[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.
____________________