanent, I am here today to ask my 
colleagues to support a needed improvement to the Orphan Drug Tax 
Credit. This improvement would make the tax credit even more effective 
in advancing the development of treatments for life-threatening rare 
diseases and conditions.
  The Orphan Drug Tax Credit provides tax incentives to companies that 
develop treatments for diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, a 
population typically too small to provide a natural impetus for the 
private sector to take the necessary risks to develop a remedy that may 
never be profitable. The diseases covered under the credit include: 
ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease;

[[Page S8763]]

cerebral palsy; cystic fibrosis; epilepsy; Gaucher's disease; Hunington 
disease; sickle cell disease; and system lupus erythematosus, Lupus. 
More than 20 million Americans suffer from these rare diseases.
  The Orphan Drug Tax Credit has been very successful. For example, in 
the case of multiple sclerosis, 6 years ago there was no treatment for 
any type of the disease, only for its symptoms. Thanks in large part to 
this law, there are now three products on the market to treat the 
disease.
  Unfortunately, the design of the credit includes a flaw that limits 
its effectiveness. The bill we are introducing today would correct this 
problem. Under the current Orphan Drug Tax Credit, a 50 percent is 
available for expenses related to human clinical testing of drugs that 
are designated as meeting the statutory definition of an ``orphan'' by 
the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Qualifying expenses are those 
paid or incurred after the date on which the drug is designated as a 
potential treatment for a rare disease or disorder.
  The problem is that qualified expenses incurred during the time it 
takes the FDA to officially designate the drug as an ``orphan'' are not 
eligible for the credit. Unfortunately, the FDA approval process can 
take from two months to more than a year. In some cases, companies 
developing these potentially life-saving drugs are left with a 
difficult decision, delay the start of the clinical trials until the 
designation is received, or go ahead and start the trials without the 
designation, but forego the benefits of tax credit that is so crucial 
to offsetting the high cost of developing these drugs. Neither choice 
is in the best interest of the 20 million Americans who are waiting and 
hoping for a cure for their disorder.
  The bill we are introducing today would solve this problem by simply 
providing that qualifying expenses include those incurred after the 
date on which the company files an application with the FDA for 
designation of the drug as a potential treatment for a rare disease or 
disorder. The credit's availability for these pre-designation expenses, 
however, is conditioned upon the FDA actually making the designation. 
Thus, under this change, the designation must still first be granted 
before the credit could be claimed. But, once the designation is 
granted, the credit could be claimed for both the clinical testing 
expenses incurred between the filing of the application and the 
designation date, as well as for those incurred after the designation 
date.
  It is important to note that this change will also simplify the 
current law. In fact, this change was recommended earlier this year by 
the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in its study of 
recommendations to simplify the Federal tax system.
  The bill would also make one other change designed to help Americans 
suffering from rare diseases. It would provide that the FDA publish on 
a monthly basis a list of applications for orphan drug designations. 
This provision will allow rare disease patients early access to 
information about proposed clinical trials and will help the industry 
locate research subjects for their studies.
  The Orphan Drug Tax Credit enjoys wide bipartisan support, and 
rightly so. It is a tax incentive that works. Now, we have a chance to 
make it work even better. The tax clarification in this bill was passed 
in both the Senate twice in the 106th Congress, once in H.R. 2488, the 
Financial Freedom Act of 1999, which was vetoed by President Clinton 
for unrelated reasons, and again in H.R. 4577, the Department of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2001, which passed on July 10, 2000.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1341

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANDED HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS QUALIFYING FOR 
                   ORPHAN DRUG CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 45C(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:

       ``(I) after the date that the application is filed for 
     designation under such section 526, and''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause (i) of section 
     45C(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by inserting ``which is'' before ``being'' and by inserting 
     before the comma at the end ``and which is designated under 
     section 526 of such Act''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF FILING AND APPROVAL OF REQUESTS FOR 
                   DESIGNATION OF DRUGS FOR RARE DISEASES OR 
                   CONDITIONS.

       Subsection (c) of section 526 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bb) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Not less than monthly, the Secretary shall publish in 
     the Federal Register, and otherwise make available to the 
     public, notice of requests for designation of a drug under 
     subsection (a) and approvals of such requests. Such notice 
     shall include--
       ``(1) the name and address of the manufacturer and the 
     sponsor;
       ``(2) the date of the request for designation or of the 
     approval of such request;
       ``(3) the nonproprietary name of the drug and the name of 
     the drug under which an application is filed under section 
     505(b) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act;
       ``(4) the rare disease or condition for which the 
     designation is requested or approved; and
       ``(5) the proposed indication for use of the product.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1342. A bill to allocate H-1B visas for demonstration projects in 
rural America; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I'm pleased to be joined by Senator 
Stevens in introducing legislation that we believe will develop high-
tech employment opportunities in small towns and rural communities by 
using the H-1B visa program in a meaningful way for rural States.
  Over the past several decades, hundreds of communities in rural 
America have seen their populations shrink by more than a third. 
Devastated by the overwhelming loss of people and businesses, or 
outmigration, these rural communities have been stymied in their 
efforts to grow their economies and create jobs for their people. Most 
of these areas have also not benefited from the recent technology-
driven growth in the economy. The combined effects of this economic 
stagnation and isolation have made it extremely difficult for these 
small rural towns to attract high-tech companies and recruit the 
skilled technology workers that they need to participate in the new 
economy.
  The proposal we are introducing today builds upon legislation signed 
into law by President Clinton last fall that provided the Nation's 
high-technology companies with the stopgap measure they needed to 
secure skilled workers for unfilled positions by increasing the annual 
number of foreign workers that can receive H-1B status to 195,000 over 
the next three years. That legislation, which I supported, was an 
appropriate short-term response to the problems caused by a scarcity of 
qualified labor that threatened the nation's continued economic growth.
  The bill that Senator Stevens and I are now introducing is called the 
``21st Century Homesteading Act.'' It would establish up to six H-1B 
visa demonstration projects in qualifying rural areas, including those 
devastated by population loss. This legislation is designed to 
encourage high-technology firms to grow their businesses and increase 
employment in those distressed rural areas that need them the most. It 
would do this by both awarding grant funds and targeting a small 
portion of the total annual H-1B visa allocations to economic 
development planning districts in eligible areas.
  The major provisions of the 21st Century Homesteading Act are as 
follows:

       Six demonstration programs. The bill authorizes and 
     requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct up to six 
     demonstration H-1B visa projects to be implemented through 
     the award of grant funding to qualifying economic development 
     planning districts in rural areas.
  Application process. To apply for grant funds, economic development 
planning districts would be required, among other things, to submit an 
application to the Secretary, sign a resolution of support to bring 
high-tech development opportunities into that district, and execute a 
declaration of need confirming that the area has experienced 
substantial outmigration, has

[[Page S8764]]

high unemployment or poverty rates, or has a population that is 10 
percent or more Native American.
  Local transfer of visa fees. The amount of each grant awarded to 
eligible districts would be equal to the H-1B visa fees paid by 
petitioning employers. Grants can be used only to provide education, 
training, equipment, and infrastructure in connection with the 
employment of H-1B workers within that district.
  Total of 12,000 H-1B visas. Up to 12,000 H-1B visas could be issued 
to eligible aliens for employment through these demonstration 
projects--and no one planning district could issue more than 2,000 H-1B 
visas.
  New account for program funds. A separate ``Twenty-first Century 
Homesteading Account'' would be established in the Treasury general 
fund. The H-1B visa fees paid for foreign workers in approved 
demonstration projects would be deposited into that account and remain 
available to the Agriculture Secretary until expended to carry out such 
projects.
  Let me be clear on three points. First, we do not intend with this 
legislation to replace skilled American workers with their foreign 
counterparts. Under current law, H-1B visas are temporary and firms 
that significantly rely on them must have attempted to hire U.S. 
workers and attest that a U.S. worker is not laid off during a 
significant period of time before and after an H-1B worker is hired. 
Our legislation would not change these and other restrictions. 
Furthermore, the 21st Century Homesteading Act also requires designated 
economic development planning districts to establish training programs 
for other workers who live in that district.
  Second, this legislation permits an allocation of no more than 2,000 
H-1B visas for each of the six demonstration projects that are 
authorized. Thus, even if all 12,000 H-1B visas were ultimately 
allocated to the full six demonstration projects, that number would 
still represent less than one-tenth of the total H-1B visas permitted 
in the first year. This small allocation of H-1B visas should have 
little or no impact on the overall efforts of companies seeking H-1B 
workers in other parts of the country. In fact, to date, only 117,000 
of the 195,000 H-1B visas available for this year have been approved, 
so allocating a small portion for these demonstration programs should 
not present a problem.
  And third, this legislation in no way increases or decreases the 
overall levels of immigration into the country. It simply targets a 
very small number of existing employment visas to those communities 
that have not benefited from the recent technology boom, and which are 
likely to benefit the most from the addition of new residents with the 
necessary skills to help attract and retain high-tech employers.
  Finally, I would note that the prospect for these demonstration 
projects is not merely a theoretical exercise. This approach was raised 
with me by economic development officials in North Dakota who stand 
ready, willing, and able to apply for economic development planning 
district status. In my judgment, this group has already demonstrated 
the kind and level of commitment that is needed to make this initiative 
successful.
  There is great need in rural America, especially in states like mine. 
But often this need is not properly addressed here in Washington 
because of what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
problem of outmigration and the economic maladies associated with it. 
The 21st Century Homesteading Act is an effort to fine tune one of our 
federal policies in order to address the shortage of skilled labor and 
lack of job growth in many rural communities. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important demonstration initiative for rural America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFFEE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Schumer, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 1343. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide States with options for providing family planning services and 
supplies to individuals eligible for medical assistance under the 
Medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CHAFEE, Madam President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Bingaman, Collins, Schumer, Specter, Graham, 
Clinton, Corzine, Harkin, and Jeffords in introducing the Family 
Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001. This legislation would provide 
States with a mechanism to improve the health of low-income women and 
families by allowing States to expand family planning services to 
additional women under the Medicaid program.
  The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of 
their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid, due to 
the importance of these for low-income women. This reimbursement rate 
is higher than for most other health care services.
  Generally, women may qualify for Medicaid services, including family 
planning, in one of two ways: they have children and an income level 
below a threshold set by the State (ranging from 15-86 percent of the 
Federal poverty level; or they are pregnant and have incomes up to 133 
percent of the poverty level, federal law allows states to raise this 
income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman 
qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for 
family planning services for sixty days following delivery. After those 
sixty days, the women's Medicaid eligibility expires.
  If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to 
additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the 
federal government for a so-called ``1115'' waiver. These waivers allow 
States to establish demonstration projects in order to test new 
approaches to health care delivery in a manner that is budget-neutral 
to the Federal Government.
  To date, these waivers have enabled fourteen States to expand access 
to family planning services. Most of these waivers allow states to 
extend family planning to women beyond the sixty-day post-partum 
period. This allows many women to increase the length of time between 
births, which was significant health benefits for women and their 
children. For this reason, an Institute of Medicine report recommended 
that Medicaid should cover family planning services for two years 
following a delivery.
  Some of the waivers allow States to provide family planning to women 
based solely on income, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid 
due to pregnancy or children. In general, States have used the same 
income eligibility levels that apply to pregnant women (133 percent or 
185 percent of the poverty level, creating continuity for both family 
planning and prenatal care services. These expanded services also help 
states reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.
  My State of Rhode Island was one of the first states to obtain one of 
these waivers, and has had great success with it in terms of preventing 
unintended pregnancies and improving public health in general. Rhode 
Island's waiver has averted 1,443 pregnancies from August 1994 
through 1997, resulting in a savings to the state of $14.3 million. In 
addition, Rhode Island's waiver has assisted low-income women with 
spacing-out their births. The number of low-income women in Rhode 
Island with short inter-birth intervals, becoming pregnant within 18 
months of having given birth dropped from 41 percent in 1993 to 29 
percent in 1999. The gap between Medicaid recipients and privately 
insured women was 11 percent in 1993, compared with only 1 percent--
almost negligible, in 1999. As these statistics show, these waivers are 
extremely valuable and serve as a huge asset to the women's health, not 
only to my constituents but to constituents in the thirteen other 
States who currently benefit from these waivers.

  Unfortunately, the waiver process is extremely cubersome and time 
consuming, often taking up to three years for States to receive 
approval from the Federal Government. This may discourage States from 
applying for family planning waivers, or at the very least, delay them 
from providing important services to women.
  Our bill would rectify this problem by allowing States to extend 
family planning services through Medicaid without going through the 
waiver process. Eliminating the waiver requirement will facilitate 
State innovation

[[Page S8765]]

and provide assistance to more low-income women.
  This bill will allow States to provide family planning services to 
women with incomes up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. For 
low-income, post-partum women, States will no longer be limited to 
providing them with only sixty days of family planning assistance. 
States may also provide family planning for up to one year to women who 
lose Medicaid-eligibility because of income.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation, and ask for unanimous consent that the legislation and the 
accompanying findings section be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1343

       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 ``Family Planning State 
     Empowerment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND 
                   SUPPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOMES THAT DO 
                   NOT EXCEED A STATE'S INCOME ELIGIBILITY LEVEL 
                   FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1935 as section 1936; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1934 the following:


    ``state option to provide family planning services and supplies

       ``Sec. 1935. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), a State may elect (through a State plan amendment) 
     to make medical assistance described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) 
     available to any individual whose family income does not 
     exceed the greater of--
       ``(1) 185 percent of the income official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved; or
       ``(2) the eligibility income level (expressed as a percent 
     of such poverty line) that has been specified under a waiver 
     authorized by the Secretary or under section 1902(r)(2)), as 
     of October 1, 2001, for an individual to be eligible for 
     medical assistance under the State plan.
       ``(b) Comparability.--Medical assistance described in 
     section 1905(a)(4)(C) that is made available under a State 
     plan amendment under subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) not be less in amount, duration, or scope than the 
     medical assistance described in that section that is made 
     available to any other individual under the State plan; and
       ``(2) be provided in accordance with the restrictions on 
     deductions, cost sharing, or similar charges imposed under 
     section 1916(a)(2)(D).
       ``(c) Option To Extend Coverage During a Post-Eligibility 
     Period.--
       ``(1) Initial period.--A State plan amendment made under 
     subsection (a) may provide that any individual who was 
     receiving medical assistance described in section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) as a result of such amendment, and who becomes 
     ineligible for such assistance because of hours of, or income 
     from, employment, may remain eligible for such medical 
     assistance through the end of the 6-month period that begins 
     on the first day the individual becomes so ineligible.
       ``(2) Additional extension.--A State plan amendment made 
     under subsection (a) may provide that any individual who has 
     received medical assistance described in section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) during the entire 6-month period described in 
     paragraph (1) may be extended coverage for such assistance 
     for a succeeding 6-month period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1, 
     2001.

     SEC. 3. STATE OPTION TO EXTEND THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD FOR 
                   PROVISION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND 
                   SUPPLIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902(e)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``eligible under the plan, as though'' and 
     inserting ``eligible under the plan--
       ``(A) as though'';
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) for medical assistance described in section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) for so long as the family income of such woman 
     does not exceed the maximum income level established by the 
     State for the woman to be eligible for medical assistance 
     under the State plan (as a result of pregnancy or 
     otherwise).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to medical assistance provided on and after October 1, 
     2001.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be joined by a 
bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing this important 
legislation. I rise today with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Schumer, 
Collins, Bingaman, Specter, Clinton, Jeffords, Graham, Harkin, and 
Corzine to introduce the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001.
  The Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001 would give States 
the option to provide family planning services to low-income women who 
do not qualify for Medicaid.
  Each year, approximately 3 million pregnancies, or about half of all 
pregnancies, are unintended. Increasing access to family planning 
services could help avert these 3 million unintended pregnancies and 
all the decisions and costs associated with either continuing or 
terminating a pregnancy.
  Family planning services give women the necessary tools to space the 
births of their children, which improves women's health and reduces 
rates of infant mortality.
  Medicaid family planning is also cost effective. For every $1 
invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and health care-
related costs.
  The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of 
their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid.
  If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to 
populations of low-income women, other than low-income pregnant women 
or low-income women with children, they must apply to the Federal 
Government for a waiver.
  Presently, 14 States, including California, have obtained Medicaid 
waivers from the Federal Government to provide family planning services 
to over 1.3 million women annually. Another eight States have applied 
for waivers.
  The waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, often 
taking up to three years to receive approval from the Federal 
Government.
  This is legislation is timely because once again the door is being 
closed by the Administration on women's reproductive health. This time, 
the losers will be low-income women.
  Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announced last 
month that he will not approve any new waiver requests nor grant any 
renewals for single service waivers, which includes this Medicaid 
family planning waiver.
  And if the Administration gets its way, California will lose $100 
million a year, and over 900,000 low-income Californians will have to 
look elsewhere for family planning and reproductive health services.
  Family planning and reproductive health services are much more than 
just accessing contraceptives. Services provided include screening and 
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, basic infertility 
services and pregnancy testing and counseling. Women can receive pap 
smears and breast exams, which are crucial to detecting cervical and 
breast cancer.
  It is estimated that this waiver will save California $900 million 
over the 5-year waiver period in public expenditures for medical care 
and social services.
  It is ironic that an Administration that is seeking to reduce the 
number of abortions would try to halt the very family planning services 
that could avoid unintended pregnancies.
  In effect, the Administration is asking the clinics in our States, 
which provide services to some of our Nation's sickest and most 
vulnerable populations, to either turn away low-income women that need 
family planning services at the door or to provide them with services 
without the necessary funds.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues in saying enough is enough. Low 
income women deserve access to family planning and reproductive health 
services. And States should not have to ask the federal government for 
permission to use Medicaid funds to provide these essential services.
  It is time that this Administration walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk. 
We cannot afford to shut the door on those who cannot otherwise afford 
family planning and reproductive health services.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Family Planning State Empower


[[Page S8766]]

ment Act is our long-term shield against the ideological whims of those 
who threaten to cut cost-effective family planning services for low 
income women across the country. Why do we need such a protective 
measure? In the past two weeks, it became clear that the Federal 
Government would not renew these programs nor would they approve any 
pending application requests. That is why I, along with 21 of my 
colleagues including Mr. Chafee, sent a letter asking the government to 
reconsider their decision which would seriously impinge upon the 
ability of states to expand coverage of family planning services.
  The Family Planning State Empowerment Act would allow State 
governments and agency experts to practice what they know best, 
implementing these cost-effective family planning service programs that 
reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. In New York 
alone, 13,440 women would be served under its pending family planning 
service program proposal. As the years go by, States are offering more 
services to more women all at a minimal cost to the Federal Government.
  There are 1.2 million women aged 13 to 44 in New York who are in need 
of publicly supported contraceptive services, 16.5 million in the 
United States. Thousands of women have already benefitted from 
prenatal, delivery, and postpartum family planning services in states 
such as New York, Georgia, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Kentucky, 
to name a few. These programs successfully help low-income women to 
avoid closely spaced births that are linked to low birth weight, infant 
mortality, and maternal morbidity. It would be a shame to curtail the 
progress of these family planning service programs when there are so 
many more women to serve.
  As part of their applications for federal approval, States are 
required to demonstrate that expanding Medicaid coverage of family 
planning services would come at no additional cost to the Federal 
Government. Every dollar spent for contraceptive services saves $3 in 
public funds that would have been needed to provide prenatal and 
newborn medical care alone. New York's pending family planning service 
program would save the Federal Government $3.2 billion. Instead of 
allowing these programs to be used as decoys in the ideological battle 
over choice issues, let us preserve their effectiveness and put them 
out of the way of federal reach and under full state authority.
  Though the Federal Government can play an important oversight role in 
the welfare of publicly financed programs--it has overstepped its 
boundaries in using these programs as sacrificial lambs to further its 
ideological agenda. We cannot stand idly by and let the Federal 
Government determine the fate of such programs that have proven 
themselves since 1993 not only economically sound but essential to the 
provision of vital health services to individuals who could not receive 
them otherwise. That is why I am a proud original co-sponsor of the 
Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1344. A bill to provide training and technical assistance to 
Native Americans who are interested in commercial vehicle driving 
careers; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that promotes job creation and economic opportunity for Native 
Americans. The Native American Commercial Driving Training and 
Technical Assistance Act will encourage and promote tribally-controlled 
community colleges to offer commercial vehicle training programs.
  Economic development is the key to many of the social and economic 
ills that plague Indian and Alaska Native communities. In 1999, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs labor statistics for Indian and Alaska Native 
communities determined that the unemployment rate for Indians living 
near or in Indian communities was 43 percent. This figure is 
astonishing when compared to the overall unemployment rate in the 
United States which is only 4.5 percent.
  As former Chairman and now Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, I have focused on building tribal capacity and good governance 
so that Indian and Alaska Native communities can create business-
friendly environments. Human capital and skill development is also 
important, and with training and certificate programs tribally-
controlled community colleges are fostering skilled workers who are 
ready to enter into the marketplace.
  The bill that I am introducing today will enable tribally-controlled 
community colleges to have more resources to develop commercial vehicle 
training programs. There are already two tribally-controlled community 
colleges, D-Q University in the state of California and Fort Peck 
Community College in the state of Montana, that offer commercial 
vehicle driving programs. The grant program authorized in this bill 
will encourage other tribal colleges to develop commercial truck 
driving training programs.
  The trucking industry is a thriving industry. According to the 
Department of Transportation, there are currently about 3 million truck 
drivers in the United States. However, the American Trucking 
Association estimates that between 10 percent and 20 percent of the 
Nation's trucks sit idle due to a lack of qualified drivers. In fact, 
estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 as to the shortage of new 
qualified drivers that are needed this year and in the coming years.
  I am the only Member of the Senate who is a licensed and certified 
commercial truck driver and who once earned his living as an over-the-
road driver.
  Based on my personal experience the truck driving industry has 
something unique to offer Indian communities; a well-paying profession. 
This is a win-win situation because the trucking industry needs more 
qualified drivers, and Indian communities need more job opportunities. 
With this bill,more American Indians will have the opportunity to 
undertake the training necessary to obtain a Commercial Truck Driver's 
License, and join a rewarding and well-paying profession.
  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. 1344

       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 ``Native American Commercial 
     Driving Training and Technical Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Despite the availability of abundant natural resources 
     on Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great 
     value to self-determination, self-reliance, and independence, 
     Native Americans suffer higher rates of unemployment, 
     poverty, poor health, substandard housing, and associated 
     social ills than those of any other group in the United 
     States.
       (2) The United States has an obligation to assist Indian 
     tribes with the creation of appropriate economic and 
     political conditions.
       (3) The economic success and material well-being of Native 
     American communities depends on the combined efforts of the 
     Federal Government, tribal governments, the private sector, 
     and individuals.
       (4) Two tribally controlled community colleges, D-Q 
     University in the State of California and Fort Peck Community 
     College in the State of Montana, currently offer commercial 
     vehicle driving programs.
       (5) The American Trucking Association reports that at least 
     until the year 2005, the trucking industry will need to hire 
     403,000 truck drivers each year to fill empty positions.
       (6) According to the Federal Government Occupational 
     Handbook the commercial driving industry is expected to 
     increase about as fast as the average for all occupations 
     through the year 2008 as the economy grows and the amount of 
     freight carried by trucks increases.
       (7) A career in commercial vehicle driving offers a 
     competitive salary, employment benefits, job security, and a 
     profession.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to foster and promote job creation and economic 
     opportunities for Native Americans; and
       (2) to provide education, technical, and training 
     assistance to Native Americans who are interested in a 
     commercial vehicle driving career.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commercial vehicle driving.--The term ``commercial 
     vehicle driving'' means the driving of a vehicle which is a 
     tractor-trailer truck.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.

[[Page S8767]]

     SEC. 4. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DRIVING TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary may award 4 grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to eligible entities to support programs 
     providing training and certificates leading to the 
     professional development of individuals with respect to 
     commercial vehicle driving.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall--
       (1) be a tribally-controlled community college or 
     university (as defined in section 2 of the Tribally-
     Controlled Community College or University Assistance Act of 
     1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801)); and
       (2) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.
       (c) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to--
       (1) grant applications that propose training that exceeds 
     the United States Department of Transportation's Proposed 
     Minimum Standards for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers; and
       (2) grant applications that propose training that exceeds 
     the entry level truck driver certification standards set by 
     the Professional Truck Driver Institute.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins)
  S. 1345. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in the State of 
Maine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation the 
Commercial Truck Safety Pilot Program Act to create a safety pilot 
program for commercial trucks.
  The Commercial Truck Safety Pilot Program Act would authorize a 
safety demonstration program in my home state of Maine that could be a 
model for other states. I have been working closely with the Maine 
Department of Transportation, communities in my State, and others to 
address statewide concerns about the existing Federal Interstate truck 
weight limit of 80,000 pounds.
  I believe that safety must be the number one priority on our roads 
and highways, and I am very concerned that the existing Interstate 
weight limit has the perverse impact of forcing commercial trucks onto 
State and local secondary roads that were never designed to handle 
heavy commercial trucks safely. We are talking about narrow roads, 
lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school 
zones.
  I have been working to address this concern for many years. During 
the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a 
waiver from federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike the 100-mile 
section of Maine's Interstate in the southern portion of the State and 
it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also corresponded with 
the Department of Transportation and the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee to make them aware of my serious concerns and to urge 
them to work with me in an effort to address this challenge.

  In addition, the Maine Department of Transportation is in the process 
of conducting a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine 
Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes 
of expanding this study, which will focus on the safety impact of 
higher limits, infrastructure issues, air quality issues and economic 
issues as well, in order to secure the data necessary to ensure that 
commercial trucks are required to operate in the safest possible 
manner.
  Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 
pounds, on the Interstate system, but the fact is there are a myriad of 
exemptions and grandfathering provisions. The legislation I am 
submitting today would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a three-year pilot program to improve commercial motor 
vehicle safety in the State of Maine.
  Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this 
period, to waive federal vehicle weight limitations on certain 
commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate 
System within Maine, permitting the State to set the limit. In 
addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless 
the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on 
highway safety.
  I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious 
public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in 
this issue, safety advocates, truckers, states, and communities, to 
address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that 
my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleague from 
Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Safety Pilot Program Act, an 
important piece of legislation that addresses a significant safety 
problem in our State.
  Under current law, trucks weighing as much as 100,000 pounds are 
allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New 
Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city located. At Augusta, trucks 
weighing more than 80,000 pounds are forced off Interstate 95, which 
proceeds for another 200 miles through the northern half of the State, 
and on to smaller roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages.
  Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate 
highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the 
Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit 
disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System 
forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and 
provinces to use Maine's State and local roads. Consequently, many 
Maine communities along the Interstate see substantially more truck 
traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 
100,000 pounds for all of Maine's Interstate highways.
  The problem Maine faces because of the disparity in truck weight 
limits is perhaps most pronounced in our State capital. Augusta is the 
Maine Turnpike's northern terminus where heavy trucks that are 
prohibited from traveling along the northern segment of Interstate 95 
enter and exit the turnpike. The high number of trucks that must 
traverse Augusta's local roads creates a severe hazard for those who 
live and work in as well as visit the city.
  It is estimated that the truck weight disparity sends 310 vehicles in 
excess of 80,000 pounds through Augusta everyday. These vehicles, which 
are often carrying hazardous materials, must pass through the Cony 
Circle, one of the State's most dangerous traffic circles and the scene 
of 130 accidents per year. The fact that the circle is named for the 
twelve hundred student high school that it abuts adds to the severity 
of the problem.
  A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate 
highways would reduce the highway miles and travel times necessary to 
transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and 
environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of State 
and local roads will be better preserved without the wear and tear of 
heavy truck traffic. Most importantly, however, a uniform truck weight 
limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong rather than 
on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and 
neighborhoods.
  The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses 
the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck 
weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under 
the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that 
are part of the interstate highway system would be set at 100,000 
pounds for three years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would 
study the impacts of the pilot program on safety, and would receive the 
input of a panel that would include State officials, safety 
organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry. 
The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that 
motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on 
Maine's Interstate highway system.
  Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too 
many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and on to local roads. 
The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is not an attempt 
to roll back

[[Page S8768]]

weight standards but rather a commonsense approach to a severe safety 
problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Allard, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 1346. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with regard to new animal drugs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we do a lot of things here that are 
controversial and get headlines. But oftentimes we do things that are 
bipartisan, that are complex and technical. Working together, we 
accomplish things that are good for the country.
  The legislation I have introduced tonight, along with Senator Jeff 
Bingaman from New Mexico, is that kind of legislation. It is supported 
by 27 different farm and veterinary medicine groups. It is called the 
Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act. It deals with a problem 
that, unfortunately, goes largely unnoticed, except by those who are 
directly affected. Livestock and food animal producers, pet owners, zoo 
and wildlife biologists, and animals themselves face a severe shortage 
of approved animal drugs for use in minor species.
  Minor species include thousands of animal species, including all 
fish, birds, and sheep. By definition, minor species are any animals 
other than the major species, which are cattle, horses, chickens, 
turkeys, dogs, and cats. A similar shortage of drugs and medicines for 
major animal species exists for diseases that occur infrequently or 
which occur in limited geographical areas.
  Due to the lack of availability for these minor use drugs, millions 
of animals go untreated or treatment is delayed. Without access to 
these necessary minor use drugs, farmers and ranchers also suffer. An 
unhealthy animal that is left untreated can spread disease throughout 
an entire herd. For example, sheep ranchers lost nearly $45 million 
worth of livestock in 1999 alone. The sheep industry estimates if it 
had access to effective and necessary drugs to treat diseases, growers' 
reproduction costs for their animals would be cut by up to 15 percent. 
In addition, feedlot deaths would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent, adding 
approximately $8 million of revenue to the industry.
  Alabama's catfish industry ranks second in the Nation. Though it is 
not the State's only aquacultural commodity, catfish is by far its 
largest. Indeed, catfish make up 68 percent of the Nation's 
aquacultural industry. That industry generates enormous opportunities 
in the poorest part of Alabama, and it is necessary that it be a strong 
industry.
  The catfish industry estimates its losses at $60 million per year 
attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. Indeed, it 
is not uncommon for a catfish producer to lose half his stock to 
disease.
  The U.S. aquacultural industry overall, including food fish and 
ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different species. 
Unfortunately, this industry has only five drugs approved for use in 
treating aquacultural diseases. This results in economic hardship.
  The problem is simply this: A drug company must go through a long 
research program to develop a drug. Then the company has to seek 
approval for the drug. The company simply is financially unable to do 
so because there are not many animals for which the product will be 
used. It makes it difficult for them to do the investment.
  I, along with Senators Bingaman, Allard, and Collins, resolve to 
improve this situation by introducing the Minor Use and Minor Species 
Animal Health Act. The legislation will allow animal drug manufacturers 
the opportunity to develop and obtain approval for minor use drugs 
which are vitally needed by a wide variety of animal industries.
  Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the Food and Drug 
Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the 
availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all 
animals. The act creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers to 
invest in product development and obtain FDA approval.
  The legislation creates a program very similar to the human orphan 
drug program that has dramatically increased the availability of drugs 
to treat rare human diseases over the past 20 years.
  The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act will not alter, 
however, the FDA drug approval responsibilities that ensure the safety 
of animal drugs to the public. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine 
currently evaluates new animal products prior to approval and use. This 
rigorous testing and review process provides consumers with the 
confidence that animal drugs are safe for animals and consumers of 
products derived from treated animals.
  Current FDA requirements include guidelines to prevent harmful 
residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection of 
resistant pathogens. Any food animal medicine or drug considered for 
approval under this bill would be subject to the same assessments.
  The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act is supported by 25 
organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
Animal Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, 
and the National Aquaculture Association. This is vital, important 
legislation.
  The act will reduce the economic risks and hardships which fall upon 
ranchers and farmers as a result of livestock diseases. It will benefit 
pets and their owners and benefit various endangered species and 
aquatic animals. It will promote the health of all animal species while 
protecting human health as well, and will alleviate unnecessary animal 
suffering.
  This is commonsense legislation which would benefit millions of 
American pet owners, farmers, and ranchers. I believe it represents a 
consensus effort on which we worked hard.
  Mary Alice Tyson, on my staff, and other staff members have worked 
hard on it. I believe it is an act that will gain universal support in 
the Senate, will be a step forward, and something good we can do to 
help animals and the producers of animals in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 1347. A bill to establish a Congressional Trade Office; to the 
Committee on Government Affairs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Byrd, I 
am introducing a bill to create a Congressional Trade Office. This is 
designed to help the Senate get ahead of the curve and better 
understand and deal with globalization, trade, and economic commercial 
actions around the world, to help us understand what we are doing.
  The Congressional Trade Office, the CTO, will have the expertise we 
need in Congress to get independent and nonpartisan information about 
trade. This new entity will help us meet our constitutional 
responsibility for trade policy.
  The importance of trade in our economy continues to grow. Trade is 
equivalent to 27 percent of our economy today, compared with only 11 
percent in 1970, just 30 years ago.
  Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

       Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce 
     with foreign nations.

  Our responsibility as Members of Congress is to set the direction of 
trade policy. It is true that under article II of the Constitution, the 
President, the Chief Executive, has the primary responsibility with 
respect to foreign policy. With respect to trade, the Constitution is 
clear, and it provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations. Our responsibility is effective and 
active oversight of our Nation's trade policy.

[[Page S8769]]

  I have served in the Congress for 25 years and I have watched the 
continuing transfer of responsibility for trade policy from the 
Congress to the executive branch.
  I believe this must stop. We must reassert Congress' constitutionally 
defined responsibility. The CTO will provide the means to meet our 
responsibilities.
  Congress needs to be much better prepared to deal with trade issues 
responsibly and authoritatively: consideration of fast track; FTAs--so-
called free trade agreements--with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, and 
perhaps Australia, and others; Chinese accession to the WTO; a possible 
new round launch; compliance with existing agreements.
  To manage trade policy, we need access to more and better 
information, independently arrived at, from people whose commitment is 
to the Congress, and only to the Congress.
  The first task of the CTO is to monitor compliance with major trade 
agreements. It will evaluate success based on real world business 
results. It will recommend actions needed to ensure that commitments 
are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments of the 
extent to which agreements comply with labor and environmental goals.
  The CTO's second task will be to observe trade negotiations 
firsthand. CTO staff will participate in selected negotiations as 
observers and report back to the Congress. Congress needs this 
information to provide meaningful oversight of trade policy. And it is 
especially vital for Congress to monitor trade negotiations under fast 
track.
  The third task relates to dispute settlement. The CTO will evaluate 
each WTO decision where the U.S. is a participant, explain why cases 
are lost, and measure the anticipated commercial results from wins. CTO 
staff will participate as observers on the U.S. delegation.
  Frankly, I don't think we know whether the WTO dispute settlement 
process has been successful or not, from the perspective of U.S. 
commercial interests. A count of wins versus losses doesn't tell us 
very much. The CTO will give us the facts we need to evaluate the 
process properly.
  The final task will be analytical. The CTO will analyze major 
outstanding trade barriers based on a cost to the U.S. economy. It will 
also provide an analysis of the administration's--Republican or 
Democrat--trade policy agenda, and it will analyze the trade accounts 
every quarter.

  The Congressional Trade Office is designed to serve the Congress. Its 
Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways 
and Means Committee, but will also advise other committees on the 
impact of trade negotiations on those committees' areas of 
jurisdiction.
  Trade rules increasingly affect domestic regulations. The CTO can 
advise on the implications of trade policy for domestic regulatory 
issues.
  The CTO will have a professional staff with a mix of expertise in 
economics and trade law in various industries and geographic regions. I 
believe this will give Congress long-term institutional memory on 
trade, something that is very much needed, particularly when other 
countries have much more expertise, much more time in their governments 
devoted to trade and how their countries can benefit from trade 
basically at the expense of others.
  I am very grateful for the support of my good friend, Senator Byrd, 
and I encourage my colleagues to join with us in creating the 
Congressional Trade Office. I believe this will help the Congress get a 
little bit further ahead of the curve, better understand the 
implications of globalization, and pull us a little bit out of our day-
to-day reactive mode around here, thinking more long term in a better 
sense of what is happening in the world--more information, better 
information on which we can make decisions in this body and, therefore, 
serve our people better.
  I very much thank my good friend, Senator Byrd. He has been helpful 
to us. I yield the floor, and I, again, thank him for his help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Montana on 
his longtime leadership in the trade field and for his services on the 
Finance Committee which has jurisdiction in very great measure over 
this subject matter. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for 
sponsoring the legislation that he has just discussed and for allowing 
me to be a cosponsor with him. I value his leadership in this area.
  I have been long concerned about the U.S. trade policy. It extends 
over these 49 years in which I have been a Member of the Congress. I am 
for free trade, and I am for fair trade. I have in recent years voted 
against the North American Free Trade Agreement. I voted against the 
GATT/WTO agreements. I voted against the permanent normal trading 
relations with China. It is my belief that American interests, 
particularly the interests of American workers, have not been properly 
represented in these developments. I believe that Congress has allowed 
itself to take a backseat to the intent of Presidents on making 
international trade negotiations an executive-to-executive preserve.
  Congress should vigorously defend the authority it has been granted 
under the Constitution, whether the issue is a legislative enactment 
that strips away the authority of Congress to debate and, if necessary, 
to amend trade agreements or a constitutional amendment that--in the 
name of balanced budgets--strips away our power over the purse. The 
balanced budget amendment is an issue for another occasion. The need 
for Congress to restore its role with respect to foreign trade, 
however, is something that Senator Baucus and I wish to highlight. We 
note that article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the 
exclusive authority to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' 
Congress, not the President, has this authority and responsibility.
  Unfortunately, over the past few decades, Congress has been less than 
zealous in safeguarding its prerogatives with respect to foreign trade. 
The result is that the American people have less input into our trade 
agreements than they should have. Is there any doubt that the process 
is less democratic than was intended by the Framers of the 
Constitution?
  U.S. trade negotiators need our input at each and every stage of the 
process. Enhanced congressional participation will help them in their 
efforts to reinforce the framework of fair trade. It will give the 
results of trade negotiations greater legitimacy and increase public 
understanding of the costs and benefits of globalization. The 
Constitution demands that we make this effort, and the people we 
represent expect us to make that effort.
  Madam President, now is the time for the House and the Senate to 
create a Congressional Trade Office modeled after the Congressional 
Budget Office. Regardless of how each of us may feel about the great 
trade issues of the day, we should be able to agree that Congress needs 
better access to information about trade negotiations and the impact of 
trade agreements on the U.S. economy. It is indisputable that we live 
in an increasingly interdependent world, and it is our duty under the 
Constitution to make sure that American interests are properly 
reflected as the architecture of that world is established.
  Senator Baucus and I agree on the urgency of this task. Our 
legislation would establish a nonpartisan Congressional Trade Office 
the purposes of which would be to first, provide Congress with trade 
data and analysis; second, participate in all future trade 
negotiations; third, observe and evaluate international trade dispute 
resolution processes; and fourth, monitor compliance with major 
bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements.
  The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee 
cannot possibly address the full panoply of issues that arise in this 
day and age in connection with trade legislation. Consequently, trade 
bills can be--and are--referred to multiple committees in both Houses 
of Congress. Our bill recognizes this trend and provides that the 
resources of the Congressional Trade Office will be available to all 
House and Senate committees of relevant jurisdiction.

[[Page S8770]]

  I join with Senator Baucus in urging our colleagues to seize this 
opportunity to move toward the restoration of our constitutional role 
in trade policy. Let us resolve to put ourselves, the Congress, back in 
the center of the great game of formulating and implementing mutually 
beneficial international trade agreements.
  Madam President, I thank my colleague, Mr. Baucus, again, for his 
leadership, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________